November 20, 9:58 PMLA County Libertarian ExaminerMartin Hill

The following is a comprehensive summary of Congressman Ron Paul’s public comments on the subject of “9/11 truth”, if 9/11/01 was possibly part of a government conspiracy.

JANUARY 17, 2007:
On the Alex Jones show, (with Jack Blood guest-hosting) Ron Paul says  “..a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it.”

“CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
[Full MP3 link. Discussed here and here.]

FEBRUARY 2007:

Ron Paul is questioned by Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth and says he would support a new 9/11 investigation. Thanks to SST911.org.

JUNE 16, 2007: Among Supporters in an airport, Ron Paul says that the 9/11 investigation, similar to that of JFK, Waco, Ruby Ridge, amounts to a ‘coverup’.
Thanks to 9/11 Truth TUCSON.  Ron Paul asked about 911, Phoenix, AZ

FALL, 2007: Ron Paul,  At The Arab American Institute Conference in Dearborn, Michigan,
At minute 11:00 while referring to republican congressmen, Paul says: “9/11 changed everything.. and they loved it”. Paul also discusses the neocons calls for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ type event, which later ‘fell into their lap’.

SEPTEMBER 11, 2007:
On KFI Radio Los Angeles, Ron Paul is asked about Alex Jones and if he will denounce 9/11 truth.
The host John Zeigler, who is a neocon gatekeeper and ardent supporter if Bush’s “war on terror” , was eventually fired from KFI for what he claims were problems with KFI host John Kobylt. Kobylt recently got angry when a caller brought up 9/11 truth on air (before being cut off) in November 2009.

DECEMBER 18, 2007:
Ron Paul says 911 conspiracies are “PREPOSTEROUS” and “bizzare”. CNN’s Glenn Beck also mentions Rosie O’Donnell and Charlie Sheen. Paul says that he shouldn’t even have to answer questions like that. At Minute 3.

Dec. 18, 2007:  Ron Paul Interviewed By Glenn Beck on CNN, Glenn Beck says that Ron Paul supporters have threatened his life.
[Editor Question: Has a single Ron Paul supporter, or anyone for that matter, been arrested for these alleged threats against Beck,  or charged with making such threats? if so, what is their name? If not, why not?]

 
JANUARY 10, 2008: Ron Paul denounces 9/11 truth during nationally televised presidential debate in South Carolina.
Q. Many of your supporters call themselves ‘9/11 Truthers’. They believe that the U.S. government was in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or covered it up. Are you tonight prepared to either embrace that rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it, or divorce themselves from your candidacy?

Paul: Well, I can’t tell people what to do, but I’ve abandoned those viewpoints, I don’t believe that, and that’s all.. that’s the only thing that is important, and so I don’t endorse anything they say,
but I would like to take an opportunity to talk about the issue that we’ve been debating here for the last 20 minutes.

Q. Sir, would you ask them to cease that rhetoric tonight on your behalf?

Paul: Well it doesn’t do me any good, so if they care about me they should, but the only thing I have control over is what I believe and what i say. I can’t tell them what to do,  so I don’t endorse what they say and I don’t believe that, so please, could I participate in the current debate rather than talking this out?

A. please do. Please do. Please do. Please do.

JUNE 18, 2008: On MSNBC Morning Joe,
Ron Paul says “Osama Bin Laden LOVES What We Have Done!”. At minute 4:00.

JUNE 19, 2008:  Ron Paul: I have NOT Accepted the 9/11 Investigation [Thanks to NWOtruth.com/] Ron Paul is asked about 9/11 truth and Alex Jones film ENDGAME.
Ron Paul: Doesn’t Accept 9/11 Investigation

September 2, 2008:
JESSE VENTURA on 911 at the Ron Paul Rally For The Republic   9/2/08 Part 3 (Great Clip!)

September 3, 2008: Ron Paul on Glenn Beck show,  discusses Jesse Ventura’s 9/11 comments at minute 3:40.

Posted July 19. 2009:  WeAreChangeLA questions Ron Paul about the IMF as well as 9-11 Truth
Q. “One last thing. why dont you come out about the truth about 9/11?

Paul: “Because i cant handle the controversy, i have the IMF and federal reserve to deal with..
i have too many things on my plate”..
[Discussed here and here.]

[View this page with videos embedded, at LibertyFight.com]

Related:

Hannity tells Chuck Norris that Ron Paul is nuts

Obama dodges question (twice) about whether A bomb on Japan was right

Clearchannel hosts thwarted during Maj. Hasan 9/11 propaganda session

Police state measures at the statue of liberty

Commissioner Bob Kerrey confronted with questions regarding 9/11/01

Mike Farrell: 9/11 Was Not A Government Conspiracy

Ron Paul on 9/11 conspiracies (in chronological order)

November 20, 9:58 PMLA County Libertarian ExaminerMartin Hill

Previous

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the LA County Libertarian Examiner. Read Examiner.com’s terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

The following is a comprehensive summary of Congressman Ron Paul’s public comments on the subject of “9/11 truth”, if 9/11/01 was possibly part of a government conspiracy.

JANUARY 17, 2007:
On the Alex Jones show, (with Jack Blood guest-hosting) Ron Paul says 

 “..a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it.”

“CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
[Full MP3 link. Discussed here and here.]

FEBRUARY 2007:

Ron Paul is questioned by Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth and says he would support a new 9/11 investigation. Thanks to SST911.org.

JUNE 16, 2007: Among Supporters in an airport, Ron Paul says that the 9/11 investigation, similar to that of JFK, Waco, Ruby Ridge, amounts to a ‘coverup’.
Thanks to 9/11 Truth TUCSON.  Ron Paul asked about 911, Phoenix, AZ

FALL, 2007: Ron Paul,  At The Arab American Institute Conference in Dearborn, Michigan,
At minute 11:00 while referring to republican congressmen, Paul says: “9/11 changed everything.. and they loved it”. Paul also discusses the neocons calls for a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ type event, which later ‘fell into their lap’.

SEPTEMBER 11, 2007:
On KFI Radio Los Angeles, Ron Paul is asked about Alex Jones and if he will denounce 9/11 truth.
The host John Zeigler, who is a neocon gatekeeper and ardent supporter if Bush’s “war on terror” , was eventually fired from KFI for what he claims were problems with KFI host John Kobylt. Kobylt recently got angry when a caller brought up 9/11 truth on air (before being cut off) in November 2009.

DECEMBER 18, 2007:
Ron Paul says 911 conspiracies are “PREPOSTEROUS” and “bizzare”. CNN’s Glenn Beck also mentions Rosie O’Donnell and Charlie Sheen. Paul says that he shouldn’t even have to answer questions like that. At Minute 3.

Dec. 18, 2007:  Ron Paul Interviewed By Glenn Beck on CNN, Glenn Beck says that Ron Paul supporters have threatened his life.
[Editor Question: Has a single Ron Paul supporter, or anyone for that matter, been arrested for these alleged threats against Beck,  or charged with making such threats? if so, what is their name? If not, why not?]

 
JANUARY 10, 2008: Ron Paul denounces 9/11 truth during nationally televised presidential debate in South Carolina.
Q. Many of your supporters call themselves ‘9/11 Truthers’. They believe that the U.S. government was in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or covered it up. Are you tonight prepared to either embrace that rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it, or divorce themselves from your candidacy?

Paul: Well, I can’t tell people what to do, but I’ve abandoned those viewpoints, I don’t believe that, and that’s all.. that’s the only thing that is important, and so I don’t endorse anything they say,
but I would like to take an opportunity to talk about the issue that we’ve been debating here for the last 20 minutes.

Q. Sir, would you ask them to cease that rhetoric tonight on your behalf?

Paul: Well it doesn’t do me any good, so if they care about me they should, but the only thing I have control over is what I believe and what i say. I can’t tell them what to do,  so I don’t endorse what they say and I don’t believe that, so please, could I participate in the current debate rather than talking this out?

A. please do. Please do. Please do. Please do.

JUNE 18, 2008: On MSNBC Morning Joe,
Ron Paul says “Osama Bin Laden LOVES What We Have Done!”. At minute 4:00.

JUNE 19, 2008:  Ron Paul: I have NOT Accepted the 9/11 Investigation [Thanks to NWOtruth.com/] Ron Paul is asked about 9/11 truth and Alex Jones film ENDGAME.
Ron Paul: Doesn’t Accept 9/11 Investigation

September 2, 2008:
JESSE VENTURA on 911 at the Ron Paul Rally For The Republic   9/2/08 Part 3 (Great Clip!)

September 3, 2008: Ron Paul on Glenn Beck show,  discusses Jesse Ventura’s 9/11 comments at minute 3:40.

Posted July 19. 2009:  WeAreChangeLA questions Ron Paul about the IMF as well as 9-11 Truth
Q. “One last thing. why dont you come out about the truth about 9/11?

Paul: “Because i cant handle the controversy, i have the IMF and federal reserve to deal with..
i have too many things on my plate”..
[Discussed here and here.]

[View this page with videos embedded, at LibertyFight.com]

Related:

Hannity tells Chuck Norris that Ron Paul is nuts

Obama dodges question (twice) about whether A bomb on Japan was right

Clearchannel hosts thwarted during Maj. Hasan 9/11 propaganda session

Police state measures at the statue of liberty

Commissioner Bob Kerrey confronted with questions regarding 9/11/01

Mike Farrell: 9/11 Was Not A Government Conspiracy

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Where affluent Lithuanians once rode show horses and sipped coffee at a café, the CIA installed a concrete structure where it could use harsh tactics to interrogate up to eight suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at a time.

“The activities in that prison were illegal,” said human rights researcher John Sifton. “They included various forms of torture, including sleep deprivation, forced standing, painful stress positions.”

Lithuanian officials provided ABC News with the documents of what they called a CIA front company, Elite, LLC, which purchased the property and built the “black site” in 2004.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cia-secret-prison-found/story?id=9115978

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-27692-LA-County-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Palin-and-Beck-2012-A-match-straight-out-of-hades

Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska who is making the media rounds promoting her book Going Rogue, has said that she would consider TV host Glen Beck as a running mate if she ran for president in two years:
 

• “I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I’m not there yet.. But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He’s a hoot. He gets his message across in such a clever way. And he’s so bold – I have to respect that. He calls it like he sees it, and he’s very, very, very effective.”

Palin, touted as a conservative who might save the faultering Republican party, cemented her standard establishment line on Israeli policy in an interview with Barbara Walters airing this week, saying ‘the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon‘, even if it encroaches into Palestinian areas.

An Israeli flag was seen displayed in her gubernatorial office in a February 2008 interview, 
with Palin making the shocking remark that the ‘only flag in my office’ is Israeli” when she met Israeli President Shmon Peres along with John McCain in September 08 at an event hosted by Bill Clinton. “I wanted to meet you for many years…The only flag at my office is an Israeli flag, and I want you to know and I want Israelis to know that I am a friend.”, Palin said.

Beck meanwhile, an admitted alcoholic and recovering drug addict, is touted by some as a ’staunch libertarian’. Beck is Mormon, otherwise referred to as “the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”, which is described as “a pseudo-religion designated as a cult by many religious and secular organizations and fitting many, if not most, of the classically designated characteristics which define cult activity”.  Mormon publications have described Beck as  “one of the most influential Mormons in the media today”.

‘Focus on the Family’ pulled a Glenn Beck interview over his Mormon faith  in December 2008, with their spokesman Gary Schneeberger explaining to news outlets that “differences in the Mormon faith and the historical evangelical faith are not inconsequential”… adding that “some from our base” were concerned that the interview aimed to “signal theological compromise.”
 

The Christian ministry group Underground Apologetics had initiated the criticism of Focus on The Family’s promotional interview of Beck, stating:

• “While Glenn’s social views are compatible with many Christian views, his beliefs in Mormonism are not. Clearly, Mormonism is a cult. The CitizenLink story does not mention Beck’s Mormon faith, however, the story makes it look as if Beck is a Christian who believes in the essential doctrines of the faith…..to promote a Mormon as a Christian is not helpful to the cause of Jesus Christ. For Christians to influence society, Christians should be promoting the central issues of the faith properly without opening the door to false religions.
• Some of the false doctrines of Mormonism include polytheism, an attack on the trinity, that Jesus was the spirit-brother of Lucifer, that God the Father is married to Mother God, temple baptisms for the dead, the Bible has missing parts and many errors.”

Politically, Beck touts himself as a conservative and purported libertarian, but doesn’t mind the fact that
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele’s is ‘pro-choice’. This logic fits right in line with neocon Republicans Rudy Giulliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who betray their so-called base with their views while being continuously lauded as Republican heros. In a March 2009 interview, Beck told an interviewer “Yeah, I’m a libertarian, man. I am pro-life, but in my perfect world, we encourage people to make decisions that are pro-life. That’s the way it works”

While claiming to be a libertarian, Beck supports the myriad of undeclared wars launched by George W. Bush, endorses the patriot act, and showed disdain for Ron Paul supporters in November 2007 during the presidential election, with PrisonPlanet.com documenting the fallout:

• Complaints Flood CNN After Beck Smears Ron Paul Supporters As Terrorists
• “Complaints and demands for a retraction and an apology are flooding CNN today after Neo-Con host Glenn Beck and ex-Marxist David Horowitz smeared Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left as terrorist sympathizers and inferred that the U.S. military should be used to silence them, parroting a talking point that traces back to a September 2006 White House directive”

In reality, “Glenn Beck is a Neocon Not a Libertarian” , as this youtube video so brilliantly illustrates [with 300+ comments]
In a candidly honest appraisal, the Libertarian Party Co-Founder David Nolan Calls Sarah Palin A Shill, Glenn Beck A Wanna-Be Libertarian in an October 2009 radio interview.

Palin, meanwhile, in an MTV interview during her vice-presidential bid, referred to Ron Paul as “cool.” adding “He’s a good guy,.. He’s so independent. He’s independent of the party machine. I’m like, ‘Right on, so am I.”

Congressman Paul however, in a Politico interview in July of this year, threw cold water on the Palin hysteria that seems to be sweeping through the GOP:
 

• “As for soon-to-be departing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Paul dismisses her supporters as “more establishment, conventional Country-Club type of Republicans.”  “I wonder whether she’s energizing the 15-20 year olds,” Paul muses. “That would be a question I would have. Because she doesn’t talk about the Federal Reserve and some of these issues. She doesn’t talk too much about personal liberties, civil liberties, getting rid of drug laws, attacking the war on drugs, punishing people who torture.”
  Worse still, he adds, Palinites are partisans: “If Obama was the only one who was guilty, they would be on his case all the time, but there is a lot of partisanship and I am probably less partisan and therefore she is going to appeal to partisan Republicans better.” As Paul sees it, such partisanship is the rough equivalent of an old Onion headline, “”Our local area sports team is superior to your local area sports team,” Or as he puts it, “I think when it comes to foreign policy and monetary policy on big spending and watching out for the big corporations, Republicans are Democrats”

It should be interesting to watch as the circus develops over the next two years, with statists of every stripe fawning over their D or R celebrity puppet candidate. Meanwhile, I wish them well in buying and selling their books, while the people who genuinely care about freedom can continue to expose the phonies, and strive for liberty in our time.

Related:

Total Government convictions for IRS tax crimes: 666

Palin continues standard establishment line on Israeli policy

Ten year old uses marijuana for autism, with positive results

Glenn Beck is clearly a Neocon, Not a Libertarian

Tea Party in Santa Monica in 2007, before the movement was co-opted by neocon shills.
Tea Party 2007

Related Posts:

• The only juice left in the Republican Party is the Ron Paul Revolution
• Secret State Police Report: Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Libertarians are Terrorists
• Ron Paul: ‘Pretty sad’ that Limbaugh is GOP leader
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world
• Bailout for the People

November 18, 12:19 PMLA County Libertarian ExaminerMartin Hill

Sarah Palin, Vice-presidential candidate on the GOP ticket in 2008, was interviewed by Barbara Walters of ABC News and cemented her previously stated viewpoint as a staunch supporter of Israel. With the release of her new book ‘GOING ROGUE: An American Life’ and chatter of a possible Palin 2012 presidential run, her view on foreign policy in particular is getting the attention of pundits and politial junkies. Palin’s latest statement on Israel is nothing new, however, since her position on the matter has been clear for some time to anyone paying attention.

In an article entitled Sarah Palin: A Closet Zionist? from September 2008, IsraeliNationalNews reported on an unearthed video interview of Palin from February of the same year in which an Israeli flag was seen displayed in her gubernatorial office. 

Michael Collins Piper of the AmericanFreePress reported during the presidential campaign on Palin’s views regarding Israel and foreign policy, particularly as it related to her religious faith. He noted how “the [Washington] Times’ religion writer, Ralph Z. Hallow, said she is a disciple of the theme that preservation of modern-day Israel is “a biblical imperative.” Hallow said Mrs. Palin’s religious ideology “makes her a favorite with the staunchly pro-Israel neo-conservative elements in the Republican Party.”
 

Starting around the 03:20 mark in the latest interview, Walters questions Palin about the Middle East:
 

• Walters: “Now let’s talk about some issues, the Middle East. The Obama
• administration does not want Israel to build any more settlements on what they consider Palestinian territory; what is your view on this?”
•  
• Palin: “I disagree with the Obama administration on that. I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.”
•  
• Walters: “Even if its Palestinian areas?”
•  
• Palin: “I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to expand.”

Palin is touted by many Republicans as one who may return the party to it’s purported limited government Constitutional platform. Yet as Ron Paul pointed out in his landmark 2003 Congressional address We’ve Been Neo-Conned, supporting an empire along with extensive foreign entanglements will only result in deficits and a loss of liberty. Congressman Paul, who broke fundraising records during his presidential bid and recieved more money from the military than other candidates,  explains neo-con’s philosophy as it relates to israel: “They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it… They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party”.

True limited government conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists, particularly if they are still members of the Republican party,  should concede that meddling in foreign entanglements and promoting the ideology of foreign governments will never result in the liberty they claim to restore. Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin addressed this issue during the 2008 campaign.  In his column Ron Paul’s Israel Problem, Balwin wrote: “If the United States continues on its current path of aggressive, preemptive war, incessant nation-building, empire-building, and globalism, our country will collapse”. Balwin, a protestant Christian minister, continued, “The problem is, some Christians seem to give more loyalty and support to the government of Israel than they do their own country’s independence and freedom.”

 During Palin’s ABC interview, she also discussed her daughter’s unwed pregancy with Walters, stating “That’s why I was shocked..Truthfully, we were devastated”.
 

Israeli flag flies in Palin’s office

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Will Obama cop to the lies he told America before the health care bill passed?
White House Photo

President Obama appeared on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos in September, insisting that the penalty for those who don’t buy health insurance is not a tax. However, with the passage of  H.R. 3962, otherwise known as the “Affordable Health Care for America Act”, the exact opposite has proven to be true.

A letter from Thomas A Barthold, Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, specifies clearly and repeatedly that the penalty for the non-insured is indeed a tax, with potential prosecution and jail time for those who do not comply.The 4 page letter, sent to Rep. Dave Camp on Guy Fawkes day, was in response to the Michigan Republican’s questions 

 Barthold explained that the bill contains a “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage” and added that the goal of the IRS “is consistency, fairness and predicttabilty in administration of penalties”, also pointing out that the total number of convictions the government won in tax evasion cases was 666.

“if the government determined that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply” Barthold explained, adding that there is a religious conscience exemption in the bill as well.

Several media outlets reported on the exchange between Obama and Stephanopoulos in September, with many covering potential jail time for non compliance. The left gatekeepers made a partisan issue out of it, but few addressed the fundamental question of  the constitutionality of universally mandated healthcare.

Following is an excerpt of the exchange between Obama and  the ABC host on THIS WEEK. Now that the facts have come out, will Obama respond?
——————————————

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t .. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on.  If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to 446 get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.
People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.  Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Related:

Successful tax attorney Jeff Dickstein gives advice to potential non filers

Related Posts:

• Obama and Workers’ Rights in America
• Dick Armey: Obamacare Will be ‘Ruthless’ to Patients, Elderly
• Honduran government hires fiction writer to hawk coup regime
• Brookings “Experts” Admit Stimulus a Bust
• Little gems from the Health Care Bill

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-27692-LA-County-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m11d17-10-year-old-uses-marijuana-for-autism-with-positive-results

Sam’s father told reporter Cher Calvin that his son had been hurting other children at school, pulling the television down, destroying furniture, etc.His dad would have to put the boy in a hold for an hour, while he had spasms, until he eventually calmed down.

The parents had consulted the conventional ‘experts’; doctors who put Sam on prescription drugs, which resulted in the boy gaining twenty pounds. “Hes getting more dangerous, bigger, stronger”, recalled Sam’s mom.

“At their wits end and facing the need to institutionalize son”, KTLA reported, the family then opted for an unconventional and controversial treatment: medical marijuana. They report that it has been “very calming”. They had initially made an appointment with a medical canabis doctor.

They now grow Sam’s “new medicine” in their back yard. The father took out his tomato plants to make room to grows the medicine in a concentrated form. His “pent up rage” and  anxiousness went away. they said. They started the treatment when he was 8, and give it as needed, which is not necessarily every day. The father puts it in a piece of melon and gives it to his boy.: “that’s good, yeah”.

Within 20 minutes effects were clear, says the reported who spent some time with the family.
 He was “calm, relaxed and social” after taking his “spec of hash” in front of the news crew.
“The more I tell people the more comfortable I am”, says the mother when asked how sahe exaplins this treatment to others. A Dr. Tolcher, consulted by KTLA, says this is intriguing, but needs more research.

“It was just a medication that gave us results we were hoping for”, says Sam’s dad, who can help his son, “instead of depending on doctors”. Sam is now smiling and laughing again, said his mom.
Calvin notes that the family has “followed the letter of the law”  and grown the canibis as alowed under California Prop 15. those under prop 215. You can watch the KTLA 5 News Report here.

Meanwhile, the feds continue to raid medical pot clinice throughout California. The National Organization for the Reform of marijuana laws is a non-profit, public-interest lobby that opposes marijuana prohibition, and reported today that “health-related costs per user are eight times higher for drinkers than they are for those who use cannabis, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers, according to a report published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal’.
 

Presenting a comprehensive history of marijuana DrugLibrary.org reports that “Dr. William C. Woodward, legislative counsel of the American Medical Association…was roundly insulted for his audacity in daring to question the wisdom of the ‘MARIHUANA TAX ACT OF 1937″. which they report was “the first assertion of federal authority over marijuana”.

Related Posts:

• 5th graders taught about ‘hate crimes’, taken to Museum of Tolerance by Prosecutors
• Chronic City: To Tax Pot, Or Not? Oakland Votes Tuesday
• The Drug War: A Bonanza for the Enemies of Freedom
• Hemp Bill Introduced In Congress
• MISSOURI STATE POLICE THINK YOU AND I ARE TERRORISTS

November 16, 4:14 AMLA County Libertarian ExaminerMartin Hill

Thomas A Barthold, Chief of Staff of the Congressional ‘Joint Committee on Taxation, released a 4 page letter on Guy Fawkes day Nov. 5th,  in response to Republican Congressman Dave Camp of Michigan.
Camp had inquired about H.R. 3962, otherwise known as the “Affordable Health care for America Act”. Barthold began by recouting how  Camp had “specifically inquired about penalties for a willful failure to comply” with provisions of the bill.

He explained that the bill contains a “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage” and adds that the goal of the IRS is “consistency, fairness and predicttability in administration of penalties”. Barthold continued “if the government determined that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply” and outlines ‘civil penalties section 6662(a), 6663″, etc.

Barton reassures Camp of the Justice Department and IRS benevolence: “Criminal prosecution is not authorized without careful review by both the IRS and the Department of Justice. In practice the application of criminal penalties is infrequent. in fiscal year 2009, the total cases referred for prosecution of legal source tax crimes were as follows:”
 

• Investigations initiated: 1,531

• Indictments and Informations: 757

• Convictions: 666

Barthold added, “of the 666 convictions reported above for fiscal year 2008, fewer than 100 were convictions for willful failure to file or pay taxes under section 7203…..compared to the 666 convictions, approximately 392,000 accuracy related penalties were assessed on individual returns”. He stated that in 2009, the IRS assessed 5,502 penalties under section 6702 for “frivolous positions taken on returns”.

He concludes by telling Camp “I hope this information is helpful for you. if i can be of further assistance, please contact me.”

Thomas A Barthold’s salar, as listed in the Congressional Staffer Salary Data data, was $167,499.96 in 2008. It appears to have increased in 2009; every 45 days he is paid $ 21,562.50, serving as Chief of Staff. He also takes some trips such as to the Miami School of Law, where he had “lunch with students and faculty’“.
Also of interest in the letter was a line that included two footnotes, one of which referenced defendants who held the belief that tax laws were unconstitutional:

• “… a prosecution for willful failure to pay under section 7203 requires proof beyong a reasonable doubt both that the taxpayer intentionally violated a known legal duty [4] and that the taxpayer had the ability to pay [5].”

• 4. United States V Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10 (1976) but see, Cheek V, united States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), in which the Supreme Court vacated and remanded a conviction, holding that the defendant charged with tax evasion was entitled to an instruction to the jury on good faith misunderstanding of the tax law, other than with respect to supposed unconstitutionality of the tax laws, regardless of whether or not his beliefs could be considered objectionally reasonable.
•  
• 5 Spies v United States, 317 U.S. 492 (1943)

The letter also referred to a religious conscience exemption, which would exclude people from the obligation to purchase insurance. Jeff Dickstein, who successfully represented former IRS agent Joe Bannister on tax charges, gave advice to potential non-filers when questioned at a conference about the issue.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

November 14, 10:13 PMLA County Libertarian ExaminerMartin Hill

District attorney Michael Carter views the program as a preventive measure, and is quoted on the L.E.A.D. website: “We’re reaching them before there is an adversarial relationship”.
Ken Bell, a “Senior Investigator”, states “The best thing about Project LEAD is that you can make some positive image changes in the way kids see law enforcement; you have a chance to dispel some rumors as to what law enforcement is about in a very positive environment”.
 

Directly underneath Bell’s remarks is a quote by Michael Bullotta, Assistant United States Attorney.
Bullotta was involved in the prosecution of criminal police officers in Detroit in 2004, and might actually be an appropriate L.E.A.D. speaker for students. Writing in a court filing about the Detroit case, Bullota recounted:  “The officers planted drugs and guns on their victims. They claimed that the arrests of the victims occurred in public when actually (the) defendants entered the victims homes illegally and arrested them. They repeatedly made false claims of ‘hot pursuit’ to justify unlawful entries. They caused bodily injury to the victims and concealed that,”…

In the L.E.A.D. program, prosecutors, investigators and ‘other professionals’ who work for the state discuss various issues with captive students: ”The lessons consist of instruction on law and an analytical approach to solving hypotheticals involving drug use, gang involvement, theft, hate crimes, driving under the influence, truancy, graffiti, and other issues. The curriculum also focuses on self-esteem, conflict resolution, and peer pressure. The program is strengthened by presentations from law enforcement officers and judges-even drug sniffing dogs- as well as field trips to Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, the Museum of Tolerance, and a local courthouse.”

The website concludes “At the end of the 20-week course of study, Project L.E.A.D. students conduct a mock trial involving either drug selling or gun possession on campus. 

Their pamphlet notes that “The program’s curriculum recently was updated and improved to make it even more effective”, but doesn’t specify what sort of changes were made, or by whom.

RELATED & SUGGESTED READING:

Cops conduct “Shoulder Tap Decoy Program” throughout state

Why everyone should fight their traffic tickets- every time

Schoolgirl strip searched for having asprin

Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms: Ron Paul on “hate crimes”.

Gun Control and the Plot for a Fascist Police State in America

Cops Beat The Hell Out Of Handicapped Man, Try to Frame Him- Busted By Video

UN And ADL Want Global Hate Crimes Laws

Rise in militias, ‘lone wolf’ militants alarms officials
 

SPLC Insinuates Alex Jones, Infowars Mobilizing Armed Insurrection
 

CALIFORNIA DREAMING: Police have no obligation to protect any individual from harm

House Subcommittee Presentation Equates 9/11 Truth With Terrorism

Related Posts:

• In the Shadow of Leviathan: Americas’ Arising Fear-Based Society
• Alert! Still Time To Kill The Hate Bill

Questioned at a joint press conference in Tokyo, Japan, President Obama yesterday dodged the question from a Japanese reporter about whether or not he thought the U.S. nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do. The reporter reiterated the question after it was not answered, and Obama moved on to another topic.

From whitehouse.gov:

“Q Fuji Television. Matsuyama is my name. I’d like to ask both leaders — first to Prime Minister Hatoyama …

…And to President Obama, you are a proponent of a nuclear-free world, and you’ve stated, first of all, you would like to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki while in office. Do you have this desire? And what is your understanding of the historical meaning of the A-bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you think that it was the right decision?

And also considering the North Korean situation, how do you think the U.S.-Japan alliance should be strengthened, and how should both countries cooperate in the field of nuclear disarmament?

And also on the Futenma relocation issue, by when do you think the issue needs to be resolved? And should it be that Japan carry over the discussion — decision to next year, or decide on something outside of what is being discussed? How would you respond?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I am impressed that the Japanese journalists use the same strategy as American journalists — (laughter) — in asking multiple questions.

Let me, first of all, insist that the United States and Japan are equal partners. We have been and we will continue to be. Each country brings specific assets and strengths to the relationship, but we proceed based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and that will continue.

That’s reflected in the Japan-U.S. alliance. It will be reflected in the resolution of the base realignment issues related to Futenma. As the Prime Minister indicated, we discussed this. The United States and Japan have set up a high-level working group that will focus on implementation of the agreement that our two governments reached with respect to the restructuring of U.S. forces in Okinawa, and we hope to complete this work expeditiously.

Our goal remains the same, and that’s to provide for the defense of Japan with minimal intrusion on the lives of the people who share this space. And I have to say that I am extraordinarily proud and grateful for the men and women in uniform from the United States who help us to honor our obligations to the alliance and our treaties.

With respect to nuclear weapons and the issues of non-proliferation, this is an area where Prime Minister Hatoyama and I have discussed repeatedly in our meetings. We share, I think, a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. We recognize, though, that this is a distant goal, and we have to take specific steps in the interim to meet this goal. It will take time. It will not be reached probably even in our own lifetimes. But in seeking this goal we can stop the spread of nuclear weapons; we can secure loose nuclear weapons; we can strengthen the non-proliferation regime.

As long as nuclear weapons exist, we will retain our deterrent for our people and our allies, but we are already taking steps to bring down our nuclear stockpiles and — in cooperation with the Russian government — and we want to continue to work on the non-proliferation issues.

Now, obviously Japan has unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And that I’m sure helps to motivate the Prime Minister’s deep interest in this issue. I certainly would be honored, it would be meaningful for me to visit those two cities in the future. I don’t have immediate travel plans, but it’s something that would be meaningful to me.

You had one more question, and I’m not sure I remember it. Was it North Korea?

Q Whether or not you believe that the U.S. dropped a nuclear weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki — it was right?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, there were three sets of questions, right? You asked about North Korea?

Q I have North Korea as well, yes.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yes. With respect to North Korea, ….(etc.)

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Was Fort Hood really the target of a terrorist attack? The first clue to the real culprit emerged when Senator Joe Lieberman sought to blame this mass murder on the U.S. military. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, he promised hearings on how the Pentagon protects its personnel from domestic terrorists.
Will Lieberman, an avowed Zionist, use this incident to insist that the U.S. do more to protect Jewish nationalists? More importantly, what do his concerns mean for homeland security?

Joe Lieberman has an ally in Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security. In April, this former Arizona governor warned about potential terrorism from U.S. troops returning from deployment in the Middle East. Though roundly attacked, she defended her position, calling it an “assessment not an accusation.”

When Army Major Nidal Hasan killed U.S. troops on the nation’s largest military base, was this evidence of “militant Islam”? Or did this military psychiatrist snap under pressure while treating returning vets on a base averaging ten suicides a month? Is there an undisclosed agenda behind those seeking to portray this act as the work of “Islamo fascists”?

To answer these questions requires a grasp of how “assets” are deployed by those skilled at waging war by way of deception. An asset is someone who has been profiled in sufficient depth that-when placed in a pre-staged time, place and circumstance-the person can be relied on to behave consistent with their profile.

Best Story Wins

Since the end of the Cold War, the predominant geopolitical narrative has been The Clash of Civilizations and its military counterpart: The Global War on Terrorism. How better to advance that storyline than to kill American soldiers even before they leave the U.S.? What’s the motive?

Imagine if the intelligence that induced the U.S. to war was proven “fixed” around a preset goal. What if the common source of that treachery is poised to become transparent? If you were complicit in this deception (an act of treason), how would you obscure those facts? How would you sustain a “Muslim terrorist” narrative once the intelligence “facts” are exposed as pre-staged fictions meant to advance an undisclosed Israeli agenda?

For those marketing The Clash premise, Dr. Hasan’s psychotic break was a blessing. At Family Security Matters, President Carol Taber describes this incident as “the Ft. Hood terrorist attack” by an “Islamist gunman.” Editor Pam Meister promotes “the shocking TRUTH (sic) behind these attacks so that we might ward off those yet to come.” Executive Vice-President Linda Cohen, who also serves as a trustee of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), offers advice certain to appeal to Lieberman and Napolitano:

“No one is safe now. Not you, not the military, not your children, not office workers nor subway riders, nor anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Is there a precedent for combining aberrant behavior and a mass murder to advance a preset agenda? Do you recall the sniper attacks around Washington, D.C. in October 2002?

Those murders commenced one day before debate began on Senate Resolution 46 proposed by Joe Lieberman to authorize the use of U.S. forces in Iraq. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, Lieberman and Arizona Senator John McCain urged that the U.S. target not Al Qaeda but Iraq.

The nation’s capital became a city under siege when those attacks created insecurity and heightened anxiety as serial murders left ten dead and three wounded over a 10-day period. Those random shootings transformed the terror of 9-11 into a personal reality for Washington residents while Lieberman deployed phony intelligence to promote the invasion of a nation that had no hand in the mass murder of 9-11.

Assets and Sayanim

Once again: assets are profiled personalities catalyzed to act out known dysfunctions in ways that are advantageous based on the time, place and circumstances of their behavior. The totality of the facts suggests that Dr. Nidal Hasan may well have been such an asset.

Assets are typically identified, profiled and developed over lengthy periods of time. Their potential to act out a known personality disorder is held in reserve in the same way that a military commander holds troops in reserve for deployment at an opportune time.

How is an asset developed in plain sight and then tasked at the right moment? Only a careful investigation can identify those influences particular to Dr. Hasan, including what decisions led to his transfer to Ft. Hood and the circumstances there that triggered his behavior.

News reports to date are consistent with this analysis. For instance, his name appears as a participant for public briefings at the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. As a registrant in the Obama presidential transition task force (”Thinking Anew-Security Priorities for the Next Administration”), he would have interacted with a team of nine “task force briefers.” Judging from their surnames, at least seven were Ashkenazim.

As a combat-stress psychiatrist, Dr. Hasan dealt daily with troubled vets at Walter Reed Hospital where the most grievously wounded are sent to recover, many of them amputees, disfigured or otherwise handicapped for life. While coping with that vicarious trauma, he was taunted for his Muslim beliefs and harassed for his Middle Eastern heritage even though he was born, raised and educated in the U.S..

Despite clear indications of internal turmoil, including repeated attempts to resign his commission, he was dispatched to a post known for its huge population of combat-stressed vets. He arrived anticipating orders to deploy to Afghanistan, realizing his worst nightmare. Meanwhile a commander-in-chief promising change made matters even worse in the region.

Israeli psy-ops rely on an extensive cadre of sayanim (Hebrew for volunteers) who are shielded from legal culpability by being told only enough to perform their narrow role when tasked to assist with operations on an as-needed basis. Otherwise, they gather and report useful intelligence. Thus the presence of sayanim throughout the U.S. government. A sayan may well have identified Nidal Hasan as a potential asset who could be developed and, as here, deployed.

At What Cost?

With evidence emerging that Israelis and pro-Israelis were the source of the sham intelligence that induced the U.S. to war, those responsible are scrambling to cover their tracks. Americans will soon realize what the facts confirm: Jewish nationalists deceived the U.S. in order to deploy our military to pursue Israel’s expansionist agenda for the Middle East.

Americans will soon awaken to the cost of this entangled alliance in blood and treasure. U.S. deaths in Iraq could top 4,300 this month with more than one million Iraqis dead from the war and from violence unleashed by those who manipulated this alliance to induce an invasion.

That brings us back to the uncomfortable but essential question: Was Homeland Security created to protect the U.S.? Or was it created to protect those who deceived the U.S.? Was this incident another example of the murderous misdirection deployed to pit Americans against Muslims to advance unacknowledged Zionist goals?

By shifting blame to the military, do Lieberman and Napolitano intend to use federal law enforcement to contain the outraged reaction of an informed public and an awakened military? Was Dr. Nidal Hasan a terrorist? Or was he a troubled pawn in an ongoing psy-ops campaign meant to revive a narrative that-like the fixed intelligence-was losing credibility?

Both the false intelligence and the anti-Muslim narrative feature a theme of fomenting hate and intolerance. On October 28th, President Obama signed into law ADL’s model hate crime legislation. Will that federal law now be deployed by Homeland Security to silence those who make transparent the common source of this deception?

How much longer before a long-deceived public-both in the U.S. and abroad-takes the steps required to ensure that never again is duplicity allowed to operate on such a scale?

* Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide; an adviser to policy-makers worldwide; former counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee; and author of numerous articles and books including his latest book “http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/098213150X?ie=UTF8&tag=sabbahsblog-20&link
Code=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=098213150X” Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War

“http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=sabbahsblog-20&l=as2&o=1&a=098213150X”
Democracy at Risk and The Ownership Solution.
See “http://www.criminalstate.com” www.criminalstate.com

Also see:
“http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/07/17/how-the-israel-lobby-
took-control-of-u-s-foreign-policy/”

How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy
“http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=
article&sid=9000″

Dancing To Our Israeli Masters Veterans Today
“http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2009/11/09/todays-ancient-warfare-facts-vs-beliefs/”
“Permalink to Today’s Ancient Warfare: Facts vs. Beliefs” Today’s Ancient Warfare: Facts vs. Beliefs

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Dear Mr. President:

According to press reports, you intend to decide between November 7 and November 11 whether or not to send tens of thousands of American soldiers to Afghanistan. We are writing in advance of that decision to add our voice to those of Sen. Feingold, many House Democrats, and of a clear majority of Americans in urging you not to escalate this war, but rather to announce an immediate cease-fire followed by a withdrawal of all US troops in the fastest way consistent with the safety of our forces. We urge you to end the policy of using Predator drones to assassinate Pakistani civilians on the territory of their own country, in defiance of all concepts of international law. We also call upon you to cease all covert CIA and Pentagon operations in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and Iran.

No vital American interest is at stake in Afghanistan. Former Marine and State Department official Matthew Hoh is right: the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan have come to be viewed as invaders and occupiers, and the resistance they encounter has nothing to do with international terrorism. This war is futile, and now doomed to failure. There is no military solution to the problems that beset Afghanistan. Afghanistan and the rest of this tragically war-torn region need a Marshall Plan of peaceful economic development, through which some of the 15 million unemployed workers in our own country could find productive jobs. We have no confidence in the advice being given to you by military leaders like Gen. McChrystal, who has been implicated in torture in Iraq.

We supported your candidacy because we viewed you as the best chance for ending the wars of the Bush era. We applauded your rejection of the rhetoric of fear and division that was the stock in trade of Bush and Cheney. We are alarmed by the way that rhetoric has crept into your public pronouncements since your August address in Phoenix. Your decision on Afghanistan will represent the decisive turning point of your presidency. If you turn away from war, you will provide a profile in courage that will solidify your support and open up a new perspective for progressive reforms in our country. You will honor the spirit of John F. Kennedy, who was searching for an exit strategy from the Vietnam war. If you opt for a wider war, the resulting heavy casualties will destroy confidence in your leadership among your own most devoted advocates. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be poured down a rat hole, and will no longer be available for any reform and renovation of American society, which will increasingly fall behind the economic strength of other countries. Your domestic agenda will be halted, in the same way your predecessor Lyndon B. Johnson was crippled by the Vietnam war. Escalation of the Afghan war, in short, would be an act of political suicide for you, and of national suicide for our country.

We are keenly aware of the difficulties and animosities you face, and we have long done everything possible to give your administration the benefit of the doubt, even in the face of repeated disappointments. But we now approach the moment of truth: will you be a great progressive president, or will you prove too weak to turn away from the bankrupt policies institutionalized and entrenched under Bush and Cheney. Therefore, we want you to know our attitude before you decide on the proposed Afghan escalation. If you choose to escalate, we will oppose this policy with all the energy we possess. We will act to mobilize the largest possible anti-war demonstration in Washington DC and other cities before the end of 2009, and continuously thereafter. We will support anti-war candidates of any party in the 2010 elections. If you are still waging the Afghan war in 2011, we will be forced to seriously consider backing an explicitly anti-war primary candidate to challenge you during the Democratic primaries.

We therefore respectfully urge you to act in the spirit of your 2008 campaign – the spirit of hope and change, neither of which can survive the continuation or expansion of the hopeless Afghan war.

Cynthia McKinney, DIGNITY

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley will hold a press conference on Tuesday November 17th with two ‘rescued’ pit bulls and will announce, in conjunction with the Humane Society of the United States, a 24-hour “dog flghting tip line”.

The D.A.’s website states that residents who call the tip line can “collect up to $5,000 if the information leads to the arrest or conviction of individuals involved in the brutal sport of dog fighting”.

The pit bulls who will accompany Cooley are touted as “rescues’, a term which was not used in the public lexicon until recent years. Lost dogs used to be called ’strays’, and pit bulls, who regularly visciously attack, kill, and even eat people as documented in the press, were virtually unheard of.  Owners of canines today are often referred to as guardians by animal ‘advocates’, in what some properly refer to as a sort of Orwellian mind twist.

L.A. County, with a 2009-10 budget of  $22.712 billion, over nine billion of which is allotted for “Health/Social Services”, spends $21.3 million for “animal care and control”. There are a number of laws and ordinances which regulate dog ownership in the county.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Senator Bernie Sanders has joined a handful of lawmakers in an attempt to ban a controversial chemical from children’s food and beverage containers. A study released this week revealing the harmful effects of bisphenol A, or BPA, on Chinese factory workers indicated that the chemical causes sexual problems in men. The study was published in Journal Human Reproduction and funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which is a division of the Centers for Disease Control.
 

A CNN headline read  ‘Study links BPA in plastics to erectile dysfunction‘, and noted the Food and Drug Administration’s previous findings, which claimed that “the agency issued a draft assessment on the safety of BPA in food packaging, concluding that “an adequate margin of safety exists for BPA at current levels of exposure” from those sources.”

Last year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reported U.S. Lawmakers Move to Ban BPA from Food, Beverage Containers. In 2007, EGW announced the results of a study they had initiated on BPA:
 

• “Independent laboratory tests found a toxic food-can lining ingredient associated with birth defects of the male and female reproductive systems in over half of 97 cans of name-brand fruit, vegetables, soda, and other commonly eaten canned goods. The study was spearheaded by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and targeted the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), a plastic and resin ingredient used to line metal food and drink cans. There are no government safety standards limiting the amount of BPA in canned food.”

The study goes on to list the various toxic effects of BPA, which included ‘permanent changes to genital tract’, ‘increased aggression at 8 weeks of life’, ‘increased prostate weight’, ‘decrease antioxidant enzymes’, and many others.

They found that “BPA is at unsafe levels in one of every 10 servings of canned foods (11%) and one of every 3 cans of infant formula (33%)”. Other dangerous levels were found in cans of soup (11%), pasta (33%) and vegetables (29%).

Studies outlining the negeative effects of BPA have been around for some time, although not widely recognized by the general public:

BPA Chemical Leaches From Hard Plastic Drinking Bottles Into The Body, Study Shows

Avoid Bisphenol-A In Bottles and Cans Chemicals Can Disrupt Hormones

A Senate bill titled S 753- BPA-Free Kids Act of 2009 was introduced on March 31, 2009 by Senator Schumer and Feingold, “To prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of children’s food and beverage containers composed of bisphenol A, and for other purposes.” The legislation’s status page reports that the bill “was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation”. The bill goes on to outline “The term `bisphenol A’ means the chemical compound phenol, 4,4-(1-methylethylidine)bis, propane (CAS No. 80-05-7)”. No other action had been taken on the bill, other than Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York being added as a co-sponsor on April 29, 2009 . 

Yesterday, November 10, Berni Sanders of Vermont  was added as a co-sponsor:
“At the request of Mr. SCHUMER, the name of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) was added as a cosponsor of S . 753 , a bill to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of children’s food and beverage containers composed of bisphenol A, and for other purposes.”  Updates to the bill can be found on it’s status page. Sanders is also spearheading an effort with Ron Paul to audit the federal reserve.
Note that while the Senate bill proposes a ban for use only in “children’s food and beverage containers”, a more comprehensive version appears to be stalled in the House, with the words “To ban the use of bisphenol A in food and beverage containers” included in the bill. 

Congressman  Ed Markey of Massachusetts,  who had supported a Chicago ban on the sale of baby bottles made with BPA, introduced  the “Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2009″ in March 2009.  

If passed, section (c) Waiver (1) of the bill includes a waiver, stating “the Secretary of health and Human Services after public notice and opportunity for comment, may grant any facility a waiver of the treatment .. if such a facility demonstrates that it is not technologically feasible to replace Bisphenol A in such a type of container for such particular food product , and.. submits.. a plan and timeline for removing bpa”. It goes on to state that any such product that is granted  waiver “shall display a prominent warning on the label… which shall ensure adequate public awareness of potential health effects”. The waiver “shall be valid for not longer than 1 year, and the secretary may renew any waiver for no more than 1 year”.
 

Section e of the congressional version goes on to state that “nothing in this act shall affect the right of a state ..to adopt or enforce any regulation.. that is more stringent.”

Following is some more info on BPA from the Environmental Working Group study; highly recommended reading:

• BPA testing in canned food. We contracted with a national analytical laboratory to test 97 cans of food we purchased in March 2006 in three major, chain supermarkets in Atlanta, Georgia; Oakland, California; and Clinton, Connecticut. The lab tested 30 brands of food altogether, 27 national brands and 3 store brands. Among the foods we tested are 20 of the 40 canned foods most commonly consumed by women of childbearing age (NHANES, 2002), including soda, canned tuna, peaches, pineapples, green beans, corn, and tomato and chicken noodle soups. We also tested canned infant formula. The lab detected BPA in fifty-seven percent of all cans.
  
• http://www.ewg.org/reports/bisphenola
  
• …BPA is a heavily produced industrial compound that has been detected in more than 2,000 people worldwide, including more than 95 percent of 400 people in the United States. More than 100 peer-reviewed studies have found BPA to be toxic at low doses, some similar to those found in people, yet not a single regulatory agency has updated safety standards to reflect this low-dose toxicity. FDA estimates that 17% of the U.S. diet comprises canned food; they last examined BPA exposures from food in 1996 but failed to set a safety standard.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Some habits become so engrained and routine that the majority of the public never thinks about questioning them.  One of these is the use of our so-called “social security” numbers.

Many people today are permeated with a number of false beliefs and notions, such as “my child must be vaccinated by the “hospital authorities” at birth, or “the authorities issue  social security number at birth”.

These falsehoods are almost subliminally reinforced throughout our lives, but this wide array of falsehoods can be broken Let’s start by dismantling one of the principle canards. Government or corporate employees aren’t ‘authorities’, they are servants. Government works for you, and corporations, if you choose to engage them, participate in consensual commerece. Constitutional scholar and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik covers the concepts of government servants in his easy-to-read book GOOD TO BE KING. Chapter two is available for free online, it’s titled RIGHTS VS. PRIVILEGES.   

 On to the social security number: ssa.gov states
 

• Must my child have a Social Security number?
  
• No. Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary. But, it is a good idea to get a number when your child is born. You can apply for a Social Security number for your baby when you apply for your baby’s birth certificate. The state agency that issues birth certificates will share your child’s information with us and we will mail the Social Security card to you.  If you wait to apply at a Social Security office, you must show us proof of your child’s U.S. citizenship, age and identity, as well as proof of your own identity. We must verify your child’s birth record, which can add up to 12 weeks to the time it takes to issue a card. To verify a birth certificate, Social Security will contact the office that issued it. We do this verification to prevent people from using fraudulent birth records to obtain Social Security numbers to establish false identities.

 

 Whether or not one chooses later in life to participate in what many privacy advocates regard as a ‘beast system’, is up to their own conscience.  A little history of the SS# can be found here:
 

•                  The Social Security Number (SSN) was developed in 1938 to identify workers eligible for government retirement benefits.  In 1961, the IRS began using it as a tax identification number and slowly other agencies followed. Since banks and other non-governmental entities can legally turn away customers who refuse to supply a SSN, its use in the private sector is virtually taken for granted in everything from medical insurance to telephone to credit applications.

An interesting topic to delve into is that of the sovereign citizen advocates, who believe that “By Common Law birthright everyone who is born in a State is a Sovereign Citizen of the State in which they were born”. That quote is from an excellent treatise on the subject, which can be found here.. 

Barbara Loe Fisher, of the National Vaccine Information Center, reported in her article  THE NATIONAL ELECTRONIC VACCINE TRACKING REGISTRY: How The Plan To Force Vaccination Gave Birth To The National ID, A Government Health Records Database, and the End of Medical Privacy

• “Shalala Appropriates Social Security Numbers
• On March 9, 1995, [Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna] Shalala published a notice in the Federal Register of the intent to establish a new routine use of the Social Security number. This permits the Social Security Administration to disclose the Social Security number of a newborn to state health department officials for public health programs including, but not limited to, establishing public immunization registries with the goal of operating a national network of coordinated statewide immunization registries. The new routine use of the Social Security number permits HHS to disclose information about individuals without their consent if it is for the purpose of administering a government public health program or for conducting medical research.”

Whatever one decides to do regarding social security numbers and newborns, at the very least they should be made aware of their options.

RELATED:

• Gay marriage battle distracts statists of both parties
•  
• Ten Commandments of Privacy  By John Featherman
•  
• From PrivacyRights.org: Am I required to give my Social Security number to government agencies?
• The answer depends upon the agency. Some government agencies, including tax authorities, welfare offices, and state Departments of Motor Vehicles, can require your SSN number as mandated by federal law (42 USC 405 (c)(2)(C)(v) and (i)). Others may request the SSN, leading you to believe you must provide it.  The Privacy Act of 1974 requires all government agencies — federal, state and local — that request SSNs to provide a “disclosure” statement on the form. The statement explains whether you are required to provide your SSN or if it’s optional, how the SSN will be used, and under what statutory or other authority the number is requested (5 USC 552a, note). The U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) provides guidance and oversight regarding the Privacy Act of 1974. The text of the Privacy Act can be found at the Web site http://www.usdoj.gov/opcl/privstat.htm

Related Posts:

• Give phony info to Homeland Security — “here’s your passport!”
• Spying on Americans: Obama Endorses Bush Era Warrantless Wiretapping
• Dobbs promotes website that hosts several pro-secession articles
• Over 100 Million Americans Have Smoked Marijuana — And It’s Still Illegal?
• Anatomy Of The Plot To Kill The Nation