RE: Best Fukin Newz ever

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: randomlight
Date: Jul 6, 2007 10:03 PM


Check out the latest headlies ... head lice ... whatever. In response to the previous poster: we haven't turned on our TV since we got to Mexico in early February (my wife was rather fond of that Friday PM Jim Lehrer thing). Last time I watched TV on a regular basis: 1966. F'real.

Thanks
masonic nation under surveillance

... there are series of this style coverage/ rebuddle... im sick of currant situations... i watch 30% less TV latley.... makes me sick, i dont/ cannot belive what im seeing... repetitive garbage/ deal or no deal...



RE: The best Fukin News ever!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: hecktor dangus, esq.
Date: Jul 6, 2007 6:19 PM





also posted by these fukers:

Egos Cenotaph

Rainbojangles

Athena 911 Truth spearshaker

Pamela's Protest

bobby

Decentralized by Conditioned Guilt

RE: NEW RON PAUL BANNER /don't forget to click on the banner

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pamela's Protest
Date: Jul 6, 2007 10:11 PM


NEW RON PAUL BANNER
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: E-Dubs
Date: Jul 6, 2007 7:05 PM


From my awesome friend (both here on MySpace and in real life) Jason

---

Please post this on your page & {REPOST}

RE: Government is paying strawpoll08.com to Exclude Ron Paul

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: A-Bomb
Date: Jul 6, 2007 6:57 PM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Ron Paul Revolution
Date: Jul 6, 2007 3:48 PM


From: Paul Canniff 9/11-JFK Truth
From: Alexander

From: liberty
>

This is top secret evidence that the government is paying strawpoll08.com to exclude Ron Paul from their polls.

A top secret hacker was paid to hack strawpoll08's email and we found evidence of "Operation Silencer".

Below are the screen shots of the emails. Be sure to pass this along to as many as possible.

Those involved in this cover-up must be exposed.

Look at the screen shots below. Repost this in emails, bulletins, message boards and blogs.

RE: Xmark and Somark! Competing for your skin! Pass On Please

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: NoVerichipInside.com
Date: Jul 6, 2007 4:51 PM


Christians will love this short blog but one must state the following revelations ;) make for great conspiracy conversation . There are what appears to be two major players at this stage competing for the human 'chipping or marking' market. How mankind has even entertained these companies without burning their premises to the ground showcases the apathy and self indulgent detachment from world events the average man of the street exhibits. Let's not forget you would be labelled as a terrorist. Put out those Molotov cocktails and lets move on to the fight of the century. The fight of all fights ! In the red corner we have Somark , a relatively new player in the game being at the seed stage of development. Somark offers a chipless RFID using a biocompatible ink tattoo with chipless RFID functionality. On application the unique ID generated can be detected without line of site. Many Christians have emailed us stating that the company is blatantly using the word 'mark' in its company name thus trying to guarantee success through aligning itself to the Bible passage in Revelations "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand,or in their foreheads: [Rev. 13:16]. If these alarmists had researched the company they would have clearly realised that the founder of Somark is Mr Mark C. Pydynowski. He named his company after his first name! Case closed as they say!

What about the boxing match you ask? As we cross live to Vegas , we have in the blue corner the old sluggard heavyweight, Verichip who recently broke its shackles from Applied Digital and leaped into the Nasdaq sinking some weeks and swimming on the others. Verichip showcased it's athletic prowess by jumping over some FDA hurdles and crashing on others. They still got approved! Could that have been the magic waving =wand of Former Bush official Tommy Thomson ? Who has now been elected to the throne position of board of directors.

What has prompted this blog was when we received a flurry of emails stating that Applied Digital solutions and Verichip had moved some of their range to a new umbrella brand. The name? Xmark! X marks the spot as the saying goes . Initially we thought this was a joke as from a marketing angle , whoever authorised this term was either a new graduate from a home schooled internet marketing course or leveraging off the word 'mark' as used in Revelations perhaps? Cue the Twighlight Zone music. Could this useless marketing graduate guarantee the products future success by 'naming and claiming' the word mark? More Christian emails flooded our inbox! We sat back drinking coffee and I realised , have we been sucked into this debate? Could this bible passage validate this companies role in the future? The fact that we even entertained the thought showcased the strange coincidence at play. Here we have two companies competing in many respects for the titanic market of human inventorying and both companies have the name mark in their company name or product range. Have the atheists within our organisation flocked to church as a result of this? The answer is no but we find the coincidence to be amusing to say the least and will add further fuel to the tin foil hat vs Velostat beanie wars that rage on on bulletin boards. Don't know what a Velostat beanie is? Your not much of a conpiracy theorist then. Back on subject , we considered calling both Applied Digital and Verichip to ask the reason for the name change but quickly concluded all they would do is lie as they have consistently whilst promoting the glitched and hazardous Verichip.

PS Vist the new site by clicking on the banner below!!

Greg Nikolettos

RE: Occult meaning of 777----> TOMORROW!!!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: A-Bomb
Date: Jul 6, 2007 5:03 PM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Matt (Pro U.S. Constitution, Pro Ron Paul 08)
Date: Jul 6, 2007 2:01 PM


Informed people know that all indicators are pointing toward another globalist sponsored "catalyzing event" in the near future. Add to that their obession with numerology, and you have your reasons to be on alert tomorrow. Not trying to scare the crap out of people, because that's basically what they want.... but being alert is good. We know one thing for sure.. the MEDIA is their most important tool that allows them to sell these pathetic, poorly orchestrated inside jobs..

777 Speculation



10 Minute Crash Course on the New World Order

7/7/05 - ITV News interview with Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, and a former Scotland Yard official who worked at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.

The fact that Visor Consultants was running a DRILL of the exact same events that came to pass... is basically beyond all mathematical probability.



Ludicrous Diversion - 7/7 London Bombings Documentary



Alex Jones on 7/7/05 Inside Job

Thanks: eyes wide shut

America sold down the river

RE: EPA Scaled Back Rules on Wetlands

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: The Man Common
Date: Jul 6, 2007 4:21 PM


EPA Scaled Back Rules on Wetlands

By John M. Broder
The New York Times

Go to Original

Washington - After a concerted lobbying effort by property developers, mine owners and farm groups, the Bush administration scaled back proposed guidelines for enforcing a key Supreme Court ruling governing protected wetlands and streams.

The administration last fall prepared broad new rules for interpreting the decision, handed down by a divided Supreme Court in June 2006, that could have brought thousands of small streams and wetlands under the protection of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The draft guidelines, for example, would allow the government to protect marsh lands and temporary ponds that form during heavy rains if they could potentially affect water quality in a nearby navigable waterway.

But just before the new guidelines were to be issued last September, they were pulled back in the face of objections from lobbyists and lawyers for groups concerned that the rules could lead to federal protection of isolated and insignificant swamps, potholes and ditches.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, charged with enforcing the Clean Water Act, finally issued new guidelines last month, which environmental and recreational groups complained were much more narrowly drawn. These groups argue that the final guidelines will leave thousands of sensitive wetlands and streams unprotected.

The changes in wording between the September and June versions of the guidelines were subtle, hinging on broad scientific questions raised by the Supreme Court ruling over the nature of wetlands and natural drainage systems.

The most nettlesome of these issues was whether regulators need to show that a wetland is directly connected to a navigable body of water in deciding if they have jurisdiction to require permits under the Clean Water Act. The alternate reading, favored by environmental groups, is that it is enough to prove that a wetland or stream is part of a large watershed that drains into such waters.

Environmental advocates said the policy adopted in the June guidance reflected the concerns of developers and polluters and could have a profound effect on how federal water laws are applied.

"There are definitely waters that will not be protected because of this latest guidance," said Navis Bermudez, a water policy analyst at the Sierra Club. "The final guidance is clearly weaker than what we saw in the September guidance."

The guidelines are the government's first attempt to interpret the Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States, in which the court left a muddled definition of what constituted a protected waterway.

The court divided into two four-member blocs, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's opinion controlling the outcome but leaving government lawyers and outsiders puzzled as to how to carry out the ruling.

Administration officials involved in drafting the guidelines said that the rules went through a routine interagency review and that industry lawyers and lobbyists did not exert improper influence.

The E.P.A. official responsible for enforcing clean water rules declined to comment on how the rules evolved. That official, Benjamin H. Grumbles, the agency's assistant administrator for water, said that the agency "participated in routine discussions with stakeholders, including environmental groups and members of industry," in drafting the rules.

Draft guidelines were completed in September and officials at E.P.A. and the Corps of Engineers prepared a press release outlining the new rules. But at that point the process halted and the guidelines moved to the White House, where the Council on Environmental Quality began a review. Officials at the council described this as a routine part of the rule-making process.

The draft guidelines, leaked to environmental groups by someone within the government, allowed officials to look at the impact of dredging or discharge of pollutants on a wide region or watershed, potentially putting millions of acres of land adjacent to streams and wetlands off limits to industry, agriculture and development. Lobbyists for these groups immediately raised objections.

Virginia S. Albrecht, a prominent Washington lawyer representing developers, wrote to the White House in September to express concerns about the breadth of the proposed rules. Among her chief objections was that the rules as written would allow the government to regulate development over a wide region even if the impact on a stream or swamp of a proposed project was highly localized. She also said that projects should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to see if they meet the tests set out by the Rapanos decision.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association and Alliance Coal, one of the nation's largest coal producers, also weighed in on the proposed guidelines, expressing concern that the new rules would affect temporary drainage ditches and "ephemeral" streams that appear only after heavy rain.

The Sierra Club, Earth Justice and other environmental groups concerned about the new rules obtained their communications with the White House under the Freedom of Information Act.

Ms. Albrecht and Alliance Coal declined to comment. Jeffrey Eisenberg, a Washington lobbyist for the beef association, said that his concern was that the new rules be clear enough for farmers and ranchers to be able to predict what lands and waters would be covered.

A White House official involved in the process said that trying to interpret Justice Kennedy's language was frustrating because his decision was open to differing interpretations. He said the process took months because of the complexity and the large number of agencies and interests involved. He also said there was no significant intervention by Vice President Cheney or any Cabinet officer.

"We hashed it out and I think we ended up with a pretty effective policy," said the official, who spoke about internal administration discussions only on condition of anonymity. "I don't think anybody claimed victory publicly, and I don't think anybody thinks we're done with this issue either."