The only place you will ever find Dick Cheney speak is in a controlled setting. Mainly because if you don't like george bush, you do not like the other part of his brain, that is dick cheney.

Dick Cheney is well known on the meet the press program for spreading lies about bush surveillance program. Dick cheney repeatedly tried to state mis information that there are still and were ties between Iraq and Bin Laden. In fact, there is a largely accepted tie to Bin Laden that relates directly to the United States government. Who funded the taliban aka Al Queda during the Afghan / Soviet Union War.

Norman Mineta, who can be seen in the video here or read here, testified before the 9/11 commission, that he witnessed Dick Cheney tell an aid, and that Cheney knew that there was a plane flying towards the pentagon and new of it when it was at least 50 miles out.

What protects the pentagon? The mother of all military complexes has no air defense? It only makes sense that the Pentagon, especially in the years after WWII and the rise of the Cold War would have had air defenses built in. There were reports over the years in the local papers about such missiles. One was also reportedly installed on the White House lawn following the incident in 1994 when a small plane crashed just before hitting the building.

I hope no one wants to argue shooting down a civilian plane or if they should let it fly into the pentagon. If you do wish to make that argument, how are we going to combat or respond to the terrorist attack or whatever kind of attack it is, if the pentagon is destroyed?

It makes no sense for officials to make the call that we are better off by letting the pentagon get hit with whatever is flying towards it.

Nobody Cares About The People

America has been fooled. The game is fixed and no politician really cares about you. If they did, they would be voting to protect your freedoms, not taking them away in the name of fighting terrorism. Politicians would be going by the constitution instead of keeping what they are doing secret, because if the terrorist find out, they will get us.

Getting into work and finding out that Richard is no longer around makes me sad. I remember watching Richard through most of his televised carrier. Anytime I ran across him on TV I would stop using the remote and listen to what he had to say. He was very funny. He will be missed.

I went to search google for more information about Richard. The first search result google game me was labeled his official site. I click on it to see what I could find. I ran into this link: http://www.google.com/interstitial?url=http://www.richardjeni.com/

Google thinks the official website of Richard Jeni may harm your computer. This is complete rubbish after seeing some of the cached versions google has of the website. Below I have linked to several google caches of Richards website. Non of which points in the direction of a harmful website.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:WMtEAyF_mkoJ:www.richardjeni.com/+Richard+Jeni&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:1tGnJ3j9Lh0J:www.richardjeni.com/merchandise.htm+site:www.richardjeni.com+Richard+Jeni&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:RT-ZkMyJJ0kJ:www.richardjeni.com/biography.htm+site:www.richardjeni.com+Richard+Jeni&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:fER5O5vpLX4J:www.richardjeni.com/reviews.htm+site:www.richardjeni.com+Richard+Jeni&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

Google needs to fix this error especially now and for the days to come. Millions who want to visit the official site through google will be confused and scared away from visiting the website. Google fix this error. There is no harmful content you morons.

For Richard.

The fact that Al Gore won an Oscar for a global warming documentary should make anyone with reasonable thinking that something be amiss, or over simplified, then maybe you should see some of the scientific numbers brought together by independent scientist around the world. Scientist whose numbers contradict human made global warming scheme are often ignored by the main stream or fired. Even the Co-Founder of Green Peace has left the organization after he became aware of updated scientific information. This information can be found in the video above.

Al Gore goes from Presidential candidate to winning an Oscar for a documentary full of propaganda that co2 from humans is causing a global warming. The earth's air is made up of 0.03%-0.06% co2. Volcano's produce more co2 a year than all the factories in the world combined.

Man made global warming is man made global spin for profit.

PCL XL error

Subsystem: kernel

Error: Illegal Tag

Operator: 0x1b

Position:6

Solution:

Re install drivers by going into printers and deleting the printer. Then go into the device manager and scan for new hardware. When the printer is found again it will reinstall the drivers and the printer will work again.

Updated - Re install the printer using the post script drivers. I found that worked as well. Good luck.

Jacob Lovell

Posted: 3/7/07

Allow me to tell you about a worthwhile man for the Presidency of the United States. He's an experienced Congressman from Texas, an important member of a major Congressional committee, and a gynecologist by trade. He has voted consistently against every single war supporting initiative, all the way back to Bill Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act" that Bush has used to justify invading Iraq. He was a fierce opponent of the Bush Administration, even in the days after September 11th when so many other politicians kowtowed before the Almighty Executive. He has introduced legislation that calls for the decriminalization of non-drug hemp farming and other acts that cut funding for a plethora of government programs. He voted against all forms of the PATRIOT Act and has gone against his party so often that they can never rely on him for a vote unless the legislation in question is strictly Constitutional and ethical (which is rare, considering the party). This man has even stood his ground against the wave of "Support Our Troops!" propaganda, voting against every war bill even while being attacked for not "providing armor" to G.I.'s in Iraq and other such nonsense, becoming one of only four members in Congress to have voted against every war funding bill since the invasion of Iraq.

Who is this man? Is it Barak Obama, who has no experience as a statesman and wouldn't know Constitutional legislation if it slapped him? Is it Hillary Clinton, who suffers similar inabilities at obeying Federal Law and voted to invade Iraq? Perhaps it's Biden, Dodd, or one of the other no-name candidates that have filed to run as a Democrat in 2008 and have also proved themselves to be sheep in the face of a warmongering President? One way or another, such an anti-war candidate must surely be a Democrat, right?

Wrong.

The only person that is considering running in 2008 that has consistently been against the war and all unConstitutional Federal spending or actions is Representative Ron Paul, from Texas. Dr. Paul is, unfortunately for some, a Republican.

Simply because he has an (R) next to his name, some of you will not be voting for him. It's a shame, really. There isn't much one can write to beat away the mindlessness that affects those caught up in partisan politics. People who would write articles going on about the supposed victory that this country had in electing a majority Democrat Congress, and people who would revel in such an article, are not interested in solutions. These people do not care about principles in politics or ethics in law. Instead, just as in past elections where vast seas of mindless people voted for a party instead of a candidate, politics has boiled down to "I hope my side wins", with absolutely no regard to what their side stands for.

Partisan politics does not consist of Right vs. Wrong, Principled vs. Unprincipled, Ethical vs. Unethical, Constitutional vs. unConstitutional, or Wise vs. Unwise. Partisanship is simply Red vs. Blue, or with the state of politics consisting of Big Government Social Conservatives and Big Government Social Liberals, it's more like Red vs. a slightly different shade of Red. Worse, maybe it's more like Alien vs. Predator: Whoever wins, we lose.

The Democrat majority has done nothing to get us out of Iraq. No timetable has been set up and nothing has been done to curtail the out-of-control executive branch. The Democrats have fallen on their faces in front of political power instead of standing up for what is right (which is something they never actually promised to do, anyway). Pelosi's first 100 hours were a terrible joke, with absolutely no solid, Constitutional legislation coming out that would improve the condition of this nation. They have wasted their time and given up their check on power to build a bigger, stronger Federal government instead of cutting expenditures and reeling in the President. Truly, they are just another shade of Red.

Getting back to Dr. Paul's possible candidacy, I encourage each of you to do some research on him. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" House and Senate members on Capitol Hill. Do a search on YouTube.com for Ron Paul, and see if he isn't the most straightforward politician you've ever heard. Better yet, if you value action over rhetoric, look up his voting record and see his absolute dedication to principles in government. This man does not fall on his knees before special interest groups, corporate lobbyists, or partisan politics. Unlike any Democrat with a Presidential bid, Paul has nothing to apologize for - he did not vote, as Clinton, Edwards, and Kerry of the previous election had, to enter into Iraq or fund the occupation since.

Dr. Paul is running on the Republican ticket, but this man is not a Republican in the modern sense. Instead, he is a principled leader and fiscally responsible statesman. Unlike any other person that is considering a bid, he has a record of obeying the Constitution, being a true reformer, cutting Federal spending to support tax cuts for everyone (and not providing corporate welfare), being against the war in every single vote, and holding individual freedom as the only true goal for proper governance. If you want someone who has even just one of those qualities, Dr. Paul is simply the only option for 2008.

For the sake of this country, I beg you: Drop your partisanship mindset. Vote for principles, not party. Vote for Ron Paul in 2008.

In a story that is going around, about which comment was worse between colter commenting that john Edwards was a faggot or the comment by bill maher stating that he wished the bomb in Afghanistan would have hit cheney.

Coulter

Ann Coulter is best defined as a stupid bitch. All of the dumb shit Ann Coulter gets attention from is far right and equivalent to racism. Coulters comments about 9/11widows being money hungry is baseless. No one likes Ann Colter, even if they do, they either want her money or are desperate for sex. Seeing that Ann Colter is white and a female, she seems to have gotten away with calling John Edwards a fagot and she seemed to want to put out more names. When she makes the news, its over some extreme comment that has no basis for argument. Her words are meaningless unless you are in need of some political points.

Maher

Bill Maher i ok in book.  If Cheney was killed by that terrorist bomb, it would have be 9/11 all over again. Who knows what the dumb fucks in Washington would do if the #2 crook in power were to get knocked off by terrorist. More than likely bush would try to declare marshal law and create another federal agency with some cooler color codes to scare us for the day.

On a foot note if Bill Maher I recently watched this clip of bill maher. This was a good rant that gives background information to specific lies an outing of cia agents that were working to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Conclusion.

Neither comment addresses any issues that matter to America and yet draw all this attention. And those who can use these comments, presidential candidates, will use these terms to help fix America. Both of the comments supporting terrorist by supporting the enemy, letting them know we are weak and vulnerable.

Ann Coulter is a useless bitch and should be arrested for wasting air. Ann Coulter has just made herself to be a punching bag for both republicans and democrats. This makes Ann Coulter a political whore.

Bill Maher, yeah I know the thought of Cheney being blown up is nice, but there is evidence to put him in jail, do it the open way. Maher needs his paycheck so he will not be opposing the official story. I understand that but there is too much at stake.   

The Future

What will be the next war on? War on Iran? War on weapons of mass destruction? War on the Internets? War on the free liberties of the American People of the United States?

How about a war on fixed elections? War on million dollar campaigns? War on corrupt congressmen? War on privacy invasion? War on against phone tapping? War against tyranny? War against a banking system that is taking money away from the people?

A recent video in the BBC archives shows a woman giving a report about Building 7's collapse, even though directly behind her, on live TV, stands WTC7.

The release of this video has stirred up all kinds of uploaders to google video, youtube and articles like this one bringing the issue out and front.

Removed and deleted videos.

An article that links to the newly found video sites exposes the fraud of the 9/11 official story and with over 910 Diggs in 10 hours is not listed in the first 10 pages of digg. You should be able to find a link to the video from the article link here / here or in the digg comments for the entry.

Google pulled the video many times throughout today, YouTube has repeatedly removed the video.

Thinking about the BBC doing incorrect reporting comes to mind. But what you are witnessing is a BBC reporter that is talking about WTC7 having already collapsed, when it was still standing behind her.

There are many ways that you could come up with reasons as to how they could be so wrong as to report and discuss this false collapse between two reporters. But how?

When WTC1 and WTC2 fell there was no question. You either saw it or heard from someone who saw it or watched it.

Someone or her would have to write the report down, take in ideas from other people, discussed it maybe with her crew before she went on. She had to talk with someone with someone that knew it fell, otherwise why does she give the story. How could they not know?

At the end of my thinking, why does google remove the video, why does youtube remove the video? Why does digg keep this most dug story buried?

Censoring this video makes no sense. These makes google and youtube look like sell out.

Ron Paul Presidential Exploritory Commity Video

How to save the world for dummies.

1. Wath this video from Ron Paul.

2. Go to google video and learn what Ron Paul is about by watching him in action. Google Video Ron Paul Search.

-By Ron Paul for President

The Pentagon recently reported that it now spends roughly $8.4 billion per month waging the war in Iraq, while the additional cost of our engagement in Afghanistan brings the monthly total to a staggering $10 billion.  Since 2001, Congress has spent more than $500 billion on specific appropriations for Iraq.  This sum is not reflected in official budget and deficit projections.  Congress has funded the war by passing a series of so-called "supplemental" spending bills, which are passed outside of the normal appropriations process and thus deemed off-budget.

This is fundamentally dishonest: if we're going to have a war, let's face the costs-- both human and economic-- squarely.  Congress has no business hiding the costs of war through accounting tricks.

As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it's important to ask ourselves an overlooked question:  Can we really afford it?  If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I'm quite certain it would end very quickly.  The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes.  When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted.

Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that makes war easier to finance.  Congress has an insatiable appetite for new spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular.  The Federal Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating new money through the Treasury Department.  In exchange, Congress leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of political scrutiny.  Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington, even though the Federal Reserve system is a creation of Congress.

The result of this arrangement is inflation.  And inflation finances war.

Economist Lawrence Parks has explained how the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 made possible our involvement in World War I.  Without the ability to create new money, the federal government never could have afforded the enormous mobilization of men and material.  Prior to that, American wars were financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which have limits.  But government printing presses, at least in theory, have no limits.  That's why the money supply has nearly tripled just since 1990.

For perspective, consider our ongoing military commitment in Korea. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent $1 trillion in today's dollars over 55 years.  What do we have to show for it?  North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear weapons, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as their protector.  The stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, as the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the men who fought in Korea give little thought to what was gained or lost.  The Korean conflict should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military occupation of any region. 

The $500 billion we've officially spent in Iraq is an enormous sum, but the real total is much higher, hidden within the Defense Department and foreign aid budgets.  As we build permanent military bases and a $1 billion embassy in Iraq, we need to keep asking whether it's really worth it.  Congress should at least fund the war in an honest way so the American people can judge for themselves.

 http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst021907.htm

By Ron Paul

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testifies twice every year before the congressional Financial Services committee, and I look forward to these opportunities to raise questions about monetary policy.  I believe monetary policy is critically important  yet overlooked in Washington.  Money is the lifeblood of any economy, and control over a nation's currency means control over its economic well being.   Fed bankers quite literally determine the value of our money, by controlling the supply of dollars and establishing interest rates.  Their actions can make you richer or poorer overnight, in terms of the value of your savings and the buying power of your paycheck.   So I urge all Americans to educate themselves about monetary policy, and better understand how a small group of unelected individuals at the Federal Reserve and Treasury department wield tremendous power over our lives.

The following are some excerpted comments from my opening remarks at the hearing with Mr. Bernanke:   

Transparency in monetary policy is a goal we should all support.  I've often wondered why Congress so willingly has given up its prerogative over monetary policy.   Astonishingly, Congress in essence has ceded total control over the value of our money to a secretive central bank.

Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve.   There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks.  We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported.

The role the Fed plays in the President's secretive Working Group on Financial Markets goes unnoticed by members of Congress.  The Federal Reserve shows no willingness to inform Congress voluntarily about how often the Working Group meets, what actions it takes that affect the financial markets, or why it takes those actions.

But these actions, directed by the Federal Reserve, alter the purchasing power of our money.  And that purchasing power is always reduced.  The dollar today is worth only four cents compared to the dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve started.  This has profound consequences for our economy and our political stability.   All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation's poor and middle class.   This leads to political turmoil.

Government officials consistently claim that inflation is in check at barely 2%, but middle class Americans know that their purchasing power--especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition-- is shrinking much faster than 2% each year.

We look at GDP numbers to reassure ourselves that all is well, yet a growing number of Americans still do not enjoy the higher standard of living that monetary inflation brings to the privileged few.   Those few have access to the newly created money first, before its value is diluted.

For example:  Before the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, CEO income was about 30 times the average worker's pay.   Today, it's closer to 500 times.  It's hard to explain this simply by market forces and increases in productivity.   One Wall Street firm last year gave out bonuses totaling $16.5 billion.  There's little evidence that this represents free market capitalism.

In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods.   Today that dollar is worth $5.15.  Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar.   We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord.

How can a policy of steadily debasing our currency be defended morally, knowing what harm it causes to those who still believe in saving money and assuming responsibility for themselves in their retirement years?   Is it any wonder we are a nation of debtors rather than savers?

We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon.