WTC Building #7 Demolition, Zionism and Other Taboo Subjects on C-Span’s Washington Journal

During the open phones segment on C-Span’s Washington Journal the subject was “Military Decisions:  What Does Public Need to Know”.  First of all, I find it rather specious, but not surprising that Washington Journal would try to skew public opinion in the direction that the American Public should accept, without question Military action anywhere the government decides, without the consent of the American People. 

During the open phones a “Taboo Subject” came up again, “Zionism”.  As with callers questioning the government’s official stand on the cause of Building #7 of the World Trade Center collapsing into its own footprint on 9-11, any reference to Zionism is immediately dismissed. 

Video:

Being the contrarian that I am, I felt compelled to explore why the people are so concerned about the possibility of a Zionist takeover of the media in the United States.  As I listened to the caller, I felt like an amnesiac having a memory triggered by a word, or a sight, or a smell.  I remembered something I once saw on TV, but I didn’t remember where, so with the help of Google I found it. 

So what does it mean to be a “Zionist”?  Well to understand, I decided to research the “Project for a New American Century’s Clean Break Strategy”.

In 1997, a small group of potentially powerful people, just twenty five of them, announced the formation of a new organization dedicated to building up the power of the United States to unparalleled levels. They were clearly looking forward to the presidential election of 2000 and the beginning of a new millennium, because they called their organization "The Project for the New American Century" (PNAC).

Well, just twenty-five powerful individuals, doesn’t sound very ominous to me. 

Principles were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, as well as a number of people whom they recruited to join them in the Bush administration, including Cheney's National Security Adviser, I. Lewis Libby, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, former Middle East envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, and new special Middle East envoy Elliot Abrams.

A few right-wing Republican politicians, Jeb Bush, Dan Quayle, and Steve Forbes signed on; two influential representatives of the Christian Right, William Bennett and Gary Bauer; and some influential neo-conservative intellectuals and writers, such as Francis Fukuyama, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, and Eliot Cohen.

Now that’s a little more interesting, especially in light of the disputed 2000 Election when the vote counting in Florida was shut down due to staffers and persons connected to PNAC storming the hall where the votes were being counted and rioting and threatening the lives of those counting the votes.

A further investigation of PNAC and its influence in the U. S. Government, uncovered their manifesto “Clean Break Strategy, Securing the Realm”.

In an article called “Clean Break or Dirty War?” Israel’s Foreign Policy Directive to the United States published by Institute for Research:  Middle Eastern Policy breaks down the plan that was laid out by PNAC for the “New American Century”.   

The Clean Break Strategy outlines the plans by PNAC to systematically use the United States treasury, military, government and media to advance the interests of the militant Zionist faction of Israel for the unyielding power of Israel.  It must be noted that as Joe Biden has said “Not all Jews are Zionists, Not all Zionists are Jews, I am a Zionist”, it is true.  

There is a large segment of the Jewish population as well as a large segment of the World and American population that are not Zionists, but they do not control the levers of power that have been seized by the Neocon/Zionist regime.

The Executive Summary of the Clean Break Strategy states:

Great changes are seldom achieved without a plan. The Israeli policy paper “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” (ACB) was authored by a group of policy advisors to Israel. Subsequently, nearly all members ascended to influential policy making positions within U.S. government, media, and academic circles. Many of the ACB policies such as toppling the government of Iraq are now in full implementation and present new challenges to the global community. Others, such as the reform of Israel’s economy have been abysmal failures, but generate little visibility or impact outside of Israel. (See Exhibit 1))

Exhibit #1 “Clean Break”

Exhibit #1 states that many of the authors of ACB ascended to new heights of political power in the U.S.  It also outlines that “the ACB policies, are for the most part extremely damaging to U.S. interests”.  The goal of the “clean break” is a complete failure of U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Exhibit #2 “Securing the Realm”

This section contains pages of policy recommendations for Benjamin Netanyahu.  In 1996 the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy toward 2000” published a plan for the new American Century starting with the 2000 U.S. Presidential election.  The group included Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. 

If you will recall, in 2000 President Bill Clinton convened the 2000 Camp David Summit.  The Summit took place between July 11 and 25, 2000 between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.  Barak had conceded territory to the Palestinians and a peace agreement was close to being reached.  Ariel Sharon and Richard Perle sabotaged any peace agreement with their march on the Temple Mount. 

The recommendations pushed by the Study Group called for a “break” from the failed policies of the past such as “land for peace” and instead called for “peace for peace”, meaning Palestinians and future enemies must be content only with avoiding their own destruction by Israel. 

Imagine that, the only hope for peace is to accept genocide, land theft, assassination and maybe you will have peace.

A Clean Break called for a five-prong approach.

1.    Increase U.S. Congressional Support
2.    "Peace for Peace" Palestinian Strategy
3.    Contain, Destabilize, and Roll Back Regional Challengers
4.    Economic Reform
5.    Rejuvenation of Zionism

1. Increase Support in the U.S. Congress

It is political suicide for a member of the U.S. Congress to strongly oppose policy positions of Zionist lobbies operating in the United States. Former president George H. W. Bush put it best when he declared that opposing the Zionist lobby in favor of a Palestinian State was the right thing to do, but came “at a hell of price. “

The lobby converted its most powerful aid opponent by rallying massive campaign contributions to defeat North Carolina senator Jesse Helms. Pro-Israel political action committees poured an awe inspiring $222,342 into the campaign of Helms' opponent, North Carolina Governor James Hunt. Hunt's campaign secretary proclaimed that "Senator Helms has the worst anti-Israel record in the United States Senate and supporters of Israel throughout the country know it."

After the scare of almost losing reelection, Helms announced that he would exempt from cuts the more than one-third of total U.S. foreign aid going to Israel since such aid was "in the strategic interest of the U.S." He also became an ardent and comical supporter of moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and worked diligently to increase the appropriations for Israel from the Defense Department, the State Department and half a dozen other different federal agency budgets. 

Makes a person wonder, why do these Senators hold on to their seat at any cost?  Why do they sell out the American People repeatedly?  Is the money that good?

Most of the legislation is costly to the United States in constraining American civil liberties and foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East while legitimizing even the most despicable Israeli actions much of the rest of the world community and U.N. consider to be crimes.

Well back to the Clean Break Strategy.

2. Peace for Peace Approach to the Palestinian Question

Israel has adopted all of the appearances of promoting a “peace for peace” strategy with the Palestinians. Under this policy, Palestinians have no land claims on territory within the borders of Israel or territory occupied by Israel. Palestinians and future enemies under this policy must be content only with avoiding their own destruction by Israel. 

One aggressive approach promoted by Richard Perle, former chairman of the U.S. Defense Policy Board labels Jordan as Palestine, implying relocation or “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinian peoples.

Whoa, now that’s really nuts.  Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinian People in the name of Peace???

3. Contain, Destabilize and Roll Back Regional Challengers

The U.S. invasion of Iraq is such a singular success for Israel that pro-Israel leaders and pundits in the United States have had to restrain their glee that a long and arduous effort to topple Iraq’s government and neutralize the state has finally borne fruit.

Although Iraq is only one challenger to Israel, an accelerated Israeli effort to discredit, disrupt, and undermine other Arab governments, many in the midst of democratic reform, is moving forward rapidly.

Syria: 

Tactic:  Threats of Invasion.  In secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to a conference of AIPAC members, he spoke of the “critical choice” facing Damascus. “Syria can continue to direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein, or it can embark on a different and more hopeful course. Either way, Syria bears the responsibility for its choices, and the consequences,” he declared to loud applause.

Result:  The redirection of U.S. forces to Syria after toppling Saddam Hussein is a high priority for Israel.  An increase in allegations of Syrian transshipments of war material, and use as an entry point for regional Muslims answering a call for Jihad could quickly be aggrandized into support for use of force by the massive U.S. military force already in the region.

Lebanon:

Tactic:  Simmering Conflict Violence in and around Golan Heights has flared. Hezbollah guerrillas on the border zone, who have been fighting to force the Israelis to withdraw, have killed seven Israeli soldiers.

Result:  Israel responded with air strikes that destroyed three Lebanese power stations and injured 20 civilians. Israel has continued its campaign to label all branches of Hezbollah as terrorists.

Iran:

Tactic:  Linking Free-Lancers to Iran Defense Secretary Rumsfeld accused hundreds of Iraqi Shiite militia fighters based in Iran have crossed back into Iraq, complicating the military mission for the US-led coalition seeking to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.  He has rushed to classify them as “combatants” even though the forces could be channeled onto the American side.  Undersecretary of State John Bolton, a leading hawk, was quoted last month as telling Israeli officials that Iran would be "dealt with" after the war with Iraq.

Result:  By immediately rejecting the possibility of Shiite militia as allies and moving quickly implicate the government of Iran for what are probably freelance operatives, the Bush administration advances another step down the ACB regional challenger path.  Although the UK has rejected any support for Syrian and Iranian fronts, the mass of U.S. forces could be immediately redeployed to attack Iran.

Saudi Arabia:

Tactic:  Smear and Defame  Former Defense Policy board Chairman Richard Perle spearheaded an intense smear campaign against Saudi Arabia at the Pentagon, laying the foundations for future U.S. military action.

Result:  Perle contracted Rand Corporation analyst Laurent Muraweic on July 10, 2002. Rand’s briefing declared Saudi Arabia an “enemy of the United States” and advocated that the US invade the country, seize its oil fields and confiscate its financial assets unless the Saudis “stop supporting the anti-Western terror network.”

Egypt:

Tactic: Condition and Cut Foreign Aid  Condition aid to Egypt on increased support for Israel.

Result: Legislation to engage in social engineering in Egypt by tying U.S. foreign aid to rewriting curriculum to proselytize a better image of Israel.  Media watch campaigns and scoring are also conditions of aid.

I guess, now we can see why Secretary of State, Zionist John Kerry is making unsubstantiated claims against Syria for gassing their own people on their own land.  How stupid would that be?  So in retaliation for Assad allegedly using poison gas on his people, we will bomb his people to teach him a lesson.  How did that work out for the Iraqi people when you punished Saddam Hussein for allegedly gassing his people?

(The child was injured by U.S. bombs and the burns on his body are believed to be caused by White Phosphorus, a chemical banned by the United Nations and the World).

4. Economic Reform

Although ACB calls for increased economic independence from the U.S. which would allow freer reign for Israeli policies the U.S. directly opposes, efforts at reform have been too little, too late. Israel has mismanaged its economy and continues to export the negative consequences to the United States.

A look at this MSNBC article from April, 2013 says it all:

Israel’s booming economy puts billions in US aid under spotlight.

The boom may give a louder voice to calls for a reduction to the $3 billion worth of financial assistance Israel receives from the U.S. each year – especially in the Washington, where budget battles continue.

U.S. campaign groups such as Stop The Blank Check and the Council for the National Interest have long campaigned for the aid program to end, but Republican Sen. Rand Paul recently joined the debate by saying the U.S. could no longer afford to keep borrowing money and then handing it out to others.

"It will be harder to be a friend of Israel if we are out of money. It will be harder to defend Israel if we destroy our country in the process," Paul told the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, an Israeli think tank, in January.

'A political football'

That view is echoed by some in Israel, such as Naftali Bennett, a software tycoon and leader of the right-wing Jewish Home political party, who during the recent election campaign said the country needed to free itself from U.S. assistance.

“Our situation today is very different from what it was 20 and 30 years ago. Israel is much stronger, much wealthier, and we need to be independent,” he said.

In other words, “thanks suckers”. And then there’s this article from the Post Gazette:

Debt showdown: Another battle looms in Congress over red ink

The debt limit and the budget are critically important, and both problems must be worked out to keep the country functioning. The national debt will hit a horrifying $16.7 trillion in mid-October.

You know what that means folks, cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Benefits, Veterans, Schools, Fire Fighters, Police, everything the U.S. Citizens need to live.  And forget about your 401K, it doesn’t exist, it’s been cleaned out by the Zionist World Bank.

Back to the Clean Break Strategy:  Last but not least:

5. Rejuvenation of Zionism

Supporting the rejuvenation of Zionism has had a polarizing effect within the United States and damaged the constitutionally protected freedoms of U.S. citizens.

A flow chart by the ACB shows the following game plan:

Defense Cabal:

Messaging:  Preemption/remaking the Middle East, Aid for Israel/Joint Weapons Development, New Homeland Security Business Opportunities and Legitimization of Israeli Occupation of Palestinian territories. 

Medium:  Think-Tanks, Defense Policy Board, Department of Defense Contractors, Talk Shows and Investment Banks. 

Members:  Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams and David Wurmser.

            Neocon Specialty Press:

Messaging:  Danger of Islam, Illegitimacy of all Arab Governments, Illegitimacy of “land for peace” initiatives, Primacy of the defense of Israel.   

Medium:  American Enterprise Institute, JINSA, Heritage Foundation, The Weekly Standard, The New Republic

Members:  David Brooks, Lawrence Kaplan, William Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, Jonah Goldberg

Columnists:ps

 Messaging:  Palestinian Militants as Terrorists, Linkage between 9/11 and all Arab governments, Israelis as “heroes”, Critics of Israel as “anti-Semites”

Medium:  Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post Editorial Pages. 

Members:  Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot and William Safire

So there you have it folks, the Neocon/Zionist plan laid out in 2003, embraced by Republicans and Democrats alike.  On Thursday, August 29^th on an edition of “The Lead”, Congressman Alan Grayson spoke truth to power.

So "WAKE UP AMERICA"  you've been duped.  The biggest purveyor of death using chemical weapons is the United States of America.  Stop the madness!!.  Just say "No More War"!

by Patricia Baeten

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

UK US UN No Support for Obama Strike on Syria

"We're going after the Syrians — whether the Russians like it or not".  

These are the words of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama.  Obama had been in office just two weeks before the February 1 nomination deadline for the Nobel prize.  He had no concrete achievements in peacemaking in his short, partial term as a United States Senator from Illinois and had never accomplished anything. Nada. 

Obama, who is now in his second term as President of the United States has killed more civilians in unmanned aerial air strikes than his predecessor, George W. Bush.  The Nobel Peace Prize winner has also escalated the war in Afghanistan and prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined.

In an interview with PBS NewsHour on Wednesday, President Obama said the U.S. had "concluded" that the regime of Bashar Assad used chemical weapons during an attack last week near Damascus that reportedly left hundreds dead and potentially thousands more injured.

"We have looked at all the evidence, and we do not believe the opposition possessed nuclear weapons on – or chemical weapons of that sort," Obama said. "We do not believe that, given the delivery systems, using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks. We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

Congressman Alan Grayson, on an interview on “The Lead” on CNN August 29, 2013 said “Obama’s case for striking Syria is flatly false”.  Grayson’s comments come on the heels of Obama’s interview on PBS where Obama claimed the U.S. had “concluded” that Assad had used chemical weapons.

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson criticized the case for war being made by his fellow Democrats in the Obama Administration by saying it’s not telling the truth that Syria’s use of chemical weapons is "undeniable."

“To say that it’s 'undeniable' is flatly false,” Grayson said Thursday on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper. “The administration is only giving one side of the story." 

 Of Secretary of State Kerry’s comments, Grayson had this to say,

“The secretary certainly overstated the evidence that this was a deliberate decision made by the high command in Syria,” Grayson said. “There’s all sorts of ambiguity regarding that particular point. The secretary said it was undeniable. It’s been denied. And in fact the Syrian government has said: A) they didn’t do it, B) they would never do it, C) they never will do it, and D) they’ve invited in U.N. inspectors to prove that.”

It is time to end the Masters of War reign in the United States.  It is time to take care of the American people and provide for the security well-being of our country and our people.  Time for our nation to heal and to rebuild our once great nation.  In the words of Bob Dylan:

 Master of War Obama same as Master of War Bush.

By Patricia Baeten

Source 1

Source 2

Do You Have Faith in World Trade Center Bldg 7 Story?

In an episode of All in the Family, Archie Bunker tells his son-in-law, faith is when you believe something that no one in their right mind would believe.  So do you have faith in the World Trade Center Building 7 collapse story? 

Almost every day during the open discussion portion of the popular call in show Washington Journal at C-Span.org, at least one person will call in to ask why there is no investigation into the collapse of building 7 of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

While C-Span’s hosts have collectively dubbed this as an organized effort to sabotage the show, is the discussion not worth having?  It seems that any time someone asks about the collapse of WTC building 7, they are immediately cut off or dismissed as some kind of conspiracy kook by those in control of the microphone. 

For example, during the final broadcast of NPR’s Talk of the Nation, outgoing host Neal Conan hung up on a caller from Florida who questioned the U.S. Government’s official explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001.

Conan retired after 36 years with NPR after dismissing a caller’s concerns as “scientific nonsense”. But was he really saying that we can’t discuss 9/11 any further? 

The on-air confrontation transpired during a segment of the program called “What’s The Talk Of Your Nation”, during which callers are invited to share what they are talking about during everyday life in America.

“We’re talking about what you’re talking about, around your dinner table, in the car with the kids, as you stand in line at the grocery story or check in on Twitter.  You may not realize it, but you’ve always helped set our agenda every day when we fill up our planning board with the topics we’ll cover at 2:00pm Eastern Time.  Your voices ring in our ears.  So tell us, one more time, what’s the talk of the nation?”  - Neal Conan, “Talk of the Nation” June 27, 2013.

The first caller, a listener named Bob from Gainesville, FL, apparently strayed off the NPR agenda reservation when he voiced concern that NSA surveillance of innocent Americans is not actually about security.  Bob suggested that the September 11, 2001 tragedy, which officials use to justify NSA surveillance, was a “false flag attack”, citing an analysis of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 by an activist group of architects and engineers who concluded the building failed due to controlled demolition.

That is just one example of how anyone questioning the official tale of World Trade Center Building 7 is immediately silenced.

The purpose of this article is not to discredit nor validate any viewpoint of what happened to Building 7, but to ask, why can’t we talk about it in a rational way?  This is not an opinion piece, but an objective evaluation of the facts. 

Let’s take a look at the events leading up to the September 11^th attacks because to assume that the Bush Administration orchestrated the largest attack on America since Pearl Harbor seems implausible given their limited intellectual capacity.

In April of 2001 the Hart-Rudman Commission presented the Bush Administration with its counter-terrorism report. 

Excerpts:

The commission predicts a direct attack on the United States.  The warning was nothing if not blunt. "A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine US global leadership."

The act of guarding US territory from foreign depredations should be made "the primary national security mission of the United States." Preventing or deterring attacks against US soil or responding to them if preventive measures fail will require a comprehensive strategy and new government structures.

Such was the principal conclusion of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century, better known as the Hart-Rudman Commission after Co-chairmen Gary Hart, a former Democratic Senator from Colorado, and Warren Rudman, a former Republican Senator from New Hampshire. The panel was chartered in 1998 by Defense Secretary William S. Cohen. It has now reported to both Cohen and to President Bush's Pentagon leader, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Hmm.  Interesting the report was presented to Bush’s Pentagon leader, Donald Rumsfeld. What did Rummy do with the report? 

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century.

Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager, Joe Allbaugh. 

The Hart-Rudman Commission had specifically recommended that the issue of terrorism was such a threat it needed far more than FEMA's attention.

Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. "Frankly, the White House shut it down," Hart says. "The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day."

My, my my, put America’s terrorism security in the hands of Bush Campaign Manager Joe Allbaugh. 

Were there other anti-terrorism commissions from the Clinton Administration that gave specific warnings to the new Bush Administration?

The Gore Commission Demanded Tougher Airline Security, But Airlines And Conservatives Said No

"The federal government should consider aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements. The Commission believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose."

Gore Commission final report, February 12, 1997.

3.1. The federal government should consider aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements.

The Commission believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose. In its initial report, the Commission called for approximately $160 million in federal funds for capital costs associated with improving security, and Congress agreed.

3.7. The FAA should work with airlines and airport consortia to ensure that all passengers are positively identified and subjected to security procedures before they board aircraft.

3.10. The FAA should work with industry to develop a national program to increase the professionalism of the aviation security workforce, including screening personnel.

3.11 Access to airport controlled areas must be secured and the physical security of aircraft must be ensured.

The Gore Commission estimated the eventual cost of implementing all of its recommendations would be between $2.5 billion and $8 billion (the final cost would have depended on which technologies were used). This figure was in line with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates and was confirmed by a separate assessment by the General Accounting Office (GAO), which oversees federal government spending.

Oh dear, $2.5 billion and $8 billion, sounds like a real bargain.  So what happened?

But the airline industry was not concerned about possible terrorist attacks. TWA spokesman John McDonald was quoted in a 1996 Newsday article as saying: "TWA last year carried 21 million people and we didn't have a single plane blown out of the sky by someone who carried a bomb on the plane through security… I don't see it as an issue. The reality is, it hasn't occurred."

As soon as the Gore Commission report was finished, the airline industry rushed to label its findings as partisan. The day after the final report was published, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association fought back with a legislative action that claimed the Gore Commission existed simply to thwart the will of the Republican Congress.

Not surprisingly, the conservative press joined the airline industry in attacking the Gore Commission report. Most of the arguments advanced by the right focused on the "cost effectiveness" of implementing the recommendations. Susan Ellingwood's article in the March 10, 1997 edition of the New Republic entitled "Hot Air" is typical of the conservative response to the Gore Commission.

Now, that’s unfortunate.  $2.5 to $8 billion dollars and the whole 9-11 could have been avoided.  Well what about the “chatter” that was setting Richard Clarke’s hair on fire.  All that chatter coming in needing to be translated from Arabic and Farsi?

Between 1998 and 2004, the military discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi speakers, according to Department of Defense data obtained by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military under a Freedom of Information Act request.

The military previously confirmed that seven translators who specialized in Arabic had been discharged between 1998 and 2003 because they were gay. The military did not break down the discharges by year, but said some, but not all, of the additional 13 discharges of Arabic speakers occurred in 2004.

‘Still have a language problem’

Aaron Belkin, the center’s director, said he wants the public to see the real costs of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

“We had a language problem after 9/11, and we still have a language problem,” Belkin said Wednesday.

The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts.

“The military is placing homophobia well ahead of national security,” said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Service members Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group that advocates for the rights of gay military members. “It’s rather appalling that in the weeks leading up to 9/11 messages were coming in, waiting to be translated ... and at the same time they were firing people who could’ve done that job.”


Well, well you really don’t want homosexuals translating terrorist threats do you?

What about the presidential daily briefing that Richard Clarke was so freaked out about that he made a trip to Crawford Texas to Bush’s “ranch” to make sure he understood the threats that were setting his hair on fire?

We’ve known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” We’ve known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.


What we didn’t know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”

So, I don’t know if Building 7 of the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition, but I think we should be able to talk about it.   Someone should be able to say, “I’m agnostic, I believe in science, logic and reason not just blind faith.  Someone should be able to say, what’s presented to me is not enough, I need scientific proof without scorn and derision. 

So, do you have Faith?

By Patricia Baeten

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4

Coming soon, A Down The Rabbit Hole Exclusive: “The Controlled Demolition of America from Enron to ALEC".

The Poetic Justice of Eminent Domain

On the August 27^th edition of C-Span’s “Washington Journal” the guest was Professor Steven Eagle of George Mason University.  The topic being discussed was the use of Eminent Domain by cities and states to condemn mortgages on property, giving “just compensation” to those banks holding the mortgages, and resetting the mortgages to the current value of the property.   

Imminent Domain is the power of government to take private property for the public good.  The 5^th Amendment to the U.S. constitution was put into law by James Madison to ensure property owners would receive “just compensation” for their property.  Just compensation as defined by the Supreme Court means fair market value.

Prior to the 2005 Supreme Court Decision in Kelo vs. New London Connecticut, eminent domain could only be used to condemn private property for the good of the general public, such as to build roads, or heavily regulated utilities, or for general public benefit such as parks, schools, etc.

“Susette Kelo, the plaintiff in Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut was realizing her dream of owning a home that overlooked the water.  In 1997, she had lovingly restored her little pink house in New London Connecticut where the Thames meets Long Island Sound.  The Dery family, up the street from Susette, had lived in Fort Trumbull since 1895; Matt Dery and his family lived next door to his mother and father.  Matt’s mother was born in her house in 1918 and had never lived anywhere else.  The richness and vibrancy of this neighborhood reflected the American ideal of community and the dream of homeownership”.

In 1998, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant next to Fort Trumbull and the City of New London used its power of eminent domain to seize the private land from the residents of Fort Trumbull to grant the land to a private, for profit development company, New London Development Corporation (NLDC).  The entire neighborhood was condemned for demolition for private development with the nebulous claim of “economic development”.

The City of New London wanted to complement the new Pfizer plant with the development of hotels, shops and restaurants.

The funny thing was Pfizer never wanted to build in Connecticut but was enticed by the City of New London to pull out of Ann Arbor, Michigan where it was the largest employer to move to Connecticut, where it would enjoy tax incentives to relocate.  NLDC stood to profit immensely from the acquisition of the historic prime waterfront land at current fair market value to build stores, restaurants and hotels.

“The fight over Fort Trumbull eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Court in 2005, in one of the most controversial rulings in its history, held that economic development was a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”  (Kind of like money is free speech). 

“The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision against Kelo and her neighbors sparked a nation-wide backlash against eminent domain abuse, leading eight state supreme courts and 43 state legislatures to strengthen protections for property rights.

“Moreover, Kelo educated the public about eminent domain abuse, and polls consistently show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to Kelo and support efforts to change the law to better protect home and small business owners.  Moreover, in the five years since the Kelo decision, citizen activists have defeated 44 projects that sought to abuse eminent domain for private development.” 

The city of New London bought out as many houses as they could, and as soon as they bought a house they demolished it to demoralize the other residents.  Once they bought out the last of the houses through eminent domain and demolished them, the economy turned and the land remained barren.  

“Meanwhile, in New London, the Fort Trumbull project has been a dismal failure.  After spending close to 80 million in taxpayer money, there has been no new construction whatsoever and the neighborhood is now a barren field.  In 2009, Pfizer, the lynchpin of the disastrous economic development plan, announced that it was leaving New London for good, just as its tax breaks are set to expire”.

Now in 2013, a town in California is making headlines on how it is tackling its foreclosure crisis.   In the City of Richmond, California almost half of the city’s residential mortgage holders are underwater.

Last week, Richmond became the first city in the country to offer to purchase mortgages of distressed homeowners from Wall Street banks and other lenders.  The city council approved a plan in April to allow the city to use its eminent domain authority to purchase loans in order to modify them and allow families to avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes. 

According to Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, “We are stepping in by taking these troubled loans off the hands of the banks, and we’re paying them fair market value for these loans.  And then we’re working with the homeowners to refinance and modify loans in line with current home values.  We call on the banks to voluntarily sell us these loans, and if they don’t cooperate, we will be considering eminent domain”.

You’ve got to love it, karma is a female dog.  Ha ha.   But wait, this is rich….

“Wells Fargo, three other banks and even the Federal Housing Finance Agency think otherwise”.

“The banks have filed two lawsuits alleging that the plan is an illegal abuse of eminent domain, which allows governments to seize private property for public use – like a house in the path of a new highway or a piece of land needed for a new park”.

Ha, ha, ha.   Oh, please stop, my sides hurt.

“The banks argue the plan would "severely disrupt the United States mortgage industry" because many other cities would likely adopt the same program to help homeowners who owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth”.

You, think??

“So far, Richmond has sent out more than 600 offers, but has not yet begun any eminent domain proceedings. Newark, N.J., North Las Vegas, Nev., El Monte, Calif., and Seattle are considering similar plans, according to Wells Fargo's lawsuit.”

Sweet, sweet poetic justice. 

By Patricia Baeten

Source 1 

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

Coming soon, A Down The Rabbit Hole Exclusive: “The Controlled Demolition of America from Enron to ALEC".

Obama Budget Cuts to Medicare Will Close Rural Hospitals

The Obama Administration has proposed changes to Medicare reimbursement to CriticalAccess Hospitals (CAH).  Critical Access Hospitals are medical facilities in rural areas that serve communities where there is no other option available and therefore Medicare reimbursements are higher for those hospitals.  Senator Tammy Baldwin is leading a fight against Obama’s proposed Medicare Reimbursement cuts.

Obama’s proposal would remove the CAH designation for hospitals within 10 miles of another hospital from 101 percent to 100 percent of reasonable costs in 2014 and in some cases hospitals would lose their classification and would receive no Medicare reimbursement.  Obama’s proposal would save more than $2 billion over 10 years.  This could cut funding to 53 out of 58 Hospitals in Wisconsin currently designated as Critical Access Hospitals. 

Video

Nationwide there are more than 1,300 critical access hospitals.  The CAHs patient populations are largely elderly and low income without access to the larger, more expensive healthcare systems in urban areas and many have 25 or less hospital beds. In addition to providing basic outpatient care and inpatient care, they provide long term care for patients.

There are serious concerns that Obama’s requirement changes for designation as critical access hospitals will limit the care their patients receive, force layoffs of hospital workers in rural areas and lead to closures.  In other words, rural healthcare would be devastated.  According to Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association, “most CAHs operate with a negative operating margin, even with the current enhanced reimbursement’.  Terry Eisinger, president of the National Organization of State Offices of Rural Health said “rural health care is fragile as it is without any additional cuts.”

On the August 22^nd edition of ABC’s Nightline, Remote Area Medical (RAM) Facility’s annual visit to West Virginia was featured. 

Video

Remote Area Medical was started in 1985 by Stan Brock after years of working deep in the Amazon where medical care was 26 days away by foot. He began bringing healthcare to poor, under developed countries like Haiti, Africa, India and Guyana.  After setting up headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee he realized that larges swaths of citizens of the United States had no access to healthcare.  

“You’ve got 40 or 50 million people that are in this category that don’t have insurance and can’t get the care that they need or can’t afford it.”

He’s held more than 700 RAM events around the world, and has helped more than 550,000 in the United States alone. 

Teresa Gardner, who runs the local free clinic, first invited Brock to Wise, West Virginia 14 years ago and now the RAM visit is an annual event.  

Video

"It's always an amazing sight, isn't it? That here in America at 5 o'clock in the morning, with rain threatening, there are 1,500 people out there," Brock said, standing by the entrance gate overlooking the crowd on the first morning. "It's sort of the one time opportunity that they know they can afford to get the care that they need. ... It's a pretty sad sight."

"The economy here has hit a downturn. We've had a lot of mining layoffs, which is really the only industry here," Gardner said. "It's just incredible the desperation that people have for health care."

Gardner first invited Stan Brock and RAM to Wise 14 years ago and helps organize the 1,400 dentists, eye specialists, doctors and volunteers who all donate their time and expertise. Approximately 80 dental chairs are fully manned, as well as 16 eye examination stations.

 At Wise, RAM has "all the different specialists, all the way from cardiology, OB-GYN, pulmonology, nephrology, dermatology," Gardner said. "It's a really good opportunity for the patients to come out and get some very good care that they wouldn't otherwise have access to."

"You find people having strokes, heart attacks, elevated blood sugars. We do a lot of emergency care here on sight," she said.

In fact, six people over the course of the weekend are found by the mobile X-ray unit to be walking around with broken limbs.

"Even though the care here is quality care, we don't need to be doing this in the world's richest country," Brock says. "I would rather be back in Haiti, in India andAfrica, and where this organization began in the Amazon than doing it here in the world's richest country. But I don't see this ending anytime soon".

RAM is funded by donations and receives no government funding.  One of the major setbacks for RAM is that RAM has an army of volunteers, many of whom have volunteered for years and pay their own travel expenses to provide care.  A problem in providing care in the United States is that each state has requirements for volunteers to be licensed in that state to practice medicine. 

Brock said he would be able to hold more events around the country and help more patients if states would be less strict about allowing volunteer doctors from other states to practice temporarily within their borders.

"People come all the way from Florida, all the way from Michigan, all the way from Wisconsin, New Jersey ... because we're not allowed in those states because they won't allow doctors to cross state lines," he said.

It is the thought of having to turn away people that haunts Brock.

In a New York Times article dated May 13, 2011 entitled “Health Insurers Making Record Profits as Many Postpone Care” you can see who Obama is looking out for.

“The nation’s major health insurers are barreling into a third year of record profits, enriched in recent months by a lingering recessionary mind-set among Americans who are postponing or forgoing medical care”.

“The UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest commercial insurers, told analysts that so far this year, insured hospital stays actually decreased in some instances. In reporting its earnings last week, Cigna, another insurer, talked about the “low level” of medical use”.

“Yet the companies continue to press for higher premiums, even though their reserve coffers are flush with profits and shareholders have been rewarded with new dividends. Many defend proposed double-digit increases in the rates they charge, citing a need for protection against any sudden uptick in demand once people have more money to spend on their health, as well as the rising price of care”.

Yes, you read that right.  “The insurance companies continue to press for higher premiums, even though their reserve coffers are flush with profits and shareholders have been rewarded with new dividends”.  The insurance companies and their CEOs with their million dollar and some times billion dollar salaries just keep getting richer, while the American people travel for days in inclement weather hoping to get a coveted space on a gurney in a cattle stanchion to receive life saving medical care.  These greedy bastards are nothing more than merchants of death.

Make no mistake about it, Obamacare was written of, by and for the insurance industry.  When you hear that Healthcare is one-fifth of the economy, what they really are saying is that one-fifth of the profits on Wall Street come from our for profit healthcare system. 

This is the richest country in the World but the wealth is concentrated at the top.  Our congress has some of the richest people in it.  Darrell Issa’s net worth since he has been in congress is over $355 million dollars, and he’s not the only one. 

By Patricia Baeten

Source1

Source2

Source3