1. “Remembering, Questioning, Challenging – Continuity of Government
“Last year when the Bush/Cheney regime was voted out of office, there was rejoicing at the possibility of change for the better. Sadly the looting of the country, the expansion of war, the policies of torture, rendition, lack of accountability continue under Obama. The “myth” of 9/11 has been cited as justification for a continuation of the foreign and domestic policies pushed by the last administration.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21374
2. “”Explosive” Sibel Edmonds Cover Story At “The American Conservative”
4,000 word exclusive interview with ‘the gagged FBI whistleblower on espionage, al-Qaeda, and secrets for sale’
…
what U.S. media would possibly care about members of the U.S. Congress and high-ranking State and Defense Dept. officials taking bribes, being blackmailed, and enabling the theft and sale of U.S. nuclear secrets? Even if the allegations came under sworn and video-taped deposition by a former FBI translator who overheard such things first hand. Non-story, apparently.
…
This is gonna be big, radically big. Heads up folks, the establishment is cracked and about to come undone. Sadly they will not go quietly into the night, they’ll go kicking and screaming. High level alert for a False Flag attack or the Swine Flu bio attack. They are at the end of their rope. Reports about Netanyahu being pushed out of Putin’s office by Putin himself after rejecting 100 billion dollars in gold bribes appears to be an example of the China-Russia-Brasil Pact trumping the old school FED-Bank of England-Israeli gang. Obama backing down from the missile defense in Poland shows a clear indicator of who is the new boss. That means the rooster is coming home to roost. The only problem is they don’t have a handle on the USA with the Truth and Liberty movement surging. We are gonna see a fight. This is the time for everybody to get on board and full steam ahead before they can get a better foothold. This Sibel Edmonds piece in the American Conservative needs to be plastered everywhere. Get the word out folks and attach 9/11 Truth to it at every opportunity. Let’s do this, it’s what we’ve been waiting for. Bless all Patriots. Victory is ours if we want it.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21377
3. “The way I see it you have just two choices with regard to the official story for 9/11. 1) you are ignorant of the event and have never researched it at all, or 2) you’re part of the cover-up. Sorry but it really is that simple. Only an uninformed person or liar can support the official story. That’s what I have been telling people in the past year. The evidence is overwhelming that the official story can’t be true.
…
Authoritarianism is confused with patriotism Thus one must simply accept the notion that high ranking officials always act in good faith. It doesn’t matter if there isn’t any proof this is so.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21367
4. “Are Financial Blogs Trustworthy?
The talking heads say that financial blogs aren’t trustworthy.
But the whole debate about blogs versus mainstream media is nonsense.
I would argue that mainstream newspapers haven’t just lost readers because of the Internet as an abstract new medium, but that they lost readers because they became – with some exceptions – nothing but official stenographers for the powers-that-be. No wonder people have lost all faith in them.
Indeed, as of February, only 5% of the pundits discussing various government bailout plans on cable news shows are real economists.
To the extent that blogs offer actual news and the mainstream media does not, the latter will continue to lose eyeballs and ad revenues to the former.”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/09/are-financial-blogs-trustworthy.html
5. “CIA Directors conclude CIA shouldn’t be investigated for murder
In a truly shocking development being treated as major news, seven former CIA Directors — including all three who served under George W. Bush — jointly concluded that the CIA should not be criminally investigated for torture deaths, and they have written a letter to President Obama (.pdf) expressing that view. Do leaders of organizations in general ever believe that their organizations and its members should be criminally investigated and possibly prosecuted for acts carried out on behalf of that organization, and do CIA Directors specifically ever believe that about the CIA? Has a CIA Director ever advocated that CIA agents be criminally investigated for illegal intelligence activities?
But what’s most notable about this letter is that it is not addressed to the individual charged with making decisions about whether an individual should be prosecuted: namely, the Attorney General of the U.S. Instead, it is addressed to the President himself, and they “urge [him] to exercise [his] authority to reverse Attorney General’s August 24 decision to re-open the criminal investigation of CIA interrogations.” What so-called ”authority” are they talking about?
The way our criminal justice system works is that the President has the authority to set generalized policy priorities for the DOJ (e.g., spend more resources on drug and terrorism offenses but less on pornography and gambling), but decisions about whether specific individuals will or will not be prosecuted are supposed to be immunized entirely from White House influence, and are the province of independent Justice Department prosecutors (led by the Attorney General). That’s what it means to have an apoliticized justice system: the President doesn’t order specific people to be prosecuted or shielded from prosecution. Only Justice Department officials, assessing purely legal factors, make those determinations.
In fact, the entire U.S. Attorneys scandal was grounded in exactly this concern: that Karl Rove and the Bush White House were directing that certain prosecutors be fired either for criminally investigating specific Republicans or refusing to prosecute specific Democrats. Decisions about specific prosecutions aren’t for the White House to make. No DOJ official with the most minimal integrity would allow the President to block specific criminal investigations as these CIA Directors urge.
Richard Nixon tried that and it led to the Saturday Night Massacre, when he ordered his Attorney General and (when the AG refused) Deputy Attorney General to fire Archibald Cox, the Watergate Special Prosector, after Cox had refused to accept White House limitations on his investigation. Both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General resigned rather than let Nixon interfere with their independence in making decisions about prosecutions. Similarly, it has been reported that public decrees earlier this year from White House political advisers (led by Rahm Emanuel) that there would be no CIA torture investigations infuriated DOJ officials because that’s not the White House’s decision to make. It was the DOJ’s anger over this Emanuel-led usurpation of its responsibilities that led Obama to make publicly clear that decisions about prosecutions are the DOJ’s to make, not his.
…
But we have a political culture which believes, literally, that the CIA must operate above and beyond the law (recall Joe Klein’s argument against torture prosecutions: CIA agents ”behave extra-legally for the greater good of the nation”). Even though the American people have enacted numerous laws through their Congress which explicitly criminalize certain behavior on the part of the intelligence community (torture, warrantless eavesdropping, failing to brief Congress), there is a widespread belief that we can and must allow the CIA to commit crimes with impunity. The CIA’s personal spokesman at The Washington Post, David Ignatius, argues outright that the CIA should not be prosecuted for crimes because we want to ensure they are willing to act illegally in the future.
…
But even that is too much for our political class. Apparently, not only should executive branch officials and their agencies be allowed to institute a torture regime, spy on Americans illegally, and commit war crimes , but they should also be allowed literally to get away with murder. After all, if they aren’t allowed to do that, they’ll be deterred from doing it again in the future — if they’re investigated, they might feel compelled to think about “the law” as a limit on what they can do — and we wouldn’t want that. “
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
6. “How to Pay Off the National Debt
It’s all the rage these days to sell public assets to pay off government debt. We mustn’t default, after all. We just hate to see our national parks, public roads, energy grids, water, hospitals and schools being sold to robber barons. Do we have anything to sell that the majority of Americans wouldn’t mind parting with?
What about all that Pentagon real estate owned by US taxpayers? Over 1,000 military bases worldwide. That real estate must be worth a fortune. Given the worldwide inflation of real estate values, created by the central banks, it must be worth trillions. We could close our worldwide military bases and sell that real estate to the locals who would probably jump at the chance to get rid of a foreign occupying army. We could ask the buyers to pay for the land with worthless Federal Reserve notes. That would solve their problem of how to get rid of their worthless US dollars and simultaneously give Americans a sufficient amount of worthless dollars to pay back the Federal Reserve for the national debt they created with worthless Federal Reserve notes. Without those military bases we couldn’t have wars and we should be able to drastically reduce the Pentagon budget, saving even more money ~ and lives! Just think of it … close to one trillion dollars every year being sucked up by the Pentagon would be liberated for health care, education, infrastructure and a peacetime economy. We could even get rid of the Pentagon all together. After all, we lived quite comfortably without it for 170 years.”
