The March for Peace

Today we attended the protest for peace to put an end to the war in Iraq and the destructive policies of the Bush Administration. Over 300,000 were estimated to be in attendance, marching for peace and demanding that Bush send the troops home. Americans from all walks of life were there today: the young and the old, black and white, Christian and Muslim, gay and straight, hippie and businessman, you name it they were there, well, except for the major news media. Even the networks accused of being "liberal" and "biased," like NBC, never even bothered to mention the emotions and thoughts of these thousands of Americans. Instead of the war and the protest for peace, NBC reported the 75th birthday of the Empire State Building, a man dying in his kitchen, and rabid dogs. Let's not forget the important sports and the weather! Everything but the war.

But the war wasn't the only subject of concern today, in fact it was one crisis of many. Among the concerns of Americans: the vicious attack on the environment, the protection of big business interests over the general public, the Hurricane Katrina disaster failure, a retched economy, failing public schools, infringement on civil liberties, fraudulent elections, and the list goes on.
One other growing concern is the sinister 9/11 cover up.

As described in my Thursday blog entry, I have uncovered a lot of new information about 9/11 since completing my book Broken Nation. The chapter titled "9/11" concludes with more questions than answers. Instead of answers, I touch on a few of the major theories and then move on to my simple conclusion that there are many unanswered questions. What these unanswered questions lead to is the fact that there are too many coincidences. The good news-- more people are beginning to acknowledge these coincidences, more people are beginning to ask questions about 9/11, and more people are beginning to think outside the box. After all, the unimaginable truth is far outside of the box that we are confined to by the politically and corporate-controlled media.

For more on 9/11, see the documentary Loose Change -2nd edition available at: http://www.loosechange911.com/ This is by far the best-made documentary film about 9/11 I have seen so far.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Arthur Schopenhauer

The Truth Tower

On the same day that the U.S. government is proposing to can FEMA, the agency that was rightly blamed for the poor rescue performance after Hurricane Katrina, the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site began. How quaint that they call it the Freedom Tower! And as a Hollywood film is about to be released telling the hopeful though unproven story of Flight 93, and as an alleged new video of Bin Laden is released by the Bush administration to remind us of the terror that lurks out there, and bogus articles surface about how the government knew who the hijackers were so soon due to lost luggage, and other "investigative" articles arrive to miraculously try and answer the growing number of 9/11 skeptics, let us all remember it will be five years very shortly and we, the general public, still have no real answers. In fact, we are further away from being told the truth about what really happened that day. The 9/11 omission (sic) took us further away from the truth than the "independent" investigation was supposed to. And time, oh time, how it helps us forget the little details that build a much bigger picture. For some, forgetting is a good thing.

But let us not forget the details. Let's remind each other that there are too many coincidences, documented ones that have been lost in the shuffle of piles of paperwork. In my book Broken Nation I dedicate one chapter to the 9/11 mysteries and come up with more questions than answers, but many investigators and journalists have developed solid theories based on solid evidence. So why then doesn't the general public know these theories? Why then wouldn't I write about solid answers in my book? Well, the truth is there is so much information that it is too much for the average person to comprehend. It is also just too much to accept such a brutal truth that is outside the box of everyday thought. No one could have imagined Hamlet's own uncle killed his father so he could marry the queen and become king. No one could have imagined such deceit, yet it happens all of the time in real life.

I purposefully left a lot of answers out of Broken Nation, both because I honestly didn't know or believe what I know now and because I wanted you the reader to embark on a search of your own. While the general public is further away from the truth, there is a growing number of skeptics who are closer to the truth. One universal truth we should all now understand is that when there are too many coincidences, there's an underlying reason why.

We may also acknowledge that the truth will never fully come out. We still don't know the truth about JFK. But with some cover-ups there is hope. Just last week the son of Terry Nichols said his father is ready to speak about the Oklahoma City bombing and the other "higher-up officials" involved. The most we can do is fight for the truth and hope for justice.

So to start here's just a small list of problematic coincidences we have been otherwise told to not believe or forget, courtesy of David Ray Griffin from his book The New Pearl Harbor. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566565529/bookstorenow57-20/104-2218194-9576756

1. Several FAA flight controllers exhibited extreme incompetence on 9/11, and evident on that day only.

2. The officials in charge at both NMCC and NORAD also acted incompetently on 9/11, and evidently on that day only.

3. In particular, when NMCC-NORAD officials did finally order jet fighters to be scrambled to protect New York and Washington, they ordered them in each case from more distant bases, rather than from McGuire and Andrews, respectively.

4. After public statements saying that Andrews Air Force Base had no jet fighters on alert to protect Washington, its website, which had previously said that many jets were always on alert, was altered.

5 Several pilots who normally are airborne and going full speed in under three minutes all took much longer to get up on 9/11.

6. These same pilots, flying planes capable of going 1,500 to 1,850 miles per hour, on that day were all evidently able to get their planes to fly only 300 to 700 miles per hour.

7. The collapse of the buildings of the World Trade Center, besides occurring at almost free-fall speed, exhibited other signs of being controlled demolitions: molten steel, seismic shocks, and fine dust were all produced.

8. The video and physical evidence suggesting that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers co-exists with testimony from people in these buildings that they heard, felt, and saw the effects of explosions.

9. The collapse of WTC-1 and WTC-2 had some of the same features as the collapse of WTC-7, even though the latter collapse could not be attributed to the impact and jet fuel of an airplane.

10. Both the North Tower and the South Tower collapsed just as their respective fires were dying down, even though this meant that the South Tower, which had been hit second, collapsed first.

11. Governmental agencies had the debris, including the steel, from the collapsed WTC buildings removed without investigation, which is what would be expected if the government wanted to prevent evidence of explosives from being discovered.

12. Physical evidence suggesting that what hit the Pentagon could not have been a Boeing 757 co-exists with testimony of several witnesses that the aircraft that did hit the Pentagon was far smaller than a 757.

13. This evidence about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon co-exists with reports that Flight 77 crashed in Kentucky or Ohio.

14. This evidence co-exists with the fact that the only evidence that Flight 77 did not crash was supplied by an attorney closely associated with the Bush administration.

15. Evidence that Flight 77 did not return to Washington to hit the Pentagon co-exists with the fact that when the flight control transcript was released, the final 20 minutes were missing.

16. The fact that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon did so only after executing a very difficult maneuver co-exists with the fact that it struck a section of the Pentagon that, besides containing none of its leaders, was the section in which the strike would cause the least death and destruction.

17. On the same day in which jet fighters were unable to protect the Pentagon from an attack by a single airplane, the missiles that normally protect the Pentagon also failed to do so.

18. Sounds from cell phones inside Flight 93 suggesting that the plane had been hit by a missile were matched by many reports to this effect from witnesses on the ground.

19. This evidence that Flight 93 was shot down co-exists with reports from both civilian and military leaders that there was intent to shoot this flight down.

20. The only plane that was evidently shot down, Flight 93, was the only one in which it appeared that passengers were going to gain control.

21. The evidence that Flight 93 was shot down after the passengers were about to gain control co-exists with the fact that the flight control transcript for this flight was not released.

22. That coincidence co-exists with the fact that when the cockpit recording of Flight 93 was released, the final three minutes were missing.

23. Evidence showing that the US government had far more specific evidence of what was to occur on 9/11 than it has admitted co-exists with evidence that it actively blocked investigations that might have prevented the attacks.

24. Reports of obstructions from FBI agents in Minneapolis co-exist with similar reports from Chicago and New York.

25. Reports of such obstructions prior to 9/11 co-exist with reports that investigations after 9/11 were also obstructed.

26. These reports of obstructionism co-exist with multiple reports suggesting that the US government did not really try to capture or kill Osama bin Laden either prior to or after 9/11, with the result that several people independently suggested that the US government must be working for bin Laden—or vice versa.

27. All these reports co-exist with reports of hijackers being allowed in the country in spite of known terrorist connections or visa violations.

28. These reports about immigration violations co-exist with evidence that some of these same men were allowed to train at US flight schools, some on military bases.

29. This evidence of training at various American flight schools co-exists with reports that US officials tried to conceal this evidence.

30. The traumatic events of 9/11 occurred just a year after a document published by the Project for the New American Century, an organization whose founders included several men who became central figures in the Bush administration, referred to benefits that could come from "a new Pearl Harbor."

31. The "unifying Pearl Harbor sort of purple American fury" produced by the 9/11 attacks did benefit the Bush administration in many ways.

32. A credible report that spokespersons for the Bush administration had earlier announced that the US government was planning a war on Afghanistan, which would begin before the middle of October, co-exists with the fact that the attacks of 9/11, by occurring on that date, gave US military forces time to be ready to attack Afghanistan on October 7.

33. Ahmad Masood, whose continued existence would have posed problems for US plans in Afghanistan, was assassinated, reportedly by ISI operatives, just after the head of the ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmad, had been meeting in Washington for several days with the head of the CIA.

34. In the White Houses version of the recording of Condoleezza Rice's press briefing on May 16, the only portion that was inaudible was the portion in which the person under discussion, mentioned as having been in Washington on 9/11, was identified as "the ISI chief."

35. Evidence of official efforts to conceal General Ahmad's presence in Washington co-exists with evidence that, after it became known that General Ahmad had ordered $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, US leaders exerted pressure on the ISI to dismiss him from his post quietly.

36. Evidence of these attempts to conceal General Ahmad's involvement in 9/11 co-exists with evidence that the FBI and other federal agencies sought to obscure the fact that Saeed Sheikh, the man who wired the money to Atta, was an ISI agent.

37. The fact that agents in FBI headquarters who presided over the alleged intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen, widely called the biggest intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor, were promoted instead of fired or otherwise punished co-exists with the fact that other intelligence agencies also reported that there had been no punishments for incompetence related to 9/11.

38. This evidence of lack of punishment for poor performance co-exists with reports that intelligence officers who were diligently trying to pursue investigations related to 9/11 suffered negative treatment from superiors.


For more detailed explanations of these coincidences and what they mean to the 9/11 investigation visit the following sites:
http://www.justicefor911.org/
http://www.911inquiry.org/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

or for even more detailed explanations and theories read the following books:
The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions... by David Ray Griffin http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566565847/sr=1-1/qid=1146180854/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2218194-9576756?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566565529/sr=8-1/qid=1146180767/ref=sr_1_1/104-2218194-9576756?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1931947058/sr=1-1/qid=1146180825/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2218194-9576756?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies by Jim Marrs
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579830137/sr=1-2/qid=1146180885/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-2218194-9576756?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

New Bin Laden Tape

When the going gets tough and your approval ratings are nearing below 30%, just remind us how the "terrorists" are still out there.

The truth is, they haven't captured Bin Laden, they didn't when they had an opportunity, and they probably never will. Why? Well, because maybe he's working for the Bush Administration?But maybe Laden is not even responsible for 9/11. Despite the old video of a man who looks like Bin Laden, distorted by an American translator claiming he was responsible for the attacks, we now have reason to believe he may not have even had anything to do with 9/11. He did in fact release a statement the week of 9/11/01 that said "I am not responsible for these attacks." Furthermore, look at these key contradictions:

1. The Bin Laden family was here in America on 9/11 doing business with Republicans.
2. Saleen Bin Laden was a major investor in George W. Bush's Arbusto Oil in the 1970's.
3. Osama Bin laden was treated for his kidney disease at the U.S. embassy in Dubai in summer 2001.

But then let's not forget the warnings:

"Bin laden determined to strike America" August 6th 2001 White House memo

So what's the real story?

Are we supposed to believe a man with kidney disease who requires frequent extensive medical attention has been hiding in caves for the past five years and that the best military and intelligence in the world has not been able to locate him? Are we supposed to believe that this man who once worked for the U.S. government and was trained by the CIA in the 1980's under George HW Bush is responsible for defeating the best intelligence and most sophisticated air defense in the world on 9/11, especially when we all know there was ample time for the U.S. military to intercept, at least, the plane that hit the second tower as well as the one that supposedly hit the Pentagon? Which by the way, there is no solid evidence of a plane even hitting the Pentagon. To add, Andrews Airforce base is only miles away from the Pentagon!

Bin Laden and the attacks on 9/11 are theater at its best, in the form of Tragedy.

Don't let these theatrical acts distract you from the truth.

http://www.justicefor911.org/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.911inquiry.org/

THE MOST IMPORTANT CELEBRATION

HAPPY EARTH DAY!
April 22, 2006

For information on Earth Day visit:

http://www.earthday.net/

Or check out:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

March for Peace on April 29

http://www.april29.org/

CLIMATE CHANGE

RE: "Climate of Fear" by Dr. Richard Lindzen (another radical Republican email-forward that found its way into my inbox.)

Does anyone ever research the writers who write these ridiculous opinions that contradict all of the major leading scientists and climatologists of the world? The propagandists in these email forwards are also contradicting the factual evidence. Like global temperatures, forest fires in Alaska in January, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and the list goes on.

Just follow the money and you'll see why Richard Lindzen is so against climate change. [Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.] At least find someone credible before you forward junk corporate propaganda. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with someone so immoral, unless you happen to own some stock in the oil companies yourselves, then we'd understand your motive.

Oil & gas= profit & pollution If you don't believe this check the earnnings of U.S. oil companies since the Bush administration took control in 2001. And if you don't believe oil creates pollution, put some in a glass of water and drink it. Better yet, put your face up to the tailpipe of your car while it's parked in your garage-- that'll prove it. And ask yourself, as you're coughing to death, who is profitting from global warming other than the children of the future? And ask yourself what harm the desire to live in a cleaner world really does? Global warming is a moral issue that we all need to pay attention to. Jesus certainly would not have sided with the mighty oil companies. Furthermore, these type of paid-off "Scientists" are the same ones who also told us (the American public) that DDT was a safe chemical to grow your vegetables in, and cigarettes were safe and good for your mind, and that atomic weapons testing in the western U.S. states was not harmful to nearby communities. All for MONEY. Believe what you wish.

Global Warming by the Numbers Some chilling statistics to think about:

1 - Rank of 2005 as hottest year on record (tied with 1998), according to NASA.
100 % - Increase in intensity and duration of hurricanes and tropical stormssince the 1970's, according to a 2005 MIT study.

$100 billion - Estimate of damage caused by hurricanes hitting the U.S. coast in 2005 alone, according to the National Climatic Data Center.

2030 - Year by which Glacier National Park will have no glaciers left, according to the U.S. Geological Survey predictions.

400,000 - Square miles of Arctic sea ice that have melted in the last 30 years (roughly the size of Texas), threatening polar bear habitats and further accelerating global warming worldwide, according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.

15-37%- Amount of plant and animal species that global warming could wipe out by 2050.

1 - Rank of the United States as a global warming polluter compared to other large nations.

6- Number of former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency leaders who say the U.S. is not doing enough to fight global warming.

0- Number of bills passed by Congress to cut global warming pollution.
Number of times President Bush has mentioned the words "global warming," or "climate change" in previous State of the Union addresses.

2003 - Europe suffered worst heat wave in history where 27,000 people died
US and Australia didn't sign the Kyoto Treaty

It took 10 centuries for the oceans to rise as much as they did in the 20th century.

Sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2005 Study, Nature Magazine January 2004, National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.

If you care about the Earth, please watch this preview!
http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=2&pmmsid=1521205

And how about WMD and terrorism? That's a climate of fear if I've ever seen one. We were attacked on 9/11 supposedly by Bin Laden-- a former business asssociate of the Bush family who was previously trained by the CIA. Let me stress that there were ample warnings of the threat including an August 6 2001 memo titled "Bin Laden determined to strike U.S." These threats were ignored. Go ahead and blame Clinton for the U.S.S. Cole or embassy bombings, he also stopped more than six separate attempts of largescale terrorism on U.S. soil including the LA airport bombing and the 2000 Millenium attempts. Maybe Clinton was doing other immoral things, but he certainly wasn't on vacation purposefully ignoring intelligence.

And then who could forget the WMD, links to terrorism, and expoitation of 9/11 to force an invasion of Iraq for no other purpose but to earn profit for Halliburton and the oil companies, which by the way are now on the top of the list for biggest most profitable U.S. corporations. So while you and I are contstantly manipulated into believing there will be another terrorist threat because of the terrorist attack THEY LET HAPPEN and while we pay the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history, our troops are dying for the profit of U.S. corporations in a war that has created terrorists. Hello!

For more read the chapter titled: ATTACK ON THE ENVIRONMENT
in my book Broken Nation available at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0741429780/sr=8-1/qid=1144944693/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8200576-6922269?%5Fencoding=UTF8


From: maineiacga@aol.com
Subject: Climate Of Fear - Truth Abput Global Warming
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:27:16 -0400
Climate of FearGlobal-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then Senator Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Barbaric Slaughter

We should all be appalled at the Canadian government's failure to stop the unnecessary and barbaric greed-inspired seal hunt. The subsidies that Canada has poured into the seal hunt since 1995, reportedly more than $20 million, is an investment in absolute cruelty. Moreover, the profit the local fishermen and sealers make from this is a mere 2% more.

The seal pups are beaten with clubs or shot with one bullet (and only one bullet to avoid holes in the skin, which lowers the value but leaves the seals to die a slow cruel suffering death.)Observers report that Canada's animal welfare regulations are not being followed or enforced. Sealers have been observed skinning many seals while the pups are still alive and conscious. The luxury of fur just isn’t worth the slaughter of more than 350,000 baby mammals that will be killed in just the next couple of weeks.

I am boycotting all Canadian goods, which includes seafood, and I am spreading the word to my representatives in Congress, family, and friends to do the same.

See the following link for more: http://www.hsus.org/protect_seals.html

Time Line

TIMELINE (from BROKEN NATION)

1977: Salem Bin Laden invests in Arbusto Energy, Inc. owned by George W. Bush.

1980’s: Reagan/Bush Administration trains Osama Bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill the Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.

1982: Reagan/Bush Administration provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians. Donald Rumsfeld presents Saddam with a pair of golden spurs as a gift.

1983: Reagan/Bush Administration gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

1991: U.S. enters Iraq-Gulf War. Dictator is reinstated in Kuwait.

1991-99: U.S. planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. The U.N. estimates that over 500,000 Iraqi’s died from these bombings and sanctions.

1995: George W. Bush becomes Governor of Texas.

1995-2000: Dick Cheney is CEO of Halliburton, which during this period does business with Iraq, Libya, and Iran.

1996: Fox News is launched along with an attack campaign of Clinton.

1998: Florida uses electronic voting machines for the first time/ Jeb Bush becomes Governor.

2001: George W. Bush becomes president after the most controversial election in U.S. history.

2001: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in aid, some of which is put towards their opium crops and later smuggled right back into the U.S.

September 11, 2001: Osama Bin Laden uses his CIA training.

2003-04: U.S. invades Iraq despite 9 years of bombings, no possible weapon-making capability, and no connections to Bin Laden. Saddam Hussein is removed from power. Over 2,500 Americans are killed. 100,000 civilians are killed. Civil war erupts in Iraq. U.S. national debt hits all time high. And well, you know the rest of the story.

Another ignorant email forward that ended up in my in-box

I DO CARE... ABOUT A PEACEFUL AND BETTER WORLD FULL OF HOPE AND PROGRESS.

I hope this makes it back to Pam.

When are you people going to get it through your heads and realize that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no WMD, no links to terrorism- just links to Donald Rumsfeld, and no threat to Americans. In fact, Iraq had no terrorism there under Saddam; we brought it there. Another fact, George W. Bush had more to do with 9/11 than anyone else: various warnings from intelligence specialists, warnings like the August 8, 2001 memo: "Bin Laden determined to strike U.S." And how do you really believe Bin Laden had something to do with 9/11 when he and his family is so chummy with President George W. Bush? You're not saying that Bush's business associates (the bin Ladens) had something to do with 9/11, are you?

If we really want to get technical, the United States actually started the "war" on terror in the 1980's under Reagan and Bush when they trained bin Laden and worked with the Taliban to oust the USSR. But to be more current and specific, how about when our government let a bunch of dimwits who had been parading around the country on various watch-lists hijack 4 planes when they could barely fly them and when the planes had been in the skies for over an hour without being shot down despite the fact that there were airbases in the vicinity and planes available to scramble?Have you ever heard of the Reichstag fire in Germany? Sounds a lot like it. An agenda.

I could go on and on and show you how ridiculous, one-sided, and illogical each one of Pamela's claims are, but I don't have the time. Read my book if you want to know: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0741429780/sr=8-1/qid=1143839170/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1682141-8820153?%5Fencoding=UTF8

But really, what grade did Pamela finish? Because she has the mentality of an angst-ridden teenager. I think Pamela should just stick to interior design.

Pamela wrote, "If you agree with this view point, pass this on to all your e-mail Friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!"
I'm sorry to break it to you, Pam, but George W. Bush doesn't read much, so it's highly unlikely he'll ever read this email.

Then Pamela went on to write, "If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country."

Now it's all my fault we got attacked because I didn't forward Pam's email of carelessness and hate? But hey, I thought George W. Bush was going to protect us?

We all have family members serving in Iraq. If they are not our brothers and sisters or our sons and daughters or our mothers and fathers, they are our fellow Americans. Pam's speech of hate isn't helping them, it's distracting our nation from saving them and bringing them home where they belong. If you, however, would like to help them, visit http://www.internationalanswer.org/

We can start by impeaching the war criminal of an illegitimate president that we have. After all, we impeached a president over a personal sexual affair that had nothing to do with the successful job he was doing. I can't see why we wouldn't do the same to a president for killing thousands in an unnecessary war, infringing on millions of American's civil rights, and letting a terrorist attack occur. Can you?

So you know what, Pam? Go put your ignorant head in a hole of hate. Ooops, I forgot it already is.


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:38:27 -0500
I Don't Care ! ! ! !

The lady who wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing Interior design and home planning. She recently wrote the following letter to a family member serving in Iraq .......

WHAT'S ALL OF THE FUSS?
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime In Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave Marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you got it, I DON'T CARE!
If you agree with this view point, pass this on to all your e-mail Friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for thisridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.

RE: Photos too graphic for the media

I recently recieved an email titled "Photos too graphic for the media."
It was full of rosy pictures of smiling soldiers and Iraqis. Here is my reposne.

To the person who created this email:

I was going to attach random pictures of smiling Americans and then define them as American, but then I realized there are many Americans not smiling- the 40+ million living in poverty, 40+ million without health insurance, the thousands of homeless, the thousands of small business owners who were put out of business because their government gave Wal-Mart subsidiaries to open a new store across the street, the majority of Americans who voted in 2000 and didn't get their president- never mind the 2004 debacle, the discriminated and disenfranchised, drug addicted teenagers, victims of rape and child abuse, victims of one of the highest world wide rates of murder, the victims of environmental cancers, the families and survivors of the biggest conspiracy in U.S. history- 9/11, the 20,000 injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, widows and families of the several thousand killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the many more miserable Americans. These people are representative of America and they're not smiling, yet we don't see enough of them on the news either.

I think it's great to be positive and show the good (especially the compassion of our courageous troops), but these rosy pictures deceive the public into thinking Iraq and Afghanistan are these big successful humanitarian missions when they are certainly not. This is a one-sided batch of deceiving pictures, and we're not even really sure where the pictures originated from. These could have been easily taken in another region of the Middle East. Furthermore, the opinion of a select few does not represent a majority, of which does not really want us there. We certainly can't call the list of people liars who have been there and returned with bad news, just as we can't call others liars who have been there and returned with or sent back rosy pictures like these. We could compare the list of people who return with good news with the list of those who return with bad news, and maybe that's an exhaustive study someone should embark on.

Indeed, "Sometimes in our everyday lives we tend to forget what's going on elsewhere in the world and that the brave men and women of the service are just like you and I. They have family and friends back home who love them very much and are praying for their safe return." No argument here.

As for "pictures too graphic for the media," this sounds like an attack on the media, and while yes there should be an attack on the media, it should be for different reasons. Maybe because, when was the last time you really saw what was going on over there in the WAR? When was the last time you saw bombs going off on the nightly news? When was the last time you saw innocent Americans being blown to smithereens for no other reasons than oil and an old family vendetta between the Bush's and Hussein's? When was the last time you saw any of the flag draped coffins on the news? You didn't because the Bush administration banned the media from showing footage of fallen soldiers returning.

Honestly, who is the Army recruiter or member of the Defense Department who wrote this email?

"Of all the gifts you could give the US Military, Prayer is the very best one....."Decoded = The best gift you could give the U.S. military is passing around this email."

Well, in my opinion, first of all, prayer isn't good enough. Action is what is necessary-- bring the troops home. Secondly, if I'm going to pray at all, it's not going to be for the military as an institution, it's going to be specifically for the PEOPLE in the military and their safety.

The facts are the United States invaded and destroyed the nation of Iraq for unjust causes. No WMD! No links to terrorism! Just oil!

The U.S. created terrorism there in the form of insurgents and created a civil war!
I apologize if you don't (or refuse to) believe the truth. Read more about the facts in the book Broken Nation:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0741429780/102-9204042-8260957?v=glance&n=283155

Let's pass this email around and keep the wheel going. Let's bring the troops home, end the dying, and stop the lying.

Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and loyal citizen?

Response to “Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and loyal citizen?”

THE STORY OF MAN (alternative version) by Bill Lawrence

There once lived a white man on a white hill surrounded by other people of the nation. One day he announced, “We shall now ban all Muslims. All of them are terrorists who hate our freedoms. Round them up, boot them off the hill, and send them back to where they came from.” And so the Muslims were banished.

Some time passed and he suddenly thought about the blacks. “Most of them commit crimes- most of death-row consists of blacks. Kick them out too.” So away with the African Americans.

“And what about the Hispanics?” he asked one day soon after. “They’re all wrecking our neighborhoods- send them back too.”

More time passed and so did the Asians and the Buddhists, for not being the same as the white man.

And then all of the other immigrants from South America, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere were sent back to their places of origin.

“And what about the Jewish? They have all the money. Get rid of them too,” he demanded.

Then the white man wondered about gays. “They’re destroying family values.” So away with the gays.

And then the atheists. “They need to go too, since they don’t believe in what they’re supposed to.”

Then after some more time, he got rid of the artists and writers, because they had too much to say about all of the people now gone. Then he got rid of the feminists because they too had too much to say. And then the environmentalists. And then the teachers, because they weren’t teaching the way he wanted. And then anyone with brown eyes because they reminded him of the others. And finally, anyone else who still wasn’t exactly the way he wanted them to be.

After a while, the man looked around. Everyone remaining was finally the same— White Christian Men— with brown or blond hair and blue eyes— what an exciting world! But there was still something very wrong with this picture. A revelation arrived! The White Christian Man wasn’t always here in this place on the hill. He was an immigrant too, and not a very nice one. When he suddenly realized the horrors of his past actions he looked around in guilt but could not find the original inhabitants of this land— the natives. Where were they now again thanks to the White Christian Man?

Finally realizing his many shameful acts, the White Christian Man slipped from the hill and rolled to the bottom. The hill, now red, was empty. And so this is the sad end to this fable.
If you by chance are not one of the above banished, then consider yourself the select lucky few under a fascist dictatorship— nothing to be proud of. If you are one of the banished or even one of the “lucky” ones who truly cares about humanity and our environment, then pass this email along. Remember that discrimination and hate are well and alive right here in the United States. The below email in red is proof. My analysis is in blue font also indicated by the *

* Disclaimer: Personally, I am agnostic when it comes to organized religion, so I have no agenda or benefit from defending any one particular religion. My religion is love, nature, and the universe. But as a real American, I respect all of my fellow citizen’s beliefs. And I understand that it is their right as a world citizen to have their own beliefs.

Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?
Consider this: Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

* Wrong— America permits freedom of religion. It is their first amendment right.

Scripturally, no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

* Doesn’t matter, there’s a separation of church and state.

Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

* However, many stories in the Old Testament actually take place in this vicinity. Mecca also happens to be the region of the world where Jesus was born. Did you think Jesus was born in Kansas?

Socially, no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

* Absolutely untrue.

Politically, no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

* Now this writer is really getting out of hand. Another delusional lie. Islam is peaceful; Extremists of any religion are not.

Domestically, no, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

* Well, this is where religions get sticky— they all have something outrageous. But the above statement is not actually entirely true. “You will never be able to be fair and just among women (wives)...” -Quran, (4:129) Islam does allow having more than one wife, yet it has set conditions for that, which is that the husband should be fair with all his wives, and treat them equally. Since it is very difficult to be just with all wives, in practice, most of the Muslim men do not have more than one wife.

* Therefore, polygamy is not a rule or an order but an exception. Many people are under the misconception that it is compulsory for a Muslim man to have more than one wife.

* But what about the Mormon dominated state of Utah? Polygamy is widely practiced there, in the state that just happens to have the highest number of Republican voters. And what about domestic abuse in America? The U.S. is crawling with women beaters. America certainly isn’t a completely peaceful place, especially behind closed doors.

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

* Actually, Muhammad had much respect for the scriptures. The above statement is again untrue. Perhaps radical Muslims reject other religions, but so do the Christian evangelicals, who are probably responsible for writing this and by the way are Bush’s second largest group of supporters- (in case you’re wondering, his biggest supporters are in the big oil and gas industry.)

Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical Judeo-Christian principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

* Actually, the Constitution is based on Greek and Roman pagan principles, which also influenced Christianity.

Philosophically, no, because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.

* According to Islam, freedom of expression is a basic human right. The person (uneducated evangelical war-mongering Bush supporter) who wrote this is obviously not educated in global art history.

Spiritually, no, because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as our heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names. Democracy and Islam cannot co - exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

* Well, first of all, I consider the whole “one nation under God” phrase an illegal invasion on my rights. This unconstitutional phrase from the pledge of allegiance was slipped in there in 1954 by Congress at the influence of President Eisenhower (another war-monger) to rally up support and retort to Communist allegations that America wasn’t a united nation in all matters.

* As for all Muslim countries being dictatorships, this is again an untrue statement. Algeria, Indonesia, Nigeria, Senegal, and Turkey are just some of the many Democratic nations where Islam is the predominant religion. Moreover, the non-Democratic Muslim governments that are oppressive towards their people are the ones George W. Bush and America are allies with. Saudi Arabia, a nation with WMD, is the biggest supporter of world terrorism (15 of the 9/11 hijackers originated from there), yet Bush holds hands with their leader, yet we invaded Iraq (a secularized nation with no world terrorism links and no WMD.)

Therefore, after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country, even though our laws allow all religions to be freely practiced. They obviously cannot be both good Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish...it's still the truth.

If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above, perhaps you will share this with your friends. Some believe the more who understand this, the better it will be for our country. Others believe that recognition of these facts will only hasten an unwanted religious war.
In any case, you may wish to pass it on Fellow Americans......The possibility of a religious war may be bigger than we know.

* This person obviously didn’t give it enough study and deliberation to make so many untrue statements. Actually, there is no possible way of having “intellectual” agreement with such nonsense. Furthermore, their suggestion of war leads us to believe they either have stock in military weapons or stock in the apocalypse myth.

Don’t stand for this kind of un-American hate. There is no reason to go to war, (unless you own stock in Halliburton or Exxon Mobile.) But really, if you think there are good reasons to go to war over religion, then maybe it’s time you re-evaluate your beliefs.