9/11 Ellen Mariani talks about her husband's death - planet hit Tower 2

Family Members Of Doomed 911 Flights 'Strangely Silent' About Irregularities and Inconsistencies Of Official Government Story

Family Members Of Doomed 911 Flights 'Strangely Silent' About Irregularities and Inconsistencies Of Official Government Story

Except for Ellen Mariani, whose husband was reported on Flight 175, others who lost relatives on the airplanes have kept quiet in stark contrast to those who lost loved ones at Ground Zero. But when those from the 'airplane community' talk like Linda Gay and Frank Calley, who respectively had family members on Flight 11 and 77, they accept the government 9/11 story hook, line and sinker. By Greg Szymanski 11-18-5 Linda Gay believes her husband died in the fiery crash on Flight 11, believes the government conducted a fair investigation and blames the entire event on President Clinton who had eight years to catch Osama bin laden but failed. Gay lost her husband, Peter, 54, a vice president of Raytheon Co. on 9/11. Four years later, she still lives in Tewksbury, Mass., claiming as she did right after the tragic event, she is satisfied with her government's efforts at getting at the truth behind 9/11, satisfied with the money she received from the victim's compensation fund and satisfied with not pursuing her husband's death any further. "I guess I am different than most people, but I just don't believe in suing the airlines or the government over something they couldn't control," said Gay this week in a rare conversation this week from her home in Tewksbury, as she reflected back about the death of her husband, a top executive with a defense technology company doing business with the Pentagon. "Looking back, one thing strange was that the night before the flight and the early morning on 9/11, Peter seemed more reluctant than usual to leave for California on business like he did every Tuesday for the last year. "He was the type that didn't like to be away from home, but on 9/11 he seemed more apprehensive about leaving than usual. The last thing we said was the normal goodbyes before he took the limousine and that was it. I never saw him again and had it confirmed he was on Flight 11 late in the afternoon at 2p.m. when American Airlines called." Giving a rare interview, Gay's belief in the official 9/11 story and her reluctance to speak out is a pattern seen among many of the families of those who died on the four doomed airliners. In fact, save Ellen Mariani, who lost her husband on Flight 175, the rest of the jetliner family community has never publicly questioned the government's official 9/11 story and has pretty much stayed quiet in the background, out of the public eye. What makes this surprising, if not downright suspicious, is that it is in stark contrast to the majority of family members who lost loved ones at Ground Zero, a group that has hundreds of outspoken critics of the government's official story, a group unafraid to publicly blame the Bush administration for being the real culprits behind 9/11. For example, there are literally hundreds of survivors and family members from Ground Zero who protest the government regularly, saying Bush and the neo-cons are hiding the truth about 9/11 to protect their own skin. But in stark contrast only Mariani has gone public with her disgust of the government from the airline group, a fact that shouldn't be ignored when trying to unweave the complex web of deceit woven by the neo-con culprits behind 9/11. Take, for example, the across the board silence from the airline family community who has never really spoken out about obvious irregularities in the flights themselves, NORAD's slow response, flight manifest irregularities and, basically, the total lack of a serious investigation regarding their missing relative. If we want to believe Gay, the answer is simple: total trust in the government and the system. But if we want to look farther, we may find the silence among the flight family community as the tip of the iceberg behind the entire 9/11 mystery. Take, for example, the simple law of averages. Doesn't it make sense that at least a handful out of the approximately 261 who died on the planes would have had a few family members as outspoken critics? But besides this strange veil of silence blanketing the entire group, there are many other stranger things concerning the airline families, a series of unexplainable facts and occurrences that draws attention to what may be the 'Achilles heel' of the 9/11 mystery if, that is, investigators dig deep enough. First, the Arctic Beacon has tried to contact at least 10 airline family members besides Gay, all who have repeatedly refused to answer the telephone or return emails. Julie Sweeney, whose husband, Brian, a former Navy F-14 pilot on Flight 175 who made two calls prior to the plane supposedly hitting the South Tower, said she was too busy to talk, acting apprehensive and wondering how the Arctic Beacon got her phone number. After making an phone appointment the next day, Sweeney at the time of this publication failed to answer the phone at least 10 times, a sign she no longer wanted to speak after having time to reflect on the situation. In contrast, family members who experienced Ground Zero losses have been more than happy to speak, as over a hundred family members of Ground Zero victims have been contacted by the Arctic Beacon, and even more by pother publications, with an overwhelming majority having no problem to talk openly about their loss and their feelings about the 9/11 investigation. Why the difference? There are no polls or experts to figure this out, but one simple explanation is the flight families are hiding something. Although this may be jumping to conclusions, what other conclusion can be drawn when nobody wants to talk? Besides these speculations, it also should be noted that several psychologists and psychiatrists contacted said the typical reaction to a loss of a loved one in a situation like 9/11 is to strip all allegiance to state, country and employer, as the only motivation left for those who have paid the ultimate price is getting at the truth and nothing but the truth. However, strangely, the reaction by the 9/11 airline community, less Mariani, is just the opposite. Let's look at some of the glaring oddities about the airplane family members and why the government's story should have at least sparked some doubt among them: Remember Gay and those who remained silent, as the law construes silence as consent, believe or give the appearance to believe the official government story hook, line and sinker, despite the existence of credible evidence Flight 11 and 77 never even existed and, for all intents and purposes, may very well have been only 'phantom flights.' According to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) statistics both flights officially never took- off on 9/11, as well as showing no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time. However, Flights 11 and 77 on both 9/10 and 9/12 had all the recorded data properly logged. Why the discrepancy? No one has ever given an official explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is well known that airports are extremely meticulous about recording accurate BTS data for each and every flight in and out of its airport for liability purposes. But, more importantly, if this is a clear indication Flight 11 and 77 were only 'phantom flights" and never existed, why then wouldn't some of the family members publicly voice their concerns? Four years after 9/11, the answer still remains a guarded mystery, but then there is a lot of mysterious evidence regarding the flights, or the absence thereof, which has never been answered. For example, why hasn't the government turned over airport surveillance tapes, readily available for all flights, but suspiciously unavailable for all of the four doomed flights on 9/11? Again, why hasn't there been a public outcry by the 9/11 family airplane community when obvious information regarding their loved ones is being withheld? This, however, is only the tip of the iceberg: Start with the obvious "pod" hanging from the underbelly of the airplane that struck the South Tower, the airplane purported by the government to be Flight 175. However, after looking at the video footage taken by CNN, pictures on Newsweek magazine and other video tapes, it's obvious what hit the South Tower wasn't Flight 175, but actually a military "drone" made to look like it. And it should be noted that when United Airlines was asked to respond about the strange existence of the "pod" on the airliner's underbelly, officials didn't deny its existence but simply refused to answer, citing national security as an excuse. But, again a major question is why with this glaring evidence staring the whole world in the face, hasn't the real people with a vested interest and loss - the airline family members -- demanded a public investigation? Why? For the same reason they haven't, excluding perhaps Mariani, demanded an investigation into the BTS records, the missing surveillance tapes, NORAD's pitiful response time, unsubstantiated autopsy reports, miraculous evidence and personal belongings recovered from the wreckage and glaring inconsistencies concerning the actual flight lists, not to mention the fact that seven of the 19 hijackers are reportedly alive, well and living abroad. However, specifically concerning the recovery of 'miraculous evidence' and discrepancies in the flight lists, one of the most interesting cases is that of Waleed Iskandar, purported to be a passenger on Flight 11. As unbelievable as it sounds, Iskandar's parents were notified by the Ground Zero Recovery Team a year after 9/11 that they found the unscathed Wells Fargo ATM card of their son, who allegedly perished on the doomed flight. After being notified of the miraculous find, Joseph and Samia Iskandar were sent their son's bank card within days, noting it was in "perfect condition," but never really publicly questioned the late timing of the incredible find or the suspicious nature of a flimsy ATM card surviving such a towering inferno. What's even more suspicious is that their son, a 34-year-old Harvard graduate, was never even listed as a passenger on Flight 11, either on the original manifest or on the official list provided by American Airlines, even though every reference to him afterwards on internet memorials or in newspaper accounts lists him as a Flight 11 passenger. One would think, Iskandar's family would have publicly questioned the numerous errors and discrepancies concerning Flight 11 and, of course, the official passenger list which never listed their son. But instead they have remained silent, his parents even failing to return over 25 messages left and emails sent over a two-week period concerning these very important issues. "It's only my opinion but if that was my son, I'd be raising holy hell about the crazy government investigation and the information withheld about Flight 11," said one 9/11 family member who lost a loved one, but wanted to remain anonymous. Besides the strange silence from the Iskandar's, the miraculous recovery of Flight 77 passenger, Suzanne Calley's, California ID card, driver's license and wedding ring, all found in perfect condition at the Pentagon, has also been accepted without questions asked by her surviving husband, Frank. Despite numerous questions regarding Flight 77 and the Pentagon crash, Calley's husband believes the government has done its level best when it came to the handling of his wife's case, his wife's military autopsy and subsequent government investigation into the Pentagon crash. And it's hard to believe Calley and the other Flight 77 family members haven't been screaming from the rafters, demanding justice after looking at the facts of the secret investigation and the glaring inconsistencies concerning the military autopsy performed under the cloak of darkness. But, again, Calley and the others seem to be in 100 percent agreement with the Pentagon since none of them have so much as whispered criticism against a government investigation lacking obvious credibility. To make the point clear, here is exactly what Calley had to say about the Pentagon investigation and a run-down of the discrepancies in the Pentagon autopsy of the alleged Flight 77 victims as reported last week in the Arctic Beacon: As told to another family member who lost a loved one in 9/11, Calley said: "They told me they found her remains, but I decided not to look. The Pentagon officials also said the remains of at least 19 others on board the plane were also identified by a military medical group. "Immediately after the crash, I was assigned a personal liaison who handled my case. He was cooperative and helpful and I decided I didn't want to see Suzanne's remains." What's strange about the autopsy investigation is that none of the family members, including Calley, have demanded an independent investigation, relying solely on government medical reporting as advised by the Pentagon liaisons, a personal military attaché conveniently provided for each individual family. The question has to be asked why would the military go to such extremes as to provide personal attachés unless they wanted to hide manipulate and control what should have been an independent crime scene investigation. And, even stranger, questions like this should have been asked and independent investigations demanded by family members, all collectively as a group remaining strangely silent when it is the natural reaction of someone who loses a loved one, to travel to the ends of the earth to get at the truth. Although the government medical team played up the fact it undertook the most comprehensive autopsy in medical history, utilizing DNA and dental records, none of the family members of those who allegedly died on 9/11, like Calley, can now ever be 100 percent sure of the results since the government controlled the autopsy, an independent investigation never being allowed and in the case of Calley, the remains of his wife's body has subsequently been cremated. "Even though it's four years after 9/11, I still understand that family members can still be grieving. But wouldn't they want positive independent DNA testing done to prove their loved ones actually died in the crash," said on family member who lost a loved one 9/11 but wanted to remain anonymous. "I never received any remains or evidence of the person I lost on 9/11, but if there were any remains, I surely would have had them independently tested instead of relying on the word of the government. And that's exactly what transpired in the strange and unexplainable autopsy investigation of the Flight 77 passengers, conducted essentially in the cover of darkness by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP). And after reading the report, it is filled with so many inconsistencies and generalities that it makes one wonder why Calley and the other family members - not a single one of them - ever insisted on independent DNA proof, matching the remains held by the government with that of their loved ones. In fact, the AFIP in its report dated November 16, 2001, incredibly said it positively identified nearly all the bodies, including the Flight 77 passengers, a medical feat which several medical experts considered miraculous if not, impossible, considering the short amount of time and the amount of devastation at the crime scene. Remember that Calley was told by his private Pentagon attaché that 19 passengers were positively identified from Flight 77, but the AFIP reports that184 of the 189 who died at the scene, including all but one of the airplane passengers, were positively identified within about two months. But, to make matters worse, even these numbers have been seriously questioned by an independent medical investigator named Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D., who made a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in order to get to the bottom of what he calls a staged and phony government autopsy report in order to cover up for "monsters who planned this crime." Dr. Olmsted said about the AFIP autopsy: "A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request to get the autopsy list. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. It is my opinion that the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable. "When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a manifest list for anxious families. You may have noticed that even before Sep 11th, that airlines are pretty meticulous about getting an accurate headcount before takeoff. It seems very unlikely to me, that five Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons." Dr. Olmsted then calls attention to the blatant discrepancy of the names on the airline passenger manifest and the names provided by the official Pentagon autopsy report, showing also that three names were on the autopsy that never even were listed as passengers on the airplane, an obvious indication of foul play never explained by the Pentagon. Further Dr.Olmsted found through his FOIA request that although the medical examiners positively all of the passengers, they did not identify any of the Arab hijackers onboard, who were also not listed on the original flight manifest. "The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell "victims" bodies from "hijacker" bodies," said Dr. Olmsted. "In fact, from the beginning no explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so. "No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three additional people not listed by American Airline sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras (on the autopsy list but not listed as passengers.) I did give American the opportunity to "revise" their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. "The AFIP claims that the only "passenger" body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified. The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these unfortunates together." Editor's Note: Of course, not all family members of the airline victims have been contacted. If there exists anyone who disagrees with the official 9/11story or wants to comment about this article, the Arctic Beacon requests you contact our office so that your story and opinions can be heard. Greg Szymanski is an independent investigative journalist. For more Greg Szymanski articles, please visit http://www.arcticbeacon.com/arcticbeacon.html

Top brass says no chance hijackers fly into pentagon { April 15 2004 }

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1192226,00.html

Hijackers fly into Pentagon? No chance, said top brass
'Unrealistic' war game pooh-poohed before 9/11

Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday April 15, 2004
The Guardian

Five months before the September 11 attacks, US military planners suggested a war game to practise a response to a terrorist attack using a commercial airliner flown into the Pentagon, but senior officers rejected the scenario as "too unrealistic".

Details emerged yesterday in an email leaked to a public policy watchdog group. In the email, written a week after the attacks, a special operations officer discussed the exercise with his colleagues.

Details of the exercise, codenamed Positive Force, and the rejected hijacking scenario were confirmed by Norad, the North American aerospace defence command.

The disclosure of the proposal came in the thick of a season of finger-pointing in Washington over responsibility for the failure to prevent the attacks. A national commission is holding hearings on the issue this week.

In a press conference on Tuesday night, George Bush claimed that his administration could not have foreseen the use of aeroplanes as mis siles by terrorists. "We knew he [Osama bin Laden] had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was nobody in our government, and I don't think [in] the prior government, that could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale," he said.

That claim was questioned in a report published yesterday by the September 11 commission, which pointed to a string of intelligence reports in the 1990s suggesting that al-Qaida was contemplating such ideas, including, in 1998, "a possible plot to fly an explosives-laden aircraft into a US city".

The email leaked to the Project on Government Oversight (Pogo) was written by Terry Ropes, identified as a special operations officer who had been temporarily assigned to Norad in the spring of 2001.

According to Pogo's director, Peter Stockton, special operations officers had the job of testing Norad's air defences by thinking like terrorists and plotting unexpected attacks.

"In defence of my last unit, Norad," Mr Ropes began his email, dated September 18 2001, "the Norad exercise developers wanted an event having a terrorist group hijack a commercial airline and fly it into the Pentagon. Pacom [Pacific command] didn't want it because it would take attention away from their exercise objectives, and joint staff action officers rejected it as too unrealistic."

In response to the leaked email, Norad said in a written statement yesterday: "Before September 11, Norad regularly exercised its response to possible hijacks, but never with the intent of lethal engagement, because planes were normally landed safely by their pilots and the hijackers would begin negotiations.

"Before September 11, Norad conducted four exercises a year, normally to include hijacks."

As for the April exercise and the Pentagon attack scenario mentioned in the email, Norad said: "The exercise was a continuity of operations exercise, with several fictitious scenarios posed during the planning process. This scenario was rejected, as were many others."


"Continuity of operations" refers to government contingency plans to keep working in the event of an attack on the US. American defence officials described the hijack scenario as "thinking outside the box", not a response to a specific threat.

The 1998 plot mentioned by the September 11 commission, involving an explosives-packed aircraft aimed at a city, was reported by an unnamed source "who walked into an American consulate in east Asia".

"Neither the source's reliability, nor the information, could be corroborated," the commission report said. The report also mentioned a 1994 attempt by an Algerian group to fly an airliner into the Eiffel tower, which failed because the group was unable to fly the plane. In early 1995, an accomplice of the convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef told interrogators in the Philippines that they had discussed flying a plane into the CIA headquarters in Virginia.

Despite such clues, the report said, the CIA's counter-terrorism centre did not analyse how a hijacked aircraft might be used as a weapon. It added: "Neither the intelligence community nor the NSC [national security council] policy process analysed systemic defences against suicide aircraft." 

MEDIA FAIL: Foxnews Uses Norway Attacks To Push Homegrown Terror Myth In...

Libya rebels to probe commander's killing

Libya rebels to probe commander's killing - Africa - Al Jazeera English

The Libyan National Transitional Council has formed a committee to probe the assassination of the head of the rebels' armed forces and two of his aides, after a rebel special forces member accused fellow rebels of killing them.

Abdel Fattah Younes and his aides were killed by gunmen on Thursday, creating a power vacuum at the top of the opposition military hierarchy and raising questions about who was responsible.

Ali Tarhouni, a rebel minister, said that a militia leader, who had asked to fetch Younes from the frontline near the oil town of Brega, had been arrested and had confessed that his subordinates had carried out the killing.

Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the opposition leader, had called Younes "one of the heroes of the 17th of February revolution", a name marking the date of early protests against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

He did not say Gaddafi's forces were directly responsible for Younes' killing but said Gaddafi was seeking to break the unity of rebel forces. He also issued a stiff warning about unaffiliated "armed groups" in rebel-held cities, saying they needed to join the fight against Gaddafi or risk being arrested by security forces.

Debt ceiling: House approves revised Boehner plan

Debt ceiling: House approves revised Boehner plan - latimes.com

By Kathleen Hennessey

July 29, 2011, 3:29 p.m.

After a belabored and bruising struggle to appease conservatives, the House of Representatives has passed Speaker John A. Boehner's bill to raise the debt limit and reduce the deficit.

The bill passed on a 218-210 vote, winning no Democratic support while losing 22 Republicans. It now moves to the Senate, where Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid has said it will go nowhere.

With just four days left before the government can no longer pay all of its bills, Reid is working on a separate proposal aimed at winning support for Republican moderates in that chamber.

Feigning Powerlessness to Retain Power

Articles: Feigning Powerlessness to Retain Power

There once was a time that elected leaders wanted to be seen as powerful to gain the confidence of their constituents. But many House Republicans, who now have in their hands total power to end runaway government once and for all, are feigning powerlessness.

These House Republicans claim to be just one-third of the legislative process, unable to achieve anything useful without compromise and a bipartisan consensus. They grouse that the Democrats in the Senate and President Obama are forcing them to settle for what they can get in exchange for an inevitable and necessary increase in the debt limit. They claim to need even greater electoral victories in 2012 before they can stop the spending.

The truth is that House Republicans already hold all the cards. The debt ceiling is already fixed in law, and will remain fixed unless they capitulate. Rather than just saying no to an increase in the debtlimit which would end deficit spending, the GOP has developed "Cut, Cap, and Balance" which it sells as a principled proposal. Yet, with CC&B, the House Republicans propose to end the deficit spending by the curious method of increasing the national debt by $2.4 trillion (almost 17 percent) to $16.7 trillion.

In increasing the debt ceiling, the House Republicans leaders are doing what comes naturally. The House leadership historically has not wanted to stop spending -- with entitlements like Medicare Part D they have used our own money to buy our votes just like the Democrats. The motivation behind CC&B is not about cutting current spending, capping future spending, or balancing the budget -- it's about what it's always been about -- the politics of reelection.

It could be that the House Republicans are acting out of fear that in holding fast to principle they would not be seen as being "responsible" in the eyes of the media and Wall Street. They could be afraid that Wall Street and the administration could use their refusal to increase the debt ceiling to provoke an international financial crisis that would be blamed on them. They could fear that the American people will turn them out for doing what they said they would do. The common denominator of these motivations is fear, which always leads to bad decisions. If we grant to the establishment the role of arbiter of what is right and responsible, we have given up the fight. House Republicans forget the truism that "we are always more free to do that which is right than we think we are."

When the vote was taken in the House on Tuesday night, only nine Republicans saw through what the leadership was doing. The rest of the House Republicans followed what they thought talk radio, a large swath of the conservative movement, and some misguided Tea Partiers wanted. What makes "Cut, Cap, and Balance" into true political art is that the House Republican leadership is using it to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory while selling this effort to their constituents as an act of courage. Thus far, only www.DownsizeDC.org is leading the charge against it, and onlywww.WorldNetDaily.org is reporting on its flaws.

Let's examine the alternative. What would happen if the House Republicans avoided the temptation to rush in to solve this problem, and just followed the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to first do no harm?

In February 2010, Congress capped the national debt at $14.294 trillion. The level of this debt is a publically reported number, not easily subject to manipulation. When this limit is hit, our nation's spending is necessarily limited by our revenue -- and deficit spending automatically stops.

The federal government would stop inflicting more fiscal damage on successive generations. The nation's sovereignty would be enhanced as we are weaned from reliance on foreign lenders. We just might be forced to end unconstitutional military operations, such as that in Libya. We might finally increase the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to adjust to increased life expectancy. The Department of Education, the Legal Services Corporation, ATF, and the FTC could top the list for abolition or at least a huge haircut.

If our goal is to stop the cancer of debt and to have a country that lives within its means -- we could declare victory. After 78 years, the New Deal/Great Society spending spree finally would be over. Further, that hard cap on the nation's debt could never be changed unless the president, the Senate, and the House Republicans all agree.

The website of the CC&B charade states the goal is for "[s]ubstantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter." But with a hard debt ceiling in place, we don't need the "cut" component of CC&B. Since cuts are generally based on projected, not current, spending levels, "cuts" are usually an illusion anyway.

With a hard debt ceiling in place, we don't need a "cap." The same CC&B website demands "[e]nforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget." But when Congress writes the laws -- who is going to do the enforcing? Why just seek to get "on the path" toward a balanced budget, when we have already achieved it?

Lastly, we don't need to go through the lengthy and risky process of passing a balanced budget amendment. In fact, the debt ceiling is much more effective than such an amendment. A balanced budget amendment unreasonably assumes the Commerce Department would never politicize the GDP calculation, and the Congressional Budget Office will be immune from congressional influence.

All we now need is for House Republicans to do nothing, but inaction carries with it political risk. House Republicans could be accused of forcing deep spending cuts and tough choices, but isn't that what House Republicans said they were willing to do during the last election?

House Republicans are certainly afraid that they could be accused of causing a default on the debt. But with almost $200 billion in monthly revenue, there is no shortage of money to pay the necessary $39 billion monthly tab to the creditors of the United States. Any accusation of precipitating a "default" on the national debt is absurd -- unless President Obama and his friends at Goldman Sachs want such a crisis for their own purposes.

It is a certainty that deep spending cuts would alienate the recipients of government largess, but if that price is too high to pay, we are all doomed anyway. Must we always wait until after the next election? Let's eat the peas now, defund great swaths of the federal bureaucracy for an entire fiscal year -- before the spenders could regain power. Who knows -- the fired bureaucrats might even get honest jobs, and learn to like it.

The House Republicans need to assume the political risk for the sake of the country. Inaction would require political courage, but would it be easier if we wait until the burden of nation's debt is allowed to shoot up by another $2.4 trillion? If not now, when?

Bill Olson held three positions during the Reagan administration and his law firm focuses on constitutional law and defending against government excess. Email wjo@mindspring.com, visit www.lawandfreedom.com, orwww.Twitter.com/OlsonLaw.

House to Vote on Revised Bill at 6:15pm ET | C-SPAN

House to Vote on Revised Bill at 6:15pm ET | C-SPAN

Congressional Performance New Low: 6% Think Congress Is Doing A Good or Excellent Job

Congressional Performance - Rasmussen Reports™

Voter approval of the job Congress is doing has fallen to a new low - for the second month in a row.

Just six percent (6%) of Likely U.S. Voters now rate Congress' performance as good or excellent, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Last month, Congressional approval ratings fell to what was then a record low with eight percent (8%) who rated its performance good or excellent.

Sixty-one percent (61%) now think the national legislators are doing a poor job, a jump of nine points from a month ago. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Most voters don't care much for the way either party is performing in the federal debt ceiling debate. The majority of voters are worried the final deal will raise taxes too much and won't cut spending enough.

Only 11% of voters believe this Congress has passed any legislation that will significantly improve life in America. That ties the lowest ever finding in nearly five years of surveys, last reached in January 2009. Sixty-nine percent (69%) think Congress has not passed any legislation of this caliber, a six-point increase from June and the most negative assessment ever. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure.

Exploring America's Ghost Town -- Gary, Indiana

Immigrants Leave America For Mexico and 4.9% Unemployment

Improving Mexican economy draws undocumented immigrants home from California - Sacramento City News - sacbee.com

By Stephen Magagnini
smagagnini@sacbee.com

Published: Thursday, Jul. 28, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1B

Last Modified: Thursday, Jul. 28, 2011 - 11:16 am

There are fewer undocumented immigrants in California – and the Sacramento region – because many are now finding the American dream south of the border.

"It's now easier to buy homes on credit, find a job and access higher education in Mexico," Sacramento's Mexican consul general, Carlos González Gutiérrez, said Wednesday. "We have become a middle-class country."

Mexico's unemployment rate is now 4.9 percent, compared with 9.4 percent joblessness in the United States.

An estimated 300,000 undocumented immigrants have left California since 2008, though the remaining 2.6 million still make up 7 percent of the population and 9 percent of the labor force, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Among metropolitan areas with more than 1 million residents, Sacramento County ranks among the lowest, with an unauthorized population of 4.6 percent of its 1.4 million residents in 2008, according to Laura Hill, a demographer with the PPIC.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/28/3799513/improving-mexican-economy-draws.html#ixzz1TX9QVBXr

U.S. intelligence: Al-Qaida near collapse, So Are The Wars Over?

U.S. intelligence: Al-Qaida near collapse - UPI.com

ARLINGTON, Va., July 27 (UPI) -- The killing of Osama bin Laden and seven years of CIA drone strikes have pushed al-Qaida to the brink of collapse, U.S. counterterrorism officials say.

Terrorism against the United States and Americans will likely continue, but the organization, based in Pakistan, that carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could soon be extinguished, officials told The Washington Post.

The officials cited classified intelligence reports and closed-door Capitol Hill briefings from the CIA, the National Counterterrorism Center and other agencies, the Post said.

"There is a swagger within the community right now for good reason," Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, told the newspaper.

Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the jihadist organization's Yemeni and Saudi Arabian offshoot, remains strong and is viewed as a greater counterterrorism challenge than al-Qaida's traditional base, Chambliss said.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/07/27/US-intelligence-Al-Qaida-near-collapse/UPI-62691311755400/#ixzz1TWA0iuCQ

Commoncents Friday with Jay RESCHEDULED FOR 1pm E/10am P 07/29 by CommoncentsRadioNetwork | Blog Talk Radio

Commoncents Friday with Jay RESCHEDULED FOR 1pm E/10am P 07/29 by CommoncentsRadioNetwork | Blog Talk Radio

Bernie Sanders "Military Budget Has Tripled Since 1997!"

Censorship of war casualties in the US

Censorship of war casualties in the US - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

The US mainstream media has tended to shy away from showing images that accurately depict the reality of war [EPA]

Why is it so easy for political leaders in the US to convince ordinary citizens to support war? How is it that, after that initial enthusiasm has given away to fatigue and disgust, the reaction is mere disinterest rather than righteous rage? Even when the reasons given for taking the US to war were proven to have been not only wrong, but brazenly fraudulent - as in Iraq, which hadn't possessed chemical weapons since 1991 - no one is called to account.

The United States claims to be a shining beacon of democracy to the world. And many of the citizens of the world believe it. But democracy is about responsiveness and accountability - the responsiveness of political leaders to an engaged and informed electorate, which holds that leadership class accountable for its mistakes and misdeeds. How to explain Americans' acquiescence in the face of political leaders who repeatedly lead it into illegal, geopolitically disastrous and economically devastating wars of choice?

The dynamics of US public opinion have changed dramatically since the 1960s, when popular opposition to the Vietnam War coalesced into an antiestablishmentarian political and cultural movement that nearly toppled the government - and led to a series of sweeping social reforms whose contemporary ripples include the recent move to legalise marriage between members of the same sex.

THIS COUNTRY DEFAULTED LONG AGO

THIS COUNTRY DEFAULTED LONG AGO « The Burning Platform

“There is no means of avoiding a final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.” – Ludwig von Mises

The final collapse of our credit expansion boom approaches. We have a choice over the next week. We could voluntarily abandon further credit expansion by voting for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution or we can raise the debt ceiling, pretend to cut spending far in the future, and allow our currency system to experience a catastrophic final collapse.

We’ll take what’s behind door #2 Johnny. The vested interests in Washington DC and Wall Street only care about power and wealth. They will never abandon credit expansion. It’s their drug. They must have it. They are addicted to it. They will keep injecting it into our system until they overdose America.

The mainstream media acts as if not raising the debt ceiling by next Tuesday will result in America defaulting. This is a crock. America chose to proceed on a path to default decades ago. We are just finally reaching our destination. Below are the choices we made as a people and a country to default on our obligations and eventually destroy our country:

• The enactment of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 allowing the government to impose a tax on your income, thereby opening Pandora’s Box to a 60,000 page tax code and allowing politicians to sell their votes to the highest bidder.
• The signing into law of the Federal Reserve Act by Woodrow Wilson in 1913, transferring control of our currency system to Wall Street banks. The man made inflation created by the Federal Reserve has reduced the purchasing power of the USD by 97% since 1913 and has allowed politicians to promise $100 trillion of benefits to Americans, that can never be delivered.
• The Social Security Act signed into law by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1935, supposedly to help widows and orphans, morphed into a giant ponzi scheme used by politicians to make Americans think it was a retirement plan and the money was in a lockbox. The scam continues, but ponzi schemes always collapse.
• Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as a government agency and Freddie Mac was created in 1970 as a quasi-government agency. By promoting home ownership and subsidizing loans to people who should have never gotten loans these agencies caused hundreds of billions in mal-investment. As tools of politicians, they were used to push social agendas. The result will be in excess of $300 billion in losses to the American taxpayer.
• The Korean War set a precedent where the President did not need to seek Congress to declare war as required under the Constitution. This has allowed the President the freedom to fight undeclared wars around the world for decades, while spending trillions, with no approval from Congress.
• LBJ’s Great Society programs such as Medicare and Medicaid were sold to Americans as cost saving programs that would improve healthcare for all Americans. We now spend 17% of our GDP on healthcare and these two programs have an unfunded liability of almost $100 trillion.

• Nixon closing the gold window in 1971 removed all restraint on the Federal Reserve, banks and politicians. With a fiat currency backed by nothing but promises, it was only a matter of time before the greed and corruption of bankers and politicians overcame any self imposed fiscal responsibility. The result has been the National Debt going from $400 billion in 1971 to $14.4 trillion today, a 3,600% increase in 40 years. Meanwhile, GDP only increased 1,350% over this same time frame.
• The embrace of consumer debt by the Baby Boom generation beginning in 1980 created an atmosphere of living for today and not worrying about the future. This attitude has left 50% of all the households in the country with a net worth of $70,000 or below.
• The repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999 unleashed the hounds of hell upon America, as the soulless blood sucking vampires on Wall Street proceeded to rape and pillage the American economy with their financial derivatives of mass destruction and marketing of debt to the clueless masses. The housing bust and impoverishment of the middle class can be laid at the feet of these evil greedy bastards.
• Bush’s unpaid for wars of choice, his reckless tax cuts, and his foolish expansion of a bankrupt Medicare program in the midst of two wars turbo charged the country on its path to default.
• By bailing out Wall Street on the backs of the middle class in 2008/2009, the politicians in this country showed their hand. They will protect their fellow power brokers and contributors and throw the American people under the bus. Wall Street controls Congress.
• The Keynesian schemes rolled out by Obama and his minions have just added trillions of debt while depressing the economic system and doing nothing to help the average person. The Fed created inflation has inflamed revolution through out the world and further impoverished the middle class who need to eat and fill up their cars.
• In the midst of a Depression Obama chose to create a brand new healthcare bureaucracy, add 30 million people into the government controlled system, and commit the US taxpayer to trillions of future healthcare costs.

As you can see, next Tuesday means nothing. The debt ceiling means nothing. We chose to default as a nation many years ago. The destination was certain, only the timing was in question. Time to step on the gas.

“Credit expansion is not a nostrum to make people happy. The boom it engenders must inevitably lead to a debacle and unhappiness.” – Ludwig von Mises

Bush says slow reaction on 9/11 was deliberate decision

Bush says slow reaction on 9/11 was deliberate decision - BlackListedNews.com

Source: Reuters

Former President George W. Bush says his apparent lack of reaction to the first news of the September 11 2001 attacks was a conscious decision to project an aura of calm in a crisis.

In a rare interview with the National Geographic Channel, Bush reflects on what was going through his mind at the most dramatic moment of his presidency when he was informed that a second passenger jet had hit New York's World Trade Center.

Bush was visiting a Florida classroom and the incident, which was caught on TV film, and has often been used by critics to ridicule his apparently blank face.

"My first reaction was anger. Who the hell would do that to America? Then I immediately focused on the children, and the contrast between the attack and the innocence of children," Bush says in an excerpt of the interview shown to television writers on Thursday.

Bush said he could see the news media at the back of the classroom getting the news on their own cellphones "and it was like watching a silent movie."

Bush said he quickly realized that a lot of people beyond the classroom would be watching for his reaction.

Read Full Article Here

Lockheed Martin Wins $72 Million Contract To Install Body Scanners

» Lockheed Martin Wins $72 Million Contract To Install Body Scanners Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

TSA to continue using radiation-firing devices despite availability of safe alternative

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, July 29, 2011

Even as the US economy teeters on the brink of default, the federal government has handed a $72 million dollar contract to defense contractor Lockheed Martin to install radiation-firing body scanners at 300 more airports across the east and central United States, despite the availability of devices that do not rely on radiation to function.

“Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) has been awarded two regional task orders totalling $72 million to help TSA integrate and deploy new passenger screening and security equipment at airports across the east and central United States,” states the press release.

The defense contractor is virtually tied at the hip with the U.S. government, receiving tens of billions of dollars in contracts every year, and has a substantial lobbying budget which is used to support Congress members and Senators who “advocate national defense and relevant business issues.”

Despite the TSA’s recent announcement that it plans to install a “privacy friendly” software update that will dispense with images that show intricate details of a person’s naked body, the devices will continue to use radiation in order to function.

This is a completely unnecessary health risk given the fact that Sony Corporation is already using scanners that don’t rely on any form of energy being fired into the body to work, instead using “passive energy” to produce an image that also shows a generic outline of a person’s body.

In addition, Australian airports have begun trialing body scanning technology that neither emits any form of radiation, nor produces a naked image of the person passing through it.

Economic Grows at Sluggish 1.3%; Consumers Pull Back

Economic Grows at Sluggish 1.3%; Consumers Pull Back - CNBC

The U.S. economy grew less than expected in the second quarter as consumer spending barely rose, and growth braked sharply in the prior quarter, a government report showed on Friday.

Growth in gross domestic product—a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders—rose at a 1.3 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said.

First-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from 1.9 percent.

Economists had expected the economy to expand at a 1.8 percent rate in the second quarter.

Rand Paul on CNN 07/28/11

Members pressured on debt seek sanctuary South Carolina Trio

WASHINGTON | Members pressured on debt seek sanctuary | The Herald - Rock Hill, SC

By LAURIE KELLMAN - Associated Press

WASHINGTON --

The stare-down over the debt limit debate had become so fierce that a trio of South Carolina Republicans, pressured by their leaders to agree to a bill they didn't like, sought answers from a higher power.

"I'm going to pray on it," Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., said late Thursday.

He ducked into a locked, little-known room tucked between the Rotunda walls and House Speaker John Boehner's office. Soon, fellow South Carolina Republicans Mick Mulvaney and Tim Scott punched the door combination and joined him.

Scott seemed the least burdened of the three. For him, "divine inspiration already happened."

"I was a lean no. Now I'm a no," he said with a grin.

The trio settled into chairs in the small, high-ceilinged room, which is dominated by a stained glass window that does not face the outside and fills the entire wall. A light behind it reveals George Washington at its center, on bended knee.

Their retreat lasted about 10 minutes. House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, deep into the difficult task of rounding up enough votes to pass Boehner's debt ceiling plan, had summoned the lawmakers to his office for pizza and a chat. They ambled downstairs and joined a parade of Republican colleagues filing into McCarthy's office who had not committed to voting for Boehner's bill.

Read more: http://www.heraldonline.com/2011/07/29/3255917/members-pressured-on-debt-seek.html#ixzz1TUtoN0te