here is an excellent synopsis of the unanswered questions surrounding to self inflicted inside job government psy-op of 9/11-- are you doing our part in exposing the lies??




7min-video

we know...we know...it was an inside job...geeez...everyone knows that...its just that nobody cares....

let's give it a rest already....all this evidence...no public uproar for an investigation....america does not care....deal with it

Here is the truth of 9/11 in a seven second read:

Islamic Fascists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings in two major American cities.
We are now at war with the Islamic Fascists.


Okay...maybe more than seven seconds for some of you....

Thats more like it....

there is an uproar for a new investigation, but the uproars are ignored.




Can you say, "denial"?

So, we suppose to believe this video, call off the whole thing we are doing to combat Terrorism and instead just investigate who did the inside job on the Twin Tower???
Who approved placing all the explosives in those two buildings to be able to bring it down, which company or contractor did it, or maybe the military? Who piloted really the doom aircraft? If Bush authorized the whole thing for whatever reason like to gain popularity or divert publics attention from him?
This really is what this video is suggesting? TO WHO? [u]

exactly-- the oil pirates and weapons dealers set up fake terror events in order to get what they want-- a monopoly on oil and more war which equals more no-bid contracts-- the neocon wizards weaving their spells and practicing their wicked alchemy by turning blood and oil into gold

Terrorism is being carried out by our own governments as a reason to take our civil liberties and launch endless wars. The FBI was on video admitting that they trained the driver in the first attack on the WTC in '93. They even supplied the explosives! They admitted it.
Just think about who is gaining from all this. Our government! They get more power and more control over our lives with each attack. They are profiting from this war. And thats all it really comes down to: Money and Power.

Just think about this:
On the morning of 9/11, there were terror attack exercises being conducted at the very same time as the real attacks that simulated hijacked airliners being crashed into the WTC's and Pentagon!
On the London 7/7 attacks, again, exercises were being conducted at the exact same time in the exact same places as the real attacks! The exercises perfectly mimicked the real attacks!
Do you really think that these could be just coincidences?

OK, you have the FACTS and the FBI admitted all their evil doings.
There is video and everything about the conspiracy, how come it never made it to the evening news then? How come the ACLU, a Senator or a councilman not bring this to the attention of the American public?
I mean if the hard facts and evidence are right there in the open.
One reason I can see is there are very very very few who agree and believes it.

The fbi admitting they were involved in the first attack on the WTC did make the news, barely, and then it just went away. There are people and organizations that try to bring this info to the public, but it all comes down to the media, who always decides to ignore it. And thats really why these things can all be out in the open, because if the media doesn't make a big deal out of it, the public seems to think its not a big deal.
For instance,
it is absolute fact that the terror exercises on the morning of 9/11 took place, mimicking the attacks almost exactly, nobody disputes that. Yet at the same time, George Bush, Rumsfeld, and others all said that "nobody could ever imagined that they would have used airliners as weapons and crashed them into those buildings", Condi Rice said it to the 9/11 Commission on national TV! But doesn't this contradict the fact that Dick Cheney was in charge of some wargames on the morning of 9/11 that simulated hijacked airplanes crashing into the WTC and Pentagon?
Or how about all those families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks that tried to sue the Bush administration for having advanced knowledge of the attacks and deliberately letting them happen. There was a total media blackout of the event. Not one word uttered.

Wow.. there are still people posting on this Move on, please.

I will NEVER move on!

Then stop your crying.

That's it? Surely there is more to it then that!

Why were the war plans to go to war against the (Islamic Fascists) Taliban, before 9/11 even happened.

U.S. OK’d plan
to topple Taliban
a day before 9/11

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/

Simple, intelligence already shows they are a THREAT.
Repeat of Pearl Harbor, threat was there but we can't make a move.
If we make the first move, we end up being the bad guy.
So, we try to prevent an attack, but on both cases the enemy is smart too!

Ok...but wheres the advantage to occupying afghanistan?

OR we either let an attack take place, like on Pearl Harbor, or engineer an attack ourselves, like on 9/11.

Only when you stop your ignorant skepticism of anything that goes against what the 'establishment' says.

No, the point is that we didn't go into Afganistan because of 9/11 like the American people were told on TV, and in the newspapers.

Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

Bin Laden who was "blamed" for 9/11, in case you forgot, is still out there, and most people have already forgot about him.


"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"
- President Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- President Bush, March 13, 2002


Some people can just not see it.

I bet when you played games as a kid, you were the best at playing "Simon Says", and "Follow the Leader"

I just watched the video again. It's good.


I was recently reminded how some people view the world in a similar, yet completely in a different way from me. Here's an example of what's wrong with the world:



I met an old friend last night, I have not seen in years. We got into a political discussion. Basically he thinks people need to be told what to do and how to behave. He wants the United States government to stay on top of the world, because he is white, and he can only see white males being in charge of the United States, so he thinks that's what's best. He agrees with me and believes 9/11 was an inside job, but he thinks it's for our own good. I asked him about government corruption, and he sees nothing wrong with it because he truly believes his leaders have his best interest in mind. He would trade liberty for security, if the government decided it was for the best. He seems to be a nationalist, in that he wants the United States to remain the world's only super power, but does not know what makes America (united States) American. He thought it was strict capitalism, and not the constitution bill of rights. He wants the power to be consolidated into fewer and fewer hands as long as it's white people because he thinks he will benefit from that. He thinks as long as he's on the winning side, that's enough to provide justification for crimes against humanity.

I tried to tell him that our leaders do not have the best interest in mind for the people of the United States, and I told him it sounds like he wants to live in a dictatorship. He said he didn't know the definition of a dictatorship. :shock:

If he grew up in Nazi Germany, he would definitely be an SS soldier. Some people just don't know they are fascists! And they will gladly do what the leader tells them.

The hypocritical part is that he does not respect authority in that he commits crimes, speeds, does drugs, and does not follow the law in general, but he treats the authorities with respect.

This guy is engaged in double think!

The scary part is that America is engaged in double think also, only to slight variations.

I can see history repeating itself, so lets try not to let that happen:

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience ... Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."
-Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, 1950

Militarily, you take the fight to the enemy, you don't sit and wait for them. Afghanistan was chosen as the battlefield based on intelligence the enemies are concentrated in it.

We went to war in both places to disrupt and take the fight to the enemy, it is a military strategy. Now, it is pretty obvious you don't see this as a war, but simply a one person who has done harm to America. Yes, he said those things. Maybe , it is a way of flushing him out, finding someone who is hiding is never easy.
I bet when you are a kid you never played.

He is your friend not ours. For someone who talks that way and don't even know the definition of a dictatorship, I would not worry so much about what he thinks!

And don't forget about the drugs! Afganistan produces most of worlds poppy and you cannot do heroin without it. When Talebans took ower Afganistan they seized poppyfields and that is bad thing for big boys since they need that cash badly. Since the opium wars big boys have controlled drug industry and that's why in some countries its easier to get drugs than to get alcohol.

Right on the nail dude.
CIA controls most of the drugs these days, in and out of the country. Afganistan was just about drugs and oil pipeline.
Plus the convenience of a nice, profitable, easy war. dont forget where the talibans weapons and ammo comes from.



The american definition of threat is anyone who....
1) looks differant/has differant religion,
2) disagrees with american policies,
3) Has any type natural resources,
4) Has means to attack or defend.

And as for Pearl Harbour, that wasnt a mistake, it wasnt due to "bad" intelligence or any form of incompetance, it was allowed to happen purely for the reason of starting another war and testing an A-Bomb.
That bomb sent a message to the world.

And you suggest we turn it back to the Taliban for they are more humane than the Americans and Afghanistan was in a lot better situation?

I'm an immigrant and America is not really as bad as you think it is for so many immigrants wants to come here. Maybe you are simply blaming America for the failures of other countries and yourself.

Why do you think everyone wants to go there, apart from the fact that there is money to be made, dont you think TV and print have anything to do with america's image? It has nothing to do with quality of life.

Come to my country and you can do what you like and go where you like, say and think what you like(to an extent), americans are throwing away their freedom, end of story,
Your phone calls are recorded, internet usage tracked, soon they will know where you go and who you speak to (thanks to BB). You're not free, you think you are free, conditioned to not see the prison you aspire to, unable to even see the restrictions in place.
You are trapped in a system.


So how do you feel about getting the chip?

[/quote]


So can I and everyone I know. Where do you live and do you realize you're getting totally false information about the basics of this country? Do you really think that Americans can't come and go as they please...say and think what they like?? Where are you getting that idea?

Chip?????

New CIA director Hayden plans massive expansion of spying on Americans
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...nter_8753.shtml
Bush 'will be given more power to eavesdrop' in bill
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...icle1178551.ece

Who's reading your e-mail?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5132512.stm

FBI Wants to Increase Internet Spying
http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?
s=pf&page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/10/213722.shtml?s=ic

Complaint filed in 32 countries against U.S. bank data mining
http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/ar...08&rel_no=1

Government Spying on Your Bank Transactions
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...2003.shtml?s=lh

EU to Look at U.S. Bank Surveillance
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...1&cset=true

US government funds social network snooping
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/03/us...nline_snooping/

The Surveillance State Unveiled
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publi...icle_3991.shtml


Tracking Chip Implants Proposed for Legal Immigrants
http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_fri...2341.shtml?s=ic

Microchips, convenience and liberty
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350116795

NWO plans for the 6-6-6 chip
http://z13.invisionfree.com/THE_UNHIVED_MI...showtopic=10835


Stream or download it here:
http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=236

Sounds like alot of paranoia.

If you are a terrorist, a mafia, a drug cartel or involved in illegal activities surely you be so paranoid about it. So what if they listen to my phone conversation, they want to listen while I chat on the phone or computer and gain what??? I think some folk thinks that our law enforcers have nothing better to do but eavesdrop and pick up gossip like a lovers quarrel.

The point is that this is un-American.

The whole arguement that "if you have nothing to worry about why do you care if they are potentially spying on you" is complete propaganda and psycological warfare.

If we really had nothing to worry about, why did the founding fathers bother to create a Bill of rights, constitution, and set up checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government on the people.

the founding fathers (who law enforcement refer to as the countries first terrorists) had experianced government corruption, and they wanted to prevent that from happening in this country. They gave the country to the people, not to the leaders. This is a republic, not a monarchy.

The problem is that too many people in America don't know why we need the bill of rights. They have been living in the land of milk and honey, and have no idea what it's like to live in a corrupt country. No matter how corrupt this government gets, some people will say that's just the American way. This is also why we are destined to end up in a tyranical dictatorship. Plus they are planning on it, so it will happen.

Kinda apples to oranges. Its a different time and the situations that compose reality are totally different than in the 'founding fathers' time.

I wonder what they would suggest in dealing with the threat of terrorists in a time of instant and anonymous communications that could lead to the destruction of whole cities and more.

With this in mind, what would you or anyone else suggest we do for effective defense?

I would suggest that the government stop carrying out the terror attacks so then they wouldn't have a reason to take our rights away!

I second that.

Could you clarify that a bit?

Exactly what is it that you could do 5 years ago that you can't do now?

The bad guys are getting sophisticated and hi tech, what do you expect us to do???
Just because you don't agree with the policy means it is corrupt. there is corruption in government alright, but our law and over protection of our civil rights as you are agruing for is making it hard and almost impossible to stop and prosecute the corrupt ones!

the right to be secure on our property from unreasonable search and seizure,the right to assemble and peacefully protest in a NON"free speech" zone,the right to NOT be rendered in the middle of the night never to be heard from again and the right to be protected by the geneva convention concerning "coercive interrogation"

First of all I don't believe it, I know it.
I get so sick of people like you telling others to leave the country if we dont like it here. If you are so eager to live in a total dictatorship I suggest you move to China or an equivelant. But this is AMERICA, meaning people like me actually belong here more than you do.

and those rights being taken away are?
The right to privacy, unwarranted search and seizure, the right to due process, posse comitatus. Did you ever even hear of the patriot act?

Got any examples?.."rendered in the middle of the night never to be heard from again"??

The first 2 are just whiney and vague.

Of course the implication is that this is happening enmass to just 'anybody' who farts in a way that offends 'the man'...what a crock.

Let me ask again seeing that answering the first one was avoided --- what exactly is it that you can't do today that you could do 5 years ago?

How about the freedom to voice your opinions,
The freedom to protest something you feel strongly against (free speech zones, what a joke)


Look at :
The incremental loss of freedom.
http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect...0/article/25082
The Cancun Summit Namdated the North American Union by 2007
http://my.opera.com/prosperingbear/blog/show.dml/305326
America: The Unfree
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts27.html
The Police State
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts164.html

You are just doing that right now, voicing your opinion??? Nobody is listening to you does not mean your freedom of speech has been denied.

Stardrive,

Those rights being taken away are our constitutional rights. Freedom in general. Most Americans seem to be ok with giving up freedoms for liberty.

Pagan, who's really informed , already beat me to it.

Free Speech Zones are now replacing free speech. You only have the right to practice the first Amendment now in certain zones. What used to be public property, now belongs to the state. You can't protest on public property, only in free speech zones, or on your own private property. Even then, you are at the discretion of the Feds, who make the rules as they go.

"Free-Speech Zone”


The administration quarantines dissent.


By James Bovard

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” Some commentators feared that Ashcroft’s statement, which was vetted beforehand by top lawyers at the Justice Department, signaled that this White House would take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents. And indeed, some Bush administration policies indicate that Ashcroft’s comment was not a mere throwaway line.

When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”

At Neel’s trial, police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine “people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views” in a so-called free speech area. Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service “come in and do a site survey, and say, ‘Here’s a place where the people can be, and we’d like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.’” Pennsylvania district judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, “I believe this is America. Whatever happened to ‘I don’t agree with you, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’?”

Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, “At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators—two of whom were grandmothers—were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome.” One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, “War is good business. Invest your sons.” The seven were charged with trespassing, “obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct.”

Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 2003, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined. Denise Lieberman of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri commented, “No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn’t allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media.” When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her five-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars.

The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a “No War for Oil” sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a “free speech zone” half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the “free speech zone.”

Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the policeman if “it was the content of my sign, and he said, ‘Yes, sir, it’s the content of your sign that’s the problem.’” Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, “The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing.”

Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department—in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr.—quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding “entering a restricted area around the President of the United States.” If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5000 fine. Federal magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey’s request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a “petty offense.” Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide.

Bursey’s trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access. Bursey sought to subpoena John Ashcroft and Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, “We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached.” The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the “free speech zone” but refused to co-operate. Magistrate Marchant is expected to issue his decision in December.

The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, “These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or non-support that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way.” Except for having their constitutional rights shredded.

Marr’s comments are a mockery of this country’s rich heritage of vigorous protests. Somehow, all of a sudden, after George W. Bush became president people became so stupid that federal agents had to cage them to prevent them from walking out in front of speeding vehicles.

The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern-and-practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas, and elsewhere. The ACLU’s Witold Walczak said of the protesters, “The individuals we are talking about didn’t pose a security threat; they posed a political threat.”

The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs—as has happened in some demonstrations—is pointless, since potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Presuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity.

The Bush administration’s anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries. When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, “The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by the US President, George Bush, and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can’t be heard.” Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area.

For Bush’s recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city, and impose a “virtual three day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters,” according to Britain’s Evening Standard. But instead of a “free speech zone”—as such areas are labeled in the U.S.—the Bush administration demanded an “exclusion zone” to protect Bush from protesters’ messages.

Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the “forward strategy of freedom” and declared, “We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings.” Regarding the protesters, Bush sought to turn the issue into a joke: “I’ve been here only a short time, but I’ve noticed that the tradition of free speech—exercised with enthusiasm—is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well.”

Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department’s recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May 2003 terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who “expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government.” If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of “suspected terrorists.”

Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington, and elsewhere. Film footage of a February New York antiwar rally showed what looked like a policeman on horseback charging into peaceful aged Leftists. The neoconservative New York Sun suggested in February 2003 that the New York Police Department “send two witnesses along for each participant [in an antiwar demonstration], with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution” since all the demonstrators were guilty of “giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein.”

One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the port of Oakland, injuring a number of people. When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, “You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that’s being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act.” Van Winkle justified classifying protesters like terrorists: “I’ve heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn’t just bombs going off and killing people.”

Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration’s advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies.

On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans’ everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists “for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox.” The FBI took a shotgun approach towards protesters partly because of the FBI’s “belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps towards the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal,” according to a Senate report.

On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is now actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators—supposedly to “blunt potential violence by extremist elements,” according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official. Given the FBI’s expansive defintion of “potential violence” in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.

The FBI is also urging local police to report suspicious activity by protesters to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is run by the FBI. If local police take the hint and start pouring in the dirt, the JTTF could soon be building a “Total Information Awareness”-lite database on those antiwar groups and activists.

If the FBI publicly admits that it is surveilling antiwar groups and urging local police to send in information on protestors, how far might the feds go? It took over a decade after the first big antiwar protests in the 1960s before the American people learned the extent of FBI efforts to suppress and subvert public opposition to the Vietnam War. Is the FBI now considering a similar order to field offices as the one it sent in 1968, telling them to gather information illustrating the “scurrilous and depraved nature of many of the characters, activities habits, and living conditions representative of New Left adherents”—but this time focused on those who oppose Bush’s Brave New World?

Is the administration seeking to stifle domestic criticism? Absolutely. Is it carrying out a war on dissent? Probably not—yet. But the trend lines in federal attacks on freedom of speech should raise grave concerns to anyone worried about the First Amendment or about how a future liberal Democratic president such as Hillary Clinton might exploit the precedents that Bush is setting.

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

Is it right to constructivly critisize, or is dissent treason? The very fact that we have to ask this, and some people will have to think about it, proves we are moving towards a dictatorship, where the people think they are free, but are really enslaved, and conditioned to love their servitude.

Yo Scoob,
Even though this is the first Ive heard of this, I understand this to mean Bush didnt want any protesters around when he was making public appearances. So George Einstein Bush ordered free speech zones set up to isolate the protesters. Its because of things like this Bush wont be re-elected. He's letting paranoia get the best of him. He's painted himself into a corner now. Read this story from the mainstream: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13918661/
Tell me what you make of this.

Bush can't be elected unless he changed the U.S. constitution.

Nice article. Doesn't surprise me at all.

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."
-- Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952

"Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government - a bureaucratic elite."
-- Senator William Jenner, 1954

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
-- President George W. Bush on CNN

Gen. Tommy Franks (interview he gave to the December edition men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado)says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government having catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

"... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy."

Franks then offered "in a practical sense" what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

"It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...20/185048.shtml

False Flag

New Patriot Act Provision Creates Tighter Barrier to Officials at Public Events
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — A new provision tucked into the Patriot Act bill now before Congress would allow authorities to haul demonstrators at any "special event of national significance" away to jail on felony charges if they are caught breaching a security perimeter.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183147,00.html


Bush By law can only be surrounded by "yes men"