Top Government Insider: Bin Laden Died In 2001, 9/11 A False Flag

Page 84 of 149 First ... 8283848586 ... Last


  1. Me and My Obamaphones

    Not on welfare or below the poverty line? Never mind — here’s your free phone.

    By Jillian Kay Melchior
    National Review
    August 1, 2013 4:00 AM





    Confession: You’re paying my phone bill.


    In the past month, I have received three shiny new cell phones, courtesy of American taxpayers, that should never have fallen into my hands.

    The Federal Communications Commission oversees the so-called Lifeline program, created in 1984 to make sure impoverished Americans had telephone service available to call their moms, bosses, and 911. In 2008, the FCC expanded the program to offer subsidized cell-phone service, and since then, the expenses of running the program have soared. In 2012, the program’s costs had risen to $2.189 billion, up from $822 million before wireless carriers were included. As of June, there were 13.8 million active Lifeline subscriptions.

    To be eligible for Lifeline, the applicant is supposed to be receiving some significant government benefit — food stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, public housing assistance, etc. But because welfare eligibility has expanded under the Obama administration, more people than ever before are qualified to receive “free” cell-phone service — part of the reason why Lifeline mobiles have become commonly known as Obamaphones. Alternatively, applicants can qualify if their household income is less than 136 percent of the federal poverty line.

    But as with any federal program with too much funding, too little oversight, and perverse financial incentives, Lifeline has become infamous for rampant fraud and abuse. There have been news reports about recipients flaunting dozens of subsidized phones. And in February, the Wall Street Journal reported on an FCC audit of the top five Lifeline providers, which found that “41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn’t demonstrate their eligibility or didn’t respond to requests for certification.”

    The FCC supposedly buckled down on eligibility standards last year and established other safeguards aimed at reducing fraud. I was curious about how tough it was to get one of these phones, so last month, I hit the streets of New York. And out of respect for the law and my journalistic integrity, I did not lie to obtain a phone.

    Now is the point, I suppose, where I should explain that I really, really shouldn’t have received a single phone. Despite what you hear, not all 20-something writers in the Big City are starving. Given my earnings, even if I were supporting a family of eight, my income would still rule me out. Nor do I receive any type of government benefit. By the Lifeline program’s standards, I am unambiguously ineligible.

    My first task was figuring out where to register. The rule of thumb is that wherever you can sign up for food stamps, you can apply for an Obamaphone.

    Representatives from SafeLink and Assurance, two of the leading New York Lifeline vendors, stand outside the food-stamp offices, paired like Mormon missionaries, young and polite and earnest. They carry electronic tablets and ask all passersby whether they’ve received their free phone “yet” — as if it were an inevitability.

    They approached me for the first time outside the food-stamp office at Tenth Avenue and 216th Street, on the northern tip of Manhattan. The SafeLink vendor, a man probably in his mid 20s, asked me whether I was enrolled in any benefit programs.

    “No,” I said, “but I’d certainly like to be. I’m hoping to be.” And indeed, while doing research for another story, I had gone through the motions of applying for New York City welfare, which I also don’t qualify for. I showed him my Human Resources Administration paperwork packet and the case number assigned to me. I reiterated that though I had once applied, I had never been approved for any sort of benefit.

    He brought out his electronic tablet immediately to sign me up for phone service. He asked if I had an insurance card, so I pulled out my trusty Blue Cross Blue Shield. He looked at it for a second, puzzled, then asked if I had Medicaid. No, I told him, just private insurance through my work plan.

    “Private insurance? What’s that?” he asked, maybe not facetiously. My BCBS card was nevertheless photographed, as well as the first page of my Human Resources Administration paperwork. He asked for my name and my home address, and that was about it. The whole process took less than five minutes, and I had to provide no documentation verifying my income level or (nonexistent) welfare status.

    The SafeLink vendor then referred me to his opposite number, a rep from Assurance. She too took down my information, registering me for another Obamaphone.

    Traveling to several of the welfare offices in the city, I learned this was common practice. Obamaphone reps come in twos, and both will sign you up if they can.

    That’s a very questionable practice, given the Lifeline program’s rules: Each eligible household may receive only one Lifeline subsidy, and obtaining multiple subsidized phones from multiple Lifeline carriers is “a flat-out violation of our rules,” says Michelle Schaefer, an attorney-adviser from the FCC’s Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n-kay-melchior

    Flashback: The Obamaphone lady.

    This message was paid for by the Russians


  2. Snowden’s Father Calls Out Obama On Nuremberg Crimes

    July 26, 2013
    President Barack Obama
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20500

    Re: Civil Disobedience, Edward J. Snowden, and the Constitution

    Dear Mr. President:

    You are acutely aware that the history of liberty is a history of civil disobedience to unjust laws or practices. As Edmund Burke sermonized, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

    Civil disobedience is not the first, but the last option. Henry David Thoreau wrote with profound restraint in Civil Disobedience: “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.”

    Thoreau’s moral philosophy found expression during the Nuremburg trials in which “following orders” was rejected as a defense. Indeed, military law requires disobedience to clearly illegal orders.

    A dark chapter in America’s World War II history would not have been written if the then United States Attorney General had resigned rather than participate in racist concentration camps imprisoning 120,000 Japanese American citizens and resident aliens.

    Civil disobedience to the Fugitive Slave Act and Jim Crow laws provoked the end of slavery and the modern civil rights revolution.

    We submit that Edward J. Snowden’s disclosures of dragnet surveillance of Americans under § 215 of the Patriot Act, § 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments, or otherwise were sanctioned by Thoreau’s time-honored moral philosophy and justifications for civil disobedience. Since 2005, Mr. Snowden had been employed by the intelligence community. He found himself complicit in secret, indiscriminate spying on millions of innocent citizens contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the First and Fourth Amendments and the transparency indispensable to self-government. Members of Congress entrusted with oversight remained silent or Delphic. Mr. Snowden confronted a choice between civic duty and passivity. He may have recalled the injunction of Martin Luther King, Jr.: “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it.” Mr. Snowden chose duty. Your administration vindictively responded with a criminal complaint alleging violations of the Espionage Act.

    From the commencement of your administration, your secrecy of the National Security Agency’s Orwellian surveillance programs had frustrated a national conversation over their legality, necessity, or morality. That secrecy (combined with congressional nonfeasance) provoked Edward’s disclosures, which sparked a national conversation which you have belatedly and cynically embraced. Legislation has been introduced in both the House of Representatives and Senate to curtail or terminate the NSA’s programs, and the American people are being educated to the public policy choices at hand. A commanding majority now voice concerns over the dragnet surveillance of Americans that Edward exposed and you concealed. It seems mystifying to us that you are prosecuting Edward for accomplishing what you have said urgently needed to be done!

    The right to be left alone from government snooping–the most cherished right among civilized people—is the cornerstone of liberty. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson served as Chief Prosecutor at Nuremburg. He came to learn of the dynamics of the Third Reich that crushed a free society, and which have lessons for the United States today.

    Writing in Brinegar v. United States, Justice Jackson elaborated:

    The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describingthe place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    These, I protest, are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. And one need only briefly to have dwelt and worked among a people possessed of many admirable qualities but deprived of these rights to know that the human personality deteriorates and dignity and self-reliance
    disappear where homes, persons and possessions are subject at any hour to unheralded search and seizure by the police.

    We thus find your administration’s zeal to punish Mr. Snowden’s discharge of civic duty to protect democratic processes and to safeguard liberty to be unconscionable and indefensible.

    We are also appalled at your administration’s scorn for due process, the rule of law, fairness, and the presumption of innocence as regards Edward.

    On June 27, 2013, Mr. Fein wrote a letter to the Attorney General stating that Edward’s father was substantially convinced that he would return to the United States to confront the charges that have been lodged against him if three cornerstones of due process were guaranteed. The letter was not an ultimatum, but an invitation to discuss fair trial imperatives. The Attorney General has sneered at the overture with studied silence.

    We thus suspect your administration wishes to avoid a trial because of constitutional doubts about application of the Espionage Act in these circumstances, and obligations to disclose to the public potentially embarrassing classified information under the Classified Information Procedures Act.

    Your decision to force down a civilian airliner carrying Bolivian President Eva Morales in hopes of kidnapping Edward also does not inspire confidence that you are committed to providing him a fair trial. Neither does your refusal to remind the American people and prominent Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate like House Speaker John Boehner, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann,and Senator Dianne Feinstein that Edward enjoys a presumption of innocence. He should not be convicted before trial. Yet Speaker Boehner has denounced Edward as a “traitor.”

    Ms. Pelosi has pontificated that Edward “did violate the law in terms of releasing those documents.” Ms. Bachmann has pronounced that, “This was not the act of a patriot; this was an act of a traitor.” And Ms. Feinstein has decreed that Edward was guilty of “treason,” which is defined in Article III of the Constitution as “levying war” against the United States, “or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

    You have let those quadruple affronts to due process pass unrebuked, while you have disparaged Edward as a “hacker” to cast aspersion on his motivations and talents. Have you forgotten the Supreme Court’s gospel in Berger v. United States that the interests of the government “in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done?”

    We also find reprehensible your administration’s Espionage Act prosecution of Edward for disclosures indistinguishable from those which routinely find their way into the public domain via your high level appointees for partisan political advantage. Classified details of your predator drone protocols, for instance, were shared with the New York Times with impunity to bolster your national security credentials. Justice Jackson observed in Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York: “The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally.”

    In light of the circumstances amplified above, we urge you to order the Attorney General to move to dismiss the outstanding criminal complaint against Edward, and to support legislation to remedy the NSA surveillance abuses he revealed. Such presidential directives would mark your finest constitutional and moral hour.

    Sincerely,
    Bruce Fein
    Counsel for Lon Snowden
    Lon Snowden

    This message was paid for by the Russians
    •   
       


  3. Ron Paul: Why Won’t They Tell Us the Truth About NSA Spying?

    Ron Paul
    August 5, 2013


    ***Audio plus transcript***

    In 2001, the Patriot Act opened the door to US government monitoring of Americans without a warrant.



    It was unconstitutional, but most in Congress over my strong objection were so determined to do something after the attacks of 9/11 that they did not seem to give it too much thought.

    Civil liberties groups were concerned, and some of us in Congress warned about giving up our liberties even in the post-9/11 panic.

    But at the time most Americans did not seem too worried about the intrusion.

    This complacency has suddenly shifted given recent revelations of the extent of government spying on Americans.

    Politicians and bureaucrats are faced with serious backlash from Americans outraged that their most personal communications are intercepted and stored.

    They had been told that only the terrorists would be monitored.

    In response to this anger, defenders of the program have time and again resorted to spreading lies and distortions.

    But these untruths are now being exposed very quickly.

    In a Senate hearing this March, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Senator Ron Wyden that the NSA did not collect phone records of millions of Americans.

    This was just three months before the revelations of an NSA leaker made it clear that Clapper was not telling the truth.

    Pressed on his false testimony before Congress, Clapper apologized for giving an “erroneous” answer but claimed it was just because he “simply didn’t think of Section 215 of the Patriot Act.”

    Wow.

    As the story broke in June of the extent of warrantless NSA spying against Americans, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers assured us that the project was a strictly limited and not invasive.

    He described it as a “lockbox with only phone numbers, no names, no addresses in it, we’ve used it sparingly, it is absolutely overseen by the legislature, the judicial branch and the executive branch, has lots of protections built in…”

    But we soon discovered that also was not true either.

    We learned in another Guardian newspaper article last week that the top secret “X-Keyscore” program allows even low-level analysts to “search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals.”

    The keys to Rogers’ “lockbox” seem to have been handed out to everyone but the janitors!

    As Chairman of the Committee that is supposed to be most in the loop on these matters, it seems either the Intelligence Community misled him about their programs or he misled the rest of us.

    It sure would be nice to know which one it is.

    Likewise, Rep. Rogers and many other defenders of the NSA spying program promised us that this dragnet scooping up the personal electronic communications of millions of Americans had already stopped “dozens” of terrorist plots against the United States.

    In June, NSA director General Keith Alexander claimed that the just-disclosed bulk collection of Americans’ phone and other electronic records had “foiled 50 terror plots.”

    Opponents of the program were to be charged with being unconcerned with our security.

    But none of it was true.

    The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday heard dramatic testimony from NSA deputy director John C. Inglis.

    According to the Guardian:

    “The NSA has previously claimed that 54 terrorist plots had been disrupted ‘over the lifetime’ of the bulk phone records collection and the separate program collecting the internet habits and communications of people believed to be non-Americans. On Wednesday, Inglis said that at most one plot might have been disrupted by the bulk phone records collection alone.”

    From dozens to “at most one”?

    Supporters of these programs are now on the defensive, with several competing pieces of legislation in the House and Senate seeking to rein in an administration and intelligence apparatus that is clearly out of control.

    This is to be commended.

    What is even more important, though, is for more and more and more Americans to educate themselves about our precious liberties and to demand that their government abide by the Constitution.

    We do not have to accept being lied to – or spied on — by our government.

    Former Congressman Ron Paul’s article first appeared at the-free-foundation.org, the temporary home for his weekly column until his personal web page is up and running.

    This article was posted: Monday, August 5, 2013 at 2:10 pm
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  4. Feds Visited Michael Hastings’ House Day Before His Death

    Agents were pursuing Rolling Stone journalist prior to suspicious crash


    Paul Joseph Watson
    August 6, 2013

    Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings, who was killed in a suspicious car crash after complaining that he was being harassed by the FBI, had his home visited by agents from an unnamed federal agency the day before his death, a close friend of Hastings told Infowars.


    Image: Michael Hastings

    While it’s known that Hastings had warned others, including Wikileaks, that the FBI was on his case, the fact that feds visited the home of the controversial journalist almost immediately prior to his untimely death is yet another facet to a story which has thrown up numerous questions about the circumstances surrounding the car crash that killed Hastings in the Hancock Park neighborhood of Los Angeles on June 18.

    Through speaking to close friends of Hastings, Infowars has also gathered other astounding revelations about the circumstances surrounding his death that will be released in due course if those individuals are comfortable in going public.

    Several of Hastings’ friends and colleagues were reticent to go public with the fact that the journalist had sent an email hours before his deathstating he was “onto a big story” and needed “to go off the rada[r] for a bit.”

    Yesterday, Hastings’ wife Elise Jordan appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight to express the view that her husband’s death was a “tragic accident,” despite initially vowing to “take down” whoever was responsible.

    The LAPD’s assertion that no foul play was involved in the death of Hastings has not satisfied journalists who are being stonewalled by both police and federal agencies.

    Last week, investigative journalists Jason Leopold and Ryan Shapiro filed a lawsuit against the FBI after the agency’s refusal to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request which sought details on the death of the journalist.

    “By suing the FBI for failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, [we] hope to obtain records pertaining both to the unusual circumstances of Michael Hastings’s death and to the broader issue of FBI surveillance of journalists and other critics of American national security policy,” Shapiro said.

    Recently released surveillance camera footage which captures the crash of Hastings’ Mercedes shows three explosions before the vehicle comes to a rest, fueling speculation that some kind of incendiary device could have triggered the blasts. In at least three 911 calls, witnesses reported loud explosions accompanying the crash.

    Speculation has also centered around whether Hastings’ Mercedes was remotely hijacked, a technology which academic studies confirm is a fairly straightforward method of taking control of a vehicle. Former counter-terror czar Richard Clarke remarked that the crash involving Hastings was “consistent with a car cyber attack.”

    Hastings had made innumerable enemies in high places as a result of his controversial journalism and routinely received death threats. According to his friend Sgt. Joe Biggs, the journalist was working on “the biggest story yet” about the CIA before his death.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  5. Quote Originally Posted by carpee View Post
    not that there's any significance to it, but Trayvons dad is a Freemason:



    Attachment 84920
    Hes a prince hall mason not a freemason-

    this can be seen by the colors of his robes and fez....

    prince hall masons are NOT the same as F&A masons- they are a seperatist group that claim to be part of the same organization.

    This is noted throughout history and is evident in the way they were formed- also theyre teachings and discussions and values as a group and at their meetings are not in tandem with the teachings of F&A Masons
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post
    Hes a prince hall mason not a freemason-

    this can be seen by the colors of his robes and fez....

    prince hall masons are NOT the same as F&A masons- they are a seperatist group that claim to be part of the same organization.

    This is noted throughout history and is evident in the way they were formed- also theyre teachings and discussions and values as a group and at their meetings are not in tandem with the teachings of F&A Masons
    Thats interesting,

    So are they just like "wanabee's?" Are they a serious influential group?
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  7. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post

    Thats interesting,

    So are they just like "wanabee's?" Are they a serious influential group?
    I guess you can call them wannabes...

    Prince Hall was an african that came over to america in the 18th century if i remeber right. He was never a slave but was denied admitance into the masons so he formed his own sepretist group and recruited only blacks. He felt he was denied entrance to the fraternity because of his race.

    They have a completely separate charter from f&a masons. Theyre signs and tokens are not the same and do not follow the same laws and bi-laws of freemasons.

    They have far more influence and power throughout the black community. Outside of that not so much. Their network is far more limited and not nearly as deep as that of the true masonic brotherhood.
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post
    I guess you can call them wannabes...

    Prince Hall was an african that came over to america in the 18th century if i remeber right. He was never a slave but was denied admitance into the masons so he formed his own sepretist group and recruited only blacks. He felt he was denied entrance to the fraternity because of his race.

    They have a completely separate charter from f&a masons. Theyre signs and tokens are not the same and do not follow the same laws and bi-laws of freemasons.

    They have far more influence and power throughout the black community. Outside of that not so much. Their network is far more limited and not nearly as deep as that of the true masonic brotherhood.
    So either way they are still a force, even if not within the same "FA" but within the black community. Aren't they then sort of like the shriners or something? Even still, for example as Jay Z has shown in both subtle and not subtle form through lyric and mannerisms he does and elsewhere, he's an influential true FA right? Why would he be hawking it if he wasn't but that's not important it's his influence and the power that guy has.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by D3platinum View Post

    So either way they are still a force, even if not within the same "FA" but within the black community. Aren't they then sort of like the shriners or something? Even still, for example as Jay Z has shown in both subtle and not subtle form through lyric and mannerisms he does and elsewhere, he's an influential true FA right? Why would he be hawking it if he wasn't but that's not important it's his influence and the power that guy has.
    I dont know about jay-z...i dont listen to his music nor could i care if he is or not.

    Shriners are a completely different group but thwy are affiliated with the masons
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post
    I dont know about jay-z...i dont listen to his music nor could i care if he is or not.Shriners are a completely different group but thwy are affiliated with the masons
    Seems like a proxy puppet they can control, through his mannerisms, there were lots of articles that looked beyond the lyrics and messages and what he was using in his vids and what not. lots of it in vigilantcitizen .com or something, also looked at rhianna, but the big point is that they are affiliated or have shown affiliation in one way or another, unlike tupac who spoke about it but not in favor of, but against it (correct me if Im wrong).

  11. Quote Originally Posted by D3platinum View Post
    Seems like a proxy puppet they can control, through his mannerisms, there were lots of articles that looked beyond the lyrics and messages and what he was using in his vids and what not. lots of it in vigilantcitizen .com or something, also looked at rhianna, but the big point is that they are affiliated or have shown affiliation in one way or another, unlike tupac who spoke about it but not in favor of, but against it (correct me if Im wrong).
    you're correct.

    if you watch music videos of jay Z, Justin timberlake, Rihanna, etc.. there are too many coincidences.
    the covering of one eye (look at the newest Justin timberlake album cover) , the use of baphomet, triangles/all seeing eyes, etc.

    why have the past few Super Bowl half time performances used blatant occult symbolism as well.

    maybe someone in the industry reads the conspiracy sites and just wants to mess with people....but I don't know

  12. Quote Originally Posted by carpee View Post
    you're correct.

    if you watch music videos of jay Z, Justin timberlake, Rihanna, etc.. there are too many coincidences.
    the covering of one eye (look at the newest Justin timberlake album cover) , the use of baphomet, triangles/all seeing eyes, etc.

    why have the past few Super Bowl half time performances used blatant occult symbolism as well.

    maybe someone in the industry reads the conspiracy sites and just wants to mess with people....but I don't know
    Well that would be like asking what came first the chicken or the egg, and ofc if it's a coincidence that they are all in a high position of power in the media, specifically an arm of the media that promotes and desensitizes people into .. idk I guess the big goal is to have people not so much talk about it, but accept it, which is the REAL agenda. Let's face it why would they would high rank pop-culture be in the business of talking about it if the goal was to have people merely talk about it? Sure it'd be nice for conspiracy types, but that's not the real goal, it's having people accept it in their own faces. But what I also believe it's to show "they" are in all-places, and in theory proves that they in fact do exist, and that it's far more elaborate than people may want to believe, because let's also look at this way, even if music in itself is benevolent, if people with power can manipulate an artist to "conform" to the concepts then it means it's about using them as a vehicle to promote the concepts to the average person and bring it to the masses.

    But even with the talk about a power structure, like has been said often, if you believe it enough, I guess you an make it real.. whatever they want to believe all adds to power--it's the common denominator here.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by carpee View Post
    you're correct.

    if you watch music videos of jay Z, Justin timberlake, Rihanna, etc.. there are too many coincidences.
    the covering of one eye (look at the newest Justin timberlake album cover) , the use of baphomet, triangles/all seeing eyes, etc.

    why have the past few Super Bowl half time performances used blatant occult symbolism as well.

    maybe someone in the industry reads the conspiracy sites and just wants to mess with people....but I don't know
    All these celebrities and stars all probably (well, Im just theorizing here to be honest) are manipulated by the hierarchy of the power structures. They might think they are in, but they are really bought out or deceived on being "in," in some way or another in order to promote the agenda where its most influential in society.

    The way for the power structure gets its grip through society is to become Hollywood. Reasoning the Oligarch Royal F'n Family are treated as celebrities worldwide for example, or even Barry Soetoro (Obama) in with Hollywood, Jay-Z, other music stars, athletes and sports events.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  14. Quote Originally Posted by carpee View Post

    you're correct.

    if you watch music videos of jay Z, Justin timberlake, Rihanna, etc.. there are too many coincidences.
    the covering of one eye (look at the newest Justin timberlake album cover) , the use of baphomet, triangles/all seeing eyes, etc.

    why have the past few Super Bowl half time performances used blatant occult symbolism as well.

    maybe someone in the industry reads the conspiracy sites and just wants to mess with people....but I don't know
    Are ypu confusing masons w/ the illuminati??
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post

    Are ypu confusing masons w/ the illuminati??
    I wasn't talking about either, strictly.

    more that whoever is running the show is using the same occult symbols across the board.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by carpee View Post
    I wasn't talking about either, strictly.

    more that whoever is running the show is using the same occult symbols across the board.
    I dont think that either one readily are using occult symbols- at least not the ones used by the masons.

    the masons are a religous group that have there roots set in the old testament as the fraternity of men who first built the temple of solomon-the freemasons can trace their lineage back directly all the way to these men in that day.

    the illuminati came about in the 1700s i believe and are the "enlightened ones" (im sure you knew that already.) Theyre purpose in life is to dispell and disprove all relgion and the existance of any higher being through science. They have further expanded their ploys to control mankind and the globe through the power and scope of science as well.This is why so many people believe that the illuminati are the driving force behind ploys such as global warming and bio-terrorism.

    these stark differences are why the masons and illuminati are natural enemies. the masons just happen to be in the public eye while no member of the illuminati would admit to being in the group.
    Quote Originally Posted by iparatroop View Post
    I'm usually crying when people take naked pictures of me. Fcuking childhood.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by MANotaur View Post

    I dont think that either one readily are using occult symbols- at least not the ones used by the masons.

    the masons are a religous group that have there roots set in the old testament as the fraternity of men who first built the temple of solomon-the freemasons can trace their lineage back directly all the way to these men in that day.

    the illuminati came about in the 1700s i believe and are the "enlightened ones" (im sure you knew that already.) Theyre purpose in life is to dispell and disprove all relgion and the existance of any higher being through science. They have further expanded their ploys to control mankind and the globe through the power and scope of science as well.This is why so many people believe that the illuminati are the driving force behind ploys such as global warming and bio-terrorism.

    these stark differences are why the masons and illuminati are natural enemies. the masons just happen to be in the public eye while no member of the illuminati would admit to being in the group.
    this is correct, but I think it goes farther (as far as illuminati)

    masons have two different lodges. white and blue.

    white is "illuminated" whereas blue is the highly traditional Old Testament based fraternity.

    the illuminati had to infiltrate every position that had any moral/political/authoritative power...local and on the grand level.
    "illuminated" meaning all-knowing, enlightened...and they worship Lucifer who they think is the true god of this world.
    thus, the occult symbolism.
    at least, that's as far as I understand it to be.

  18. Both work synergistically. I remember this one video I think it was actually the guy that wrote the book where he posted the pyramid of power of the 'nati. Had a germanic sounding name, he was part of it and then got out of it. Wish I could find it but you can search it out yourself, he basically said when he reached the 33rd degree there was nothing in terms of the message that was out of the world other than every level, and this is important and relevant to this discussion, is basically admitting they are the same thing , although work on different things.. and in the freemason ranks all he said was when they advanced ranks, they had to say "more light" = which is a metaphor so, in real world terms, both are the same thing, although one =freemasons (i realize they have longer history) the illuminati's existence are "new",, but if they are so new and still hold enough power, it's just power begetting power.

    I have heard these two "brasses" and a division of both though. Not that they arent interrelated it's just that they are so related that it really doesnt matter at the end of the day. Too many examples to show where both worked to each other's advantage to advance whatever agenda it was at the time, socially --and you have media, political level, business-- by owning conglomerates that do 1a instead of 1a 1b.. you know what Im saying?

  19. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Me and My Obamaphones

    How about if Obama wants to raise taxes on cell phones, lets end the Obamaphone program and fund his agenda that way instead of using more tricks to raise our taxes!!

    Obama celling U$ out: prez wants another phone tax

    By GEOFF EARLE
    New York Post
    Posted: 1:37 AM, August 15, 2013


    WASHINGTON — That’s one way to “cell” a fee hike.

    Unwilling to ask Congress for extra funds to pay for high-speed Internet connections in schools, President Obama is instead looking to tack yet another charge on cellphones through the Federal Communications Commission.

    The new program, called ConnectED, would expand an existing school-wiring effort and cost each cellphone user about $5 a year, said White House officials.

    In New York City, the ubiquitous mobile devices already carry 10 separate city, state and federal fees and charges — and that doesn’t include sales taxes.

    Obama is relying on the fee hike to avoid dealing with a Congress that White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest yesterday described as “dysfunctional.”

    “You would think that connecting schools to the information superhighway would be a pretty noncontroversial topic,” Earnest told reporters in Martha’s Vineyard, where the first family is on vacation.

    “Unfortunately, we haven’t seen a lot of action in Congress, so the president has advocated an administrative, unilateral action to get this done.”

    Administration officials said the added fee would sunset after three years after generating about $6 billion.

    But critics worry it would continue forever.

    According to an FCC survey, half the nation’s schools reported slower Internet connections than the average home.

    Pressed on the program yesterday, Earnest denied the program was an “end run” around Congress.

    “This is a program that’s already in place. They just need to make a decision about whether or not they want to update this program so they can wire schools to the Internet. The president thinks that’s a no-brainer,” he said.

    Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) slammed the “endless expansion of the program at the expense of rate payers.”

    The initial White House fact sheet on the program didn’t mention anything about a fee hike, although the Washington Post reported on it.

    The fact sheet stated that the program will connect 99 percent of American schools to the “digital age” and that the president “is calling on the FCC to modernize and leverage the existing E-rate program.”

    The independent FCC currently has only three members, two of whom were appointed by Democrats.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...EsMDxEheVWEmKO
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  20. Video Shows Fake Muslim Brotherhood “Protesters” Staging Deaths & Injuries

    August 17, 2013

    A video shows Muslim Brotherhood protesters posing for a staged photo-op in which deaths and injuries are hoaxed.

    This is not to ignore the fact that many people have been killed by the Egyptian military junta.

    This message was paid for by the Russians

  21. Why The 2,776 NSA Violations Are No Big Deal

    Ron Paul
    Ron Paul Institute
    August 19, 2013



    (Below is just a full transcript of Ron Paul's weekly address above)


    Thanks to more documents leaked by Edward Snowden, this time to the Washington Post, we learned last week that a secret May 2012 internal audit by the NSA revealed 2,776 incidents of “unauthorized” collection of information on American citizens over the previous 12 months. They are routinely breaking their own rules and covering it up.

    The Post article quotes an NSA spokesman assuring the paper that the NSA attempts to identify such problems “at the earliest possible moment.” But what happened to all those communications intercepted improperly in the meantime? The answer is, they were logged and stored anyway.

    We also learned that the NSA routinely intercepts information from Americans while actually targeting foreigners, and that this is not even considered a violation. These intercepts are not deleted once discovered, even though they violate the government’s own standards. As the article reports, “once added to its databases, absent other restrictions, the communications of Americans may be searched freely.”

    The Post article quotes an NSA official explaining that the thousands of unauthorized communications intercepts yearly are relatively insignificant. “You can look at it as a percentage of our total activity that occurs each day. You look at a number in absolute terms that looks big, and when you look at it in relative terms, it looks a little different.”

    So although the numbers of Americans who have had their information intercepted in violation of NSA’s own rules seems large, it is actually miniscule compared to the huge volume of our communications they intercept in total!

    Though it made for a sensational headline last week, the fact is these 2,776 “violations” over the course of one year are completely irrelevant. The millions and millions of “authorized” intercepts of our communications are all illegal — except for the very few carried out in pursuit of a validly-issued search warrant in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. That is the real story. Drawing our attention to the violations unfortunately sends the message that the “authorized” spying on us is nothing to be concerned about.

    When information about the massive NSA domestic spying program began leaking earlier in the summer, Deputy Attorney General James Cole assured us of the many levels of safeguards to prevent the unauthorized collection, storage, and distribution of our communications. He promised to explain the NSA’s record “in as transparent a way as we possibly can.”

    Yet two months later we only discover from more leaked documents the thousands of times communications were intercepted in violation of their own standards! It is hardly reassuring, therefore, when they promise us they will be more forthcoming in the future. No one believes them because they have lied and covered up continuously. The only time any light at all is shone on these criminal acts by the government is when a whistleblower comes forth with new and ever more disturbing information.

    Americans are increasingly concerned over these violations of their privacy. Calls for reform grow. However, whenever Washington finds itself in a scandal, the government responds by naming a government panel made up of current and former government employees to investigate any mistakes the government might have made. The recommendations invariably are that even more government employees must be hired to provide an additional layer or two of oversight. That is supposed to reassure us that reforms have been made, while in fact it is just insiders covering up for those who have hired them to investigate.

    Let us hope the American people will decide that such trickery is no longer acceptable. It is time to take a very serious look at the activities of the US intelligence community. The first step would be a dramatic reduction in appropriations to force a focus on those real, not imagined, threats to our national security. We should not be considered the enemy.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  22. Forced Mass Drugging of US Troops an Underreported Scandal

    Soldiers being forced to pop pills by exempt officer class

    Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson
    Infowars.com August 19, 2013

    The mass drugging of US troops is one of the most underreported scandals of the modern era, with soldiers not only being used as guinea pigs in a brave new world of pharmacological experimentation, but also having their rights stripped as a result.

    Sgt. Joe Biggs Witnessed Troops Being Drugged (Interview with Sgt. Joe Biggs skip to 7:10)

    Sgt. Joe Biggs recently joined the Alex Jones Show to describe in shocking details how he witnessed soldiers in Afghanistan displaying careless ignorance of the threat posed by IED’s because the troops were high on Percocet, a prescription painkiller based on oxycodone, a Schedule II narcotic analgesic which is derived from opium.

    While US troops are supposedly guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan (even as opium production continues to hit record highs),increasing numbers of American soldiers are becoming hooked on opiates, some of which are being prescribed to them.

    There is now an epidemic of drug use in the U.S. military. Figures show that, “Since 1999, failed drug tests have increased in the U.S. Air Force by 82%, and in the U.S. Army by 37%.”

    As Mike Adams documents, the Defense Department notes that “20 percent of U.S. troops are on psychiatric drugs, and that they are often handed as much as a 180-day supply of those pills before being deployed.”

    The most underreported aspect of this whole scandal however is that troops are in many cases being forced to take prescription drugs against their will, while those in the officer class are often exempt from both the drugs and the increasing number of dangerous vaccines that are mandatory for new recruits.

    “U.S. troops are being forced to take drugs like Prozac and Seroquel for anxiety and depression. Troops cannot refuse to take the drugs without consequences from their superiors. Resistance by U.S. troops to their orders is also running high. Some U.S. military patrols decline to carry out their “search and kill” missions and, instead, return to their bases claiming they carried out their orders,” reported Veterans for America.

    Other drugs like Mefloquine are also causing soldiers to go on killing rampages, such as last year’s incident when Robert Bales shot dead 17 Afghan civilians including nine children. Drug abuse is also a core factor behind the shocking rise in soldiers committing suicide. A full third of all military suicides are attributed to side-effects from medication.

    However, the cycle of drug abuse does not end for US troops when they leave the military. Once hooked on prescription medications, veterans are forced to visit psychologists who diagnose them with mental disorders in order to keep a steady supply of drugs flowing and feed the dependency.

    This in turn relegates veterans to become second class citizens, with their right to bear arms stripped as a result of being permanently labeled as having post traumatic stress disorder.

    One of the core reasons why the Pentagon is encouraging the mass drugging of US troops is to grease the skids for the Marshal Plan, a long term agenda that will see all soldiers permanently drugged in order to produce “behavior-modifying and performance-enhancing characteristics”.

    The mass drugging of US troops is another aspect of government social engineering. It is about creating yet another huge sector of society – just like children in school or foster care – whose dependence on the state is secured via the method of artificially creating a dangerous dependence on drugs.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  23. I'm so glad I didn't sign my life over to them.. Thanks Mom!!!

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Zac Speed View Post
    I'm so glad I didn't sign my life over to them.. Thanks Mom!!!
    Its sad the troops dont have free speech on mainstream media such as CNN.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  25. I've read about so many atrocities committed against our troops by our own government.. The Gulf War Syndrome would have to top it for me. DU sickness and the potential effects it could have on your children is sickening.

    I wish our troops would uphold their oaths and attack the domestic enemy that is our federal and judicial system.

    That ****ing Navy commercial that talks about protecting democracy makes me wanna smash my ****ing TV every time I see it.. Democracy... Constitutional Republic you jerkoffs.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. One xbox 360 died, now the backup one died as well...
    By AtlasEnduring in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-15-2010, 10:03 PM
  2. 9-11-2001
    By manifesto in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 02:07 PM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-12-2007, 10:41 AM
  4. Mexican flag on top of upside down American Flag
    By Dwight Schrute in forum Politics
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 04-14-2007, 12:46 PM
Log in
Log in