Friday, June 08, 2007

RE: Homeland Security: "Many More 9/11s Are Inevitable"

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Leo/FightNWO-Resisting World Government
Date: Jun 7, 2007 8:49 PM

The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Homeland Security: "Many More 9/11s Are Inevitable"

Solution provided is to take everyone's fingerprints, email addresses and credit card details
Steve Watson

Thursday, June 7, 2007

While announcing new security guidelines to make mandatory the fingerprinting of any travelers leaving the US, deputy secretary of the US department of homeland security Michael Jackson has stated that another attack on the scale of September 11 2001 is "inevitable".

In a report carried by the London Guardian Mr Jackson was quoted as adding that the most "catastrophic" threat to the airline industry was a rocket-propelled grenade attack similar to the one that nearly downed an Israeli airliner in Kenya five years ago. He said another attack on the scale of September 11 2001 was inevitable. "It is not clear whether it could be in aviation ... but it would be silly not to understand that we will have many more September 11s. It is a long-term struggle." Speaking at the International Air Transport Association conference in Vancouver, Jackson made the comments while revealing plans to force airlines to take the fingerprints of travelers at check in. He said that the DHS would supply the electronic fingerprinting kits to airlines while some larger airlines would be able to adapt existing check-in kiosks to scan passengers' index fingers.

Virgin Atlantic is strongly opposed to the measures and is lobbying against the measures. Other previous proposals for authorities to access to credit card details and email accounts are also still on the table.

Mr Jackson's comments are somewhat surprising given the recent revelations that records obtained from the immigration courts under the Freedom of Information Act show that only 0.0015 percent of the total number of cases filed by the Department of Homeland Security were terrorism related.

In the last three years there have only been 12 charges of terrorism out of 814,073 cases.

This once again highlights that the terrorist threat to America is vastly over hyped and is being used by a government populated by control freaks as an excuse to police the world and foment a domestic police state to crush any dissent amongst the American people.

Labels: , , ,


Show Ron Paul you care

RE: RE: Ron Paul Warchest up to $5 Million! Keep it up ppl!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Haduken Jeckt
Date: Jun 7, 2007 6:02 PM

Keep up the good work everyone!
I'm so damn proud to be an American today more then ever before!
We can take our country back if we want it!

From: ~CraveMan~

From: I'm a Truth Addict ...

From: Pamela's Protest

Because of YOU - Ron Paul Now Has 5 Million to Campaign

From: Ron Paul 08; [Manny - CT]

Congressman Ron Paul’s donations have moved up - not by hundreds of thousands - but by millions as a result of his debate performances and groundswell of support on the Internet and in New Hampshire, observers close to the campaign say.

FMNN had previously reported – after the GOP presidential debate in South Carolina - that candidate Ron Paul’s (R-Tex) donations, large and small, had nearly doubled.

Now observers close to the campaign are revealing – with some astonishment – that donations to the campaign in recent weeks have pushed the total up to perhaps $4 or $5 million.

“That’s a huge number at this stage,” says one observer. “That starts to put him in a position where he can compete – state by state, anyway – with the major candidates.”

And this source added, “Of course, it’s hard to tell because the numbers keep changing – and thus nobody at the campaign has a firm count, at least not hour to hour. But the numbers are big. It’s definitely over three, probably over four, and if it hasn’t hit five yet, it will soon.”

At this rate, say observers, Ron Paul could have something like $10 million in his coffers inside of several months, and the total could keep growing – so long as he continues to hit on themes that Americans support – how to return the country to a true, small government, constitutional republic and how to end the war in Iraq.

To be sure such staggering amounts are somewhat speculative. But to put the amount of money Ron Paul is said to have raised recently in perspective, here are the figures of cash on hand for GOP candidates as of March 31, 2007:

Sam Brownback
cash-on-hand: $806,626

Jim Gilmore
cash-on-hand: $90,107

Rudy Giuliani
cash-on-hand: $11,949,735

Mike Huckabee
cash-on-hand: $373,918

Duncan Hunter
cash-on-hand: $272,552

John McCain
cash-on-hand: $5,180,799

Ron Paul
cash-on-hand: $524,919

Mitt Romney
cash-on-hand: $11,863,653

Tom Tancredo
cash-on-hand: $575,078

Tommy Thompson
cash-on-hand: $139,723

Source: CNN

If we want this man as president....Right NOW we need him or we can kiss our ass goodbye.

Send money now. Dollars, Fives, Tens, Twentys, anything.
The times are a changing fast.

Labels: , , ,


Testing, testing...

RE: Ed Brown: Police, SWAT Team Incident Was "Test"

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pamela's Protest
Date: Jun 7, 2007 5:19 PM

Ed Brown: Police, SWAT Team Incident Was "Test"
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: josh
Date: Jun 7, 2007 2:11 PM

thank you: Tom wants you to know the truth.

Ed Brown: Police, SWAT Team Incident Was "Test" To See What Response Would Be

New Waco averted as authorities leave after surrounding property

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, June 7, 2007

A new Waco was narrowly averted as law enforcement, APC's
and SWAT team personnel descended on the home of Ed Brown,
the tax protester who has threatened to use force to defend
himself against authorities.

Ed Brown himself states that the
police are now leaving and that media are being allowed
to approach the house.

According to his blog, "apparently
this was a test by the "authorities" to see what
kind of response would come from the community......testing
to see what might happen if they move in......."

This was also confirmed verbally
by the Browns during an appearance on the
RBN radio network

We received early unconfirmed reports
that the Brown house was on fire - although according to
reports, "Federal authorities indicated Thursday they
will not raid the home of two convicted tax evaders but
would serve a warrant."

News reports
, "The U.S. Marshal's Service
says a supporter of the fugitives was detained near the
Browns' home this morning and that they served a federal
warrant to seize Elaine Brown's dental office in Lebanon."

In addition, it
is being reported
that authorities have closed
the airspace above Brown's home and that an AP photographer
was ordered to leave after flying over the property.

Fred Smart, a close friend of the Brown's confirmed that
Brown's phone has been cut and that at around 8:30PM last
night a silent surveillance drone with a bright beaming
light encircled the Brown's property as if conducting reconnaissance.

News reporters have confirmed that police have surrounded
the property and that they were kept away from the property.
Neighbors have been evacuted from their homes.

Officer Jack McLamb attempted to call the Sheriff's office
in the area but was told that he was out of town.

Authorities have been telling reporters that they would
not violently engage the Brown family for the past few months
but this now appears to have been a drill for a potential
future scenario in that mold.

"Dozens of heavily armed state police and federal
agents have assembled near the rural Grafton County home
of tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown."

"About 50 state troopers, some armed with high-powered
rifles, along with a vehicle from the explosives unit gathered
this morning in Plainfield, a small town where Edward and
Elaine Brown have holed up in their home since being convicted
of tax evasion and sentenced to lengthy federal prison terms,"
the Plainfield Union Leader

More live updates at this

news report from the scene.

We are encouraging people in the Plainfield area to get
down to the area immediately to see what is happening.

More on this story as it develops.....

SWAT Teams, Armored Vehicle Seen Near Brown Compound

Labels: , , , ,


So, why doesn't Dick Cheney run for president?!?

RE: Impeachment on a Roll
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Patriots Speak Out ®©™
Date: Jun 8, 2007 11:56 AM


Original Content at

June 8, 2007

Impeachment on a Roll

By Dave Lindorff

Down the shore yesterday, as we say in Philly, I was body surfing in the Atlantic and it got me to thinking.

On the East Coast, where the prevailing winds are offshore, the surf tends to be pretty tame, and Thursday was no exception, with the biggest waves cresting at perhaps three feet. Nonetheless, these little combers were able to send my prone body racing 100 feet toward the beach at a good clip.

There’s a lot of energy packed in even a small wave.

Just so with impeachment, where a wave is slowly building for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Since Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) filed his impeachment bill against Cheney back April 24, five other members of the House have signed on as co-sponsors, most recently Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She joins Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL and chief deputy whip of the House), William Lacy Clay (D-IL) and Albert Wynn (D-MD) as co-sponsors of H. Res. 333.

Kucinich’s bill is narrowly focused on Cheney’s criminal role in lying the nation into an illegal invasion of Iraq, and on his illegal threat to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran.

The wave that is building in the House for impeachment of this criminal administration may seem small, but it is definitely building. As each new representative signs on to H. Res. 333 as a co-sponsor, others gain courage and find it easier to buck the “leadership” of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi et al.

It seems likely that as the magnitude of that wave grows, some members will add to the list of Cheney’s crimes with their own additional impeachment bills. After all, Cheney was clearly behind the illegal outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, was involved in the politicization of the Justice Department, and is now known to have been involved in the illegal, warrantless wiretapping and internet monitoring of American citizens by the National Security Agency.

At some point, there will surely be a second wave, which will begin with a member impeachment bill against President Bush.

Evidence that Pelosi is losing her footing is coming in many forms.

There’s the impeachment resolution passed late last month by the Detroit City Council. Now there have been nearly 100 such resolutions passed around the country, but this one stands out because it was introduced by Council President Monica Conyers, who happens to be the wife of Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which would be where any impeachment hearing would be conducted. Conyers was once a leading advocate of the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, but buckled when Pelosi threatened to deny him the coveted chair of the Judiciary Committee. Clearly, his wife thinks he shouldn’t have caved, and Conyers is showing signs of wanting action on impeachment. He has lately taken to encouraging the actions of impeachment activists.

There are also the many resolutions calling for impeachment of Bush and Cheney which have been passed, often overwhelmingly, by state Democratic Parties, including those in California, Massachusetts and North Carolina.

Finally, there are the statements from Democratic politicians, who are looking increasingly ridiculous in their efforts to avoid talking impeachment. Take Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). Nadler, back in 2006, was a member of the group of 39 House members in the 109th Congress who signed on to Rep. Conyers’ then bill calling for a select committee to investigate impeachable crimes by the administration (that bill died with the end of the 109th Congress). Recently, Nadler, who sat on the impeachment panel during the Clinton impeachment farce, and who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, declared in a recent radio interview that “there’s a prima facie case” that the president and the attorney general “engaged in a criminal conspiracy.” He went on to say that when the executive branch is “contemptuous of the power of Congress” and breaks or ignores the law, then “you have to use whatever weapons the Constitution gives Congress.”

Now Nadler is no dummy. He knows that the main “tool” that the Constitution gives to Congress to combat such presidential lawlessness and abuse of power is impeachment.

Nadler’s constituency in Manhattan isn’t stupid either. They know that the president has been committing impeachable crimes, and that the remedy is impeachment. The same is true of Rep. Conyers’ constituents.

It seems only a matter of time before these leaders, and others like them, are going to have to take a stand and buck Pelosi and the sell-out Democratic leadership that is trying to adopt a do-nothing strategy ahead of the 2008 elections.

One thing you can say about waves--even small ones--and that is that they are pretty much unstoppable. Another thing you can say is that they wear down resistance--especially when the resistance is insubstantial. A third thing is that they are never alone. They keep on coming, one after another after another.

I’m betting that we’re going to see Pelosi and her anti-impeachment position swamped by the power of public pressure, and by the actions of those members of Congress who take the views of their constituents seriously.


Authors Website:

Authors Bio: Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at

Labels: , ,


RE: Refuting Christian Fundamentalist Claims

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Subversionary
Date: Jun 8, 2007 12:29 PM

"Real" Christians have no enemies other then HIERARCHY and legislating morality.

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Patriots Speak Out ®©™
Date: Jun 8, 2007 11:22 AM

Please read all the way through before feeling any outrage if you are from either group. I think the last paragraph in this article sums it all up. Because we know that there are these types in all religions, all be it small percentages.


Here are a few examples of our home grown Terrorists:


Original Content at

June 8, 2007

Refuting Christian Fundamentalist Claims that Muslims Can't Be Good Americans

By Dennis Diehl

A Fundamentalist Christian writer asks..

"Can a good Muslim be a good American?" However, in doing so, he sets himself up for a fall.

"Consider the following:"

Christian Fundamentalists need consider the following as well.

1. "Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia."

And of the Christian Fundamentalist...Theologically- NO Because his allegiance is to God, the Sun God of Egypt. This is why God is Most High (At Noon), Jesus can be seen as an archetype Son of the Sun God and the Gospels are the account of a one year trip of the Sun Jesus through the signs of the Zodiac. The origin all gods in the human psyche is the SUN and all that it does for humans. In Revelation, Jesus is also called the "son of the morning star," which of course is the SUN, or the Planet Venus. Don't sweat Allah the moon god.

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

And of the Christian Fundamentalist...Religiously- NO Because "there is no other name under heaven, (Jesus) by which a man can be saved. There is one true Christian Church and whoever believes on the name of the Lord..Jesus Christ, shall be saved, while others are condemned. Fundamentalist Christians do NOT accept any other religious beliefs as valid to theirs, so no difference here.

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

And of the American Fundamentalist...Scripturally NO because his allegiance is to the Ten Pillars of Christianity. There is nothing in America that says you have to be a Bible believing Christian to be a true American. It is freedom OF religion here...all religions. If Fundamentalists have their way, we might all want to amend the Bill of Rights to say "freedom FROM religion."

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

And of the American Fundamentalist...Geographically No because his mental allegiance is to Jerusalem, Israel and the Holy Land at least twice a week, about which they talk all the time as if they have ever been there, know the real history of, or think they would be welcome. Millions of Christian Americans have a soft spot for Rome too...

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

And of the Christian Fundamentalist...Socially NO because his allegiance to Christianity forbids him to make friends with "the world," including not being "unequally yoked with unbelievers."

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

And of the Christian Fundamentalist...Politically No because he must submit to the ministry, ("obey those that have the rule over you, for they watch out for your souls"). Many Fundamentalist Christians teach and hope for the annihilation of everyone outside of Israel. Christians often attribute anything against them as of the Great Satan. Paul cursed anyone who did not believe his true gospel and called the people of Crete, liars. Jesus is said to have said the Pharisees were "of your Father the Devil." Name calling envoking the name of Satan to define the enemy is a fundamentalist art form. It's what you do when you are afraid of the unknown.

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

And of the Christian Fundamentalist...Domestically no because a fundamentalist Christian is instructed to marry only one which is his property, but cannot talk in church and can only ask her husband bible questions at home. A Christian believes if you "beat (spank)a child with a rod, it won't kill him." Fundamentalist Christian women are to keep silence in the church, obey their husbands as unto the Lord, and call him "Lord" as did Sarah (all in NT). They are to give him sex as a part of her duty and submit.

8. "Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt."

And of the Christian Fundamentalist...Intellectually no, because he can't accept that the American Constitution was NOT founded on Biblical law or we'd all be stoning each other. This was called the Dark Ages in the European past. I would not generally use the word "intellecual" or any form thereof in the context of Christian Fundamentalism.

9. "Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist."

And of the Christian Fundamentalists...Philosophically no because Christianity, Jesus and the Bible do not allow freedom of religion if you take the Old and New Testaments as the only way to be, which they do. Fundamentalists look to the commands of "God" in the Old Testament, to kill unbelievers, just as much as they think Islamics do in reading the Koran. Fundamentalist would only tolerate Christian values, which can be atrocious at times, and morality, which can be appalling. True Democracy and Biblical Christianity cannot co exist either. Someone would insist on someone else losing their rights to free thought. Christian Fundamentalism is a good example of the mess you get when you mix Old Testament politics with New Testament sentiments, thinking it takes both to make up a proper Christian behavior. It's old wine in new wineskins...boom!

10. "Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic."

And of the Christian Fundamentalist...Every Christian Fundamentalist government is either dictatorial or autocratic too. Replacing Taliban rule with "God's law" is swapping oranges for oranges.

11. "Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names."

And of the Christian Fundamentalists...Spiritually no because the God and Jesus of the Book of Revelation drowns the world in blood, plagues, signs, trumpets, vials and slaughter. The Christian Jesus is until you make him mad. The mostly absent Father is angry, jealous, and is patterned after the war gods of paganism. The Fundamentalist Christian God is 'loving" only to the degree you obey and fall in line. The Jesus of the Gospels is NOT the same being in the book of Revelation. The prophetic Jesus comes back with a Rod of Iron to threaten and beat the poop out of those that don't "trust and obey for there is NO other way." And this no longer is any other way after that.

CONCLUSION: "Therefore after much study and deliberation.... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish.... it's still the truth."

And of Christian Fundamentalists..Therefore after much study and deliberation..perhaps we should all be very suspicious of ALL, and I Mean ALLLLLLLL Christian Fundamentalists in this country. They obviously can't be both good Christians and Good Americans. They fail their own test.

Side note: Whoever actually came up with this ignorant and insane list of reasons why an Islamic cannot be a good American is deluded, ignorant, self absorbed, mistaken, misinformed and the reason we'll end up with nothing but a sanitation problem to fix and where will we be then? FunnyMentalism is not funny!

"If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future."

Actually if you find yourself in agreements with the above statements about why a Muslim cannot be a good American, you need to have your head examined and you will have to also conclude that neither can a good Christian fundamentalist be one.

Authors Bio:

Dennis Diehl is a former pastor of 26 years,  who outgrew the Literalism of Fundamentalism.  He writes about Pastoral and Church abuse and is available to speak on such topics or be helpful to any church suffering under abusive religion or pastors. 

Labels: ,


RE: RE: Senate moves to restore habeas corpus

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Date: Jun 8, 2007 12:50 PM

RE: Senate moves to restore habeas corpus

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Denise
Date: Jun 8, 2007 9:39 AM

Source: Reuters - By Jane Sutton

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Guantanamo prisoners and other foreigners got a step closer to regaining the right to challenge their detention in the U.S. courts in a bill approved in a U.S. Senate committee on Thursday.

The Judiciary Committee voted 11-8 to send the proposal to the full Senate for debate, with Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania the lone Republican joining the Democratic majority.
Congress last year revoked the rights of foreign terrorism suspects labeled "enemy combatants" to challenge their detention by the United States. The Bush administration said it was necessary to prevent them from attacking Americans if freed.

The move affected about 380 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban captives held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba. It could also affect 12 million legal residents of the United States who are not U.S. citizens, said the committee chairman, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

"I hope the Senate will reconsider the historic error in judgment," Leahy said.

The proposal would restore the right of habeas corpus, Latin for "have the body," which has been the foundation of Anglo-American justice. It prevents the government from locking people up without review by a court.

Leahy said the bill removing that right violated the U.S. constitution, ignored centuries of legal practice and conflicted with U.S. calls for other nations to respect human rights.
"I implore those who supported this change to think about whether eliminating habeas truly makes America safer in the world, and whether it comports with the values, liberties ad legal traditions we hold most dear," he said.

"It makes us less safe."


The removal of habeas rights was part of the Military Commissions Act, which also created new military tribunals to try the Guantanamo prisoners on war crimes charges. Congress was led by Republicans when it was rushed through, shortly before elections that put Democrats in control.
There was no opposition expressed at Thursday's committee meeting. But aides said that should not be construed as a sign of support from several Republicans who missed the meeting to take part in an important debate on immigration reform.

The Military Commissions Act was criticized on Monday when judges in the Guantanamo tribunals dropped all war crimes charges against the only two prisoners facing trial.

The judges said they lacked jurisdiction because the defendants had been classified as "enemy combatants" rather than "unlawful enemy combatants," as required by the Military Commissions Act.

The American Civil Liberties Union called the move to restore habeas corpus a good first step and urged Congress to go further and scrap the military tribunals.

"Guantanamo has been one illegal trial scheme after another," said Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the rights group. "After more than five years of people wasting away without being charged and tried, it's time to convict the guilty and send the innocent to countries that don't torture. The habeas bill is a good first step."

Labels: , , ,


RE: RE: CHRONOLOGY-Journalists killed in Iraq

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Date: Jun 8, 2007 12:53 PM

RE: CHRONOLOGY-Journalists killed in Iraq

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Indiana 9/11 TRUTH
Date: Jun 8, 2007 9:52 AM

07 Jun 2007 13:12:32 GMT
Source: Reuters

June 7 (Reuters) - A journalist working with the independent Aswat al-Iraq news agency in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul was killed by gunmen on Thursday, the agency said.

Following is a chronology of those reported killed in the past six months.

Dec. 4 - Gunmen shoot dead radio journalist Nabil al-Dulaimi.

Dec. 12 - Gunmen shoot dead Aswan Lutfalla, a cameraman working for Associated Press Television News in Mosul.

Feb. 11, 2007 - Hussein al-Joubouri, editor of the daily newspaper al-Safir, is fatally wounded in an attack at his Baghdad home.

March 3 - Jamal Riyah al-Zoubaidi is found dead in southeast Baghdad. He went missing after leaving the offices of his newspaper, al-Safir.

March 4 - Mohan Hussein al-Dhahr, editor of the daily al-Mishrak, is killed in a botched kidnap in the east of Baghdad.

March 19 - The body of Hamid al-Duleimi, producer of TV channel al-Nahrain, is found in the Baghdad morgue, two days after he was abducted.

April 5 - The body of Iraqi journalist Khamail Muhsin is found with a gunshot wound to the head and signs of torture. She was last seen on April 3.

May 6 - Russian freelance photographer Dmitry Chebotayev is killed in a roadside bomb attack north of Baghdad. He is the first Russian journalist to be killed in Iraq.

May 9 - Two Iraqi journalists, a clerk for their media firm and their driver are dragged from their car and killed by gunmen southwest of Kirkuk near the small town of Rashad.

May 17 - Two ABC journalists, cameraman Alaa Uldeen Aziz and soundman Saif Laith Yousuf, are killed in Baghdad. They were returning from the Baghdad bureau when their car was attacked.

May 21 - Militants kidnap and kill Ali Khalil from the Azzaman newspaper.

May 28 - Abdul Rahman al-Isawi, a reporter for the independent National Iraqi News Agency (NINA), is taken from his village of Amiriyat al-Falluja, west of Baghdad.

-- Gunmen kill Mahmoud Hakim Mustafa, editor-in-chief of Hawadith weekly newspaper, near his home in Kirkuk.

May 30 - Nazar Abdul Wahid al-Rahdi, a reporter for the Aswat al-Iraq news agency and New Sabah newspaper, is shot dead in Amara, 365 km (230 miles) south of Baghdad.

May 31 - Saif M. Fakhry is shot and killed near his home in Baghdad. He was an Iraqi cameraman working for the Associated Press (AP), the fifth AP employee to die violently in Iraq.

June 7 - Sahar al-Haideri, a female journalist working with the independent Aswat al-Iraq news agency, is shot dead in the al-Hadbaa neighbourhood of northeastern Mosul.

Sources: Reuters, RSF:, CPJ:

Labels: ,


Feds come for Ed and Elaine Brown with guns blazing

RE: Some things that need to be cleared up!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Ed & Elaine
Date: Jun 8, 2007 1:10 PM

Allow me to clear up afew things here.
First of all Reno is NOT a government plant by ANY means!
He IS The REAL Deal and nobody should ever question that ever!
This only takes away from the issue in hand and adds nothing good.
We are all of the same team with the same focus!
Lets keep on track!

I posted last night that the Browns are under attack and 2 or 3 people are calling it a false report then spread it like widefire.
I would have to say when the FEDS shot rounds at the Dan "the Dog walker", that would constitute "Attack" in my book. They have come with overwhelming deadly force and have used it already! The place is surrounded and a alert needed to be sounded so I did as Reno was unable at that time!

Please continue to show your support and go to NH with camereas in hand and whatever else needed for support. If you are unable to make it there then PLEASE post this issue far & wide ALL OVER!

Blessings all and thank you for your support!

Labels: , , , , ,


RE: Don Cheadle and Rufus Wainwright on "The Henry Rollins Show"

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: The Henry Rollins Show
Date: Jun 8, 2007 1:12 PM

Don Cheadle and Rufus Wainwright on tonights "The Henry Rollins Show."
Friday June 8 at 11pm ET and 8pm PT only on IFC.

Henry welcomes back Don Cheadle, who continues to dedicate himself towards raising awareness for the situation in Darfur. Don talks about his new book, “Not On Our Watch: A Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond”, and Henry also has some burning questions about a Miles Davis film that Don will likely direct and star in. This week also features a “Letter From Henry” addressed to the late F. Scott Fitzgerald, letting him know about the horrid state of literature and publishing today. And, the musical guest is Rufus Wainwright, who performs his very outspoken single “Going to a Town” off his new record, “Release the Stars”.

Tune in and Set your Tivo Season Pass.

Labels: , , , ,



RE: Do You Support the Constitution? YOU'RE A TERRORIST SUSPECT!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Subversionary
Date: Jun 8, 2007 1:37 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Moose
Date: Jun 8, 2007 12:31 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Abr4ham
Date: Jun 8, 2007 10:17 AM

Ænima Yr Third Eye
The Deconstruction Process
Fr. Bruce (Epictetus)

Do You Support the Constitution?
From those same lovable folks who brought you the crimes and abuses of COINTELPRO comes the following brochure, printed at taxpayer expense by the FBI and intended to be issued to law enforcement, requesting that the Joint Terrorism Task Force be called in the event suspicious behavior is witnessed.

And what is "suspicious behavior"?
Defending the Constitution!

Read it yourself on the inside page of the brochure. Defending the Constitution is cause to label you a terrorist suspect. Even referring to it is grounds for suspicion that you are a terrorist, with all the harassment that this suspicion implies!

Front Page

Back Page

Labels: , , , ,


No wonder Cindy Sheehan gave up

RE: RE: Proven once again how stupid people are!!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Date: Jun 8, 2007 1:44 PM

RE: Proven once again how stupid people are!!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Tyler
Date: Jun 8, 2007 10:40 AM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: JuliaCuteOne
Date: Jun 8, 2007 10:31 AM

ROFLMAO. What a freakin joke, people are so stupid!!

Guy said, "Did I miss something?"
Yeh dude, you missed alot!!!

Thanks: 9-11

Random Americans quized on the street about 9/11 Video

Join the sitespace migration. (CLICK HERE )

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

How To Repost A Bulletin Video. (CLICK HERE).

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

eXTReMe Tracker