Saturday, September 30, 2006


To view the Jesus Camp video clip, please click on the website below. And prepared to be scared out of your mind.
Bush Given Authority To Sexually Torture American Children
By Paul Joseph Watson/Prison September 29 2006

Slamming the final nail in the coffin of everything America used to stand for, the boot-licking U.S. Senate last night gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror.
There is nothing in the "detainee" legislation that protects American citizens from being kidnapped by their own government and tortured.

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."
Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."
We have established that the bill allows the President to define American citizens as enemy combatants. Now let's take it one step further.

Before this article is dismissed as another extremist hyperbolic rant, please take a few minutes out of your day to check for yourself the claim that Bush now has not only the legal authority but the active blessings of his own advisors to torture American children. The backdrop of the Bush administration's push to obliterate the Geneva Conventions was encapsulated by John “torture” Yoo, professor of law at Berkeley, co-author of the PATRIOT Act, author of torture memos and White House advisor. During a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants.

Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
Click here for the audio.

So if the President thinks he needs to order children's penises to be put in vices, there is no law that can stop him and after last night's vote, the Senate and Congress, exemplified by sicko 16-year-old boy groomer Mark Foley (R-FL), has graciously provided Bush its full support for kids around the world to be molested in the name of stopping terror. Yoo's comments were made before the passage of the torture legislation last night. Up until that point Bush had merely cited his role as dictator-in-chief as carte-blanche excuse for ordering torture - now his regime have the audacity to openly put it in writing - going one step further than even the Nazis did. Again, for those who are still deluded into thinking the extent of the "pressure" is loud music and cold water being thrown over Johnny Jihad in Ragheadistan, consider for a moment the fact that your own Congress and President who, according to the Constitution, are mandated to serve you, have just legalized abducting your kids from your home and electric shocking their genitals.

Now that the criminals have declared themselves outside of the law does that mean we'll see Bush barbecuing babies on the White House lawn? Of course not, but the policy of torturing children in front of their parents has already been signed off on by the Pentagon and enacted under the Copper Green program and it happened at Abu Ghraib. Women who were arrested with their children were forced to watch their boys being sodomized with chemical glow sticks as the cameras rolled. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says that the U.S. government is still withholding the tapes because of the horror of the "soundtrack of the shrieking boys" and their mothers begging to be killed in favor of seeing their children raped and tortured. Your government has just lobbied for and Congress has passed legislation to discard the Geneva Conventions and mandate all this.

Pedophiles nationwide should rejoice - they can comfortably take a stroll down to the local swimming pool, grab whoever they like, drag them home, rape and torture them, and then in their defense cite the U.S. government as an example of how one should conduct themselves.

The bill also retroactively gives Bush, the Neo-Cons or any of their henchmen immunity from war crimes charges dating back to September 11. Ask yourself why they would be so careful to protect themselves from accusations of war crimes. Could that possibly be because they are knowingly committing war crimes?

The legislating of torture itself should be a criminal act. All laws that contradict the U.S. Constitution are null and void. It was once a law that black people were slaves. Only by engaging in civil disobedience and refusing to tolerate or acknowledge the laws of a criminal regime that has greased the skids for sexually torturing kids can we ever have a hope of returning America to its past glory.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

what the HELL??

Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs

September 12, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.
The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.
"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."
The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.
Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.
On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer. He said a draft request for bids will be put out next month, and there are two qualified bidders: the Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.
The contract is expected to be worth at least $20 billion (€15.75 billion).
Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatment.
Wynne also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserves jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8 billion (€1.4 billion) from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings.
He said he can't cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft.
"We're finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts," said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to "take some appetite suppressant pills." He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices.
The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24 percent.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

petition pesticides

Even if you are not a resident of New Paltz, you can sign this petition.
Come on kids, help us out and ban pesticides!

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Can you spell "Propaganda?" UPDATED 9/7

Lately I noticed many commercials running about 9/11. I figured the hype is partially due to the fact that it's been 5 years since it happened... but mostly, it's because of the upcoming elections for governor. The government/media is doing it's best to instill fear in our hearts, and to remind us why we need them. And we need them, of course, to protect us from all those terrorists. Meanwhile, not one of these programs reveal that the real terrorists, the ones responsible for the worst attack on US soil, lie within our own government.

Keep in mind, I only collected programs that have aired or will be aired in 2006.

1. Inside 9/11

2. After 9/11: Rebuilding Lives

3. Camp 9/11: Children of Hope

4. 9/11 Anniversary Special (doesn't that one sounds a little too happy?)

5. 9/11: A Day in Time

6. 9/11: The Day that Changed America

7. 9/11 Hijackers: Inside the Hamburg Cell

8. 9/11: Five Years Later

9. 9/11: Toxic Legacy

10. Beyond 9/11

11. Road to 9/11

12. Grounded on 9/11

13. Erie Remembers 9/11

14. Emme's 9/11 Special

15. The Path to 9/11

16. ESPN Classic Remembers 9/11

17. Brothers Lost: Stories of 9/11

18. The Secret History of 9/11 (the only program that could have some potential, but tvguide
failed to give a summary of which "secrets" this program depicts...)

19. Metal of Honor: Ironworkers of 9/11

20. Trapped in the Towers: Elevators of 9/11

21. Dust to Dust: Health Effects of 9/11

22. Post 9/11 Town Hall Meetings

23. Saint of 9/11 (UPDATE)

24. 9/11: The Falling Man (UPDATE)

25. WTC 9-11-01 Day of Disaster (UPDATE)

AND I forgot to mention the fucking feature films released in the past year:

1. Flight 93 (tv movie)

2. United 93

3. World Trade Center (thanks a lot Oliver Stone...)

4. The Great New Wonderful

Monday, September 04, 2006

No bombs in the Twin Towers...

The recentNew York Times article on 9/11 implies that controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would have been impossible, because no one could have snuck in all of the explosive equipment.

Many claim:
"I don't believe that the World Trade Center could have been destroyed by controlled demolition . . . how could they have possibly planted bombs without anyone seeing them?"

In fact, there were plenty of opportunities to plant bombs in the World Trade Center.
For example:

Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11

The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11

There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved.

And -- as an interesting coincidence -- a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings.

These are just a few of the known, public examples of opportunities to plant bombs. There were undoubtedly many additional opportunities available to skilled operatives."

In addition to these facts, demolition and building collapse experts have purportedly raised the possibility of "explosive tenants" -- i.e. tenants in the WorldTrade Centers who planted bombs in their own, rented space. For example, according to Webster Tarpley and others, Hugo Bachmann, professor emeritus of building dynamics and earthquake engineering at the world-famous Swiss Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich:
In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion. The article went on to say that Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack. If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these explosivetenants could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building without having anyone notice.