: I am breaking up with you and here’s why



Do you believe Iran’s nuclear fuel will be used solely for electricity?

Ground Zero Mosque and Property Rights

Kurt Nimmo
August 20, 2010
If the “debate” staged by the corporate media over the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” demonstrates anything, it is once again how gullible and easily influenced the American people are, at least according to polls.
On August 19, Time Magazine released a poll showing 61% of respondents oppose the construction of the mosque, compared with 26% who support it. “More than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center,” writes Time.
Both “right” and “left” ignore the central issue of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque — property rights. Bill O’Reilly and Clinton era throwback Dick Morris demand Muslims be stripped of their right to own property in America.
An insult to the victims, even though there is no definitive evidence Muslims are responsible for that catastrophic event.
Time Magazine, of course, is a mantlepiece of the CIA’s Mockingbird corporate media, so any poll it generates should be highly suspect. In fact, we have absolutely no gauge as to what the American people think about the mosque. Considering the non-stop anti-Muslim propaganda propagated by the corporate media, it is entirely possible most Americans believe the mosque is an insult to the victims.
As expected, establishment politicos have lined up in opposition to the mosque. Naturally, the neocon Newt Gingrich compared it to Nazis trying to put up a sign near Washington’s holocaust museum and Sarah Palin, the darling of the establishment refashioned Tea Party movement, said it is an unnecessary provocation that “stabs hearts.”
Palin tells us she supports the Constitution, but obviously she has a dim understanding of the founding document. As Rick Lynch notes, in a political context, virtually nothing was as important to the Framers as property rights. For the founders, the rights of property were inviolable and they considered the Constitution itself as the embodiment of property rights. Concerns of freedom cannot be separated from concerns for property.
Palin should know that property rights were so important to the Framers that all but 4 of the 55 men at the Constitutional Convention placed the protection of property behind only liberty itself. As Lynch notes, of the four who disagreed on this point, three differed not because they valued property rights less than their fellows but because they actually “put [their] protection ahead of liberty as the main object of society,” as Forrest McDonald explains.
But nowadays, even the Supreme Court has a vague understanding of property rights and the Constitution. In 2005, during the “conservative” (actually neocon) Bush era, the Supreme Court ruled under the Kelo decision that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development. The founders would have been appalled by the very concept of “eminent domain,” the idea that government can deny the right of the individual to hold property.
Sharif El-Gamal, a real estate developer, owns the buildings that will be transformed into a 15-story mosque on Manhattan. In order that the feelings of the 9/11 victims families will not be hurt — and also buttress the cornerstone premise of the manufactured global war on terror — El-Gamal’s property rights may be violated.
It is not merely Newt and Sarah who are behind this selective application of property rights. New York governor David Paterson and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid oppose the mosque, as does Howard Dean, who has labeled it “a real affront to people who lost their lives.”
The real affront is to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If government can tell Muslims they have no right to property, they can tell all of us.
Is it possible nearly two-thirds of Americans are opposed to the very idea of property rights? If we are to believe the corporate media, they are.
From the Patriot Act to naked body scanners in airports around the nation, we have already lost far too many of our precious freedoms. It stands to reason we will lose our property as well.

Ask yourself, does Glen Beck or Hannity have any legitimate rappers at his back?

Alex Jones does and yes it matters

when scientific evidence demonstrates a certain fact, we should never ignore or deny that fact because we can’t immediately explain the history behind it.

“The important thing to understand is that when scientific evidence demonstrates a certain fact, we should never ignore or deny that fact because we can’t immediately explain the history behind it.

For example, we have evidence that there is methane in the atmosphere of Titan.  This evidence comes from measurements of the light emitted and scattered from that moon.  We would not say that it could not be methane because we can’t fully explain how the methane got there.  Similarly, we have much evidence that there were explosives at the WTC.  It would be unwise to ignore that evidence until we can explain how those explosives got there”.

Kevin Ryan
 former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time, remain unanswered by UL or NIST

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may bring 9/11 aid bill to floor month after it failed in House

Thursday, August 12th 2010, 4:00 AM

Sen. Harry Reid may be instrumental in giving Zadroga Act a second life.


Sen. Harry Reid may be instrumental in giving Zadroga Act a second life.

The bill failed in the House in a spectacular display last month when 
Democrats tried to pass it in a procedure that needed a two-thirds vote – and barred the GOP from changing the legislation.WASHINGTON – The leader of the U.S. Senate is weighing whether to bring up the key 9/11 health bill for a full vote after Congress returns from vacation, the Daily News has learned.
The measure won a majority, but with only 12 Republicans, leaving it short of the higher bar. Angry outbursts erupted on the floor, and a rift among New Yorkers followed.
The state’s delegation patched up their differences this week and have vowed to bring the $7.4 billion bill back for a regular vote next month. But the Senate has been an even bigger sticking point, and if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) can get the more deliberative body to act, it would all but assure 9/11’s first responders and victims finally get aid and compensation after nine years.
“I can only hope the Senate does act quickly and doesn’t play political games with this,” said 9/11 responder and advocate John Feal. “They could show the House how it should be done.”
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who has sponsored the Senate bill, wrote to Reid yesterday to push him along. “More than 900 heroes have died from health complications attributed to exposure at Ground Zero since 2001, with thousands more experiencing physical and mental health conditions,” Gillibrand wrote in a letter obtained by The News.
“This legislation has languished for far too long, and these heroes cannot wait any longer,” Gillibrand wrote, noting that 14,000 World Trade Center responders live outside the New York metro area, including 126 in Reid’s home state of Nevada.
A spokesman for Reid confirmed he is focusing on the measure and trying to figure out how to pass it.
The big problems are how it is paid for, and whether or not one Republican can be found to back it and ensure it cannot be blocked by a filibuster.
The House version shuts a tax loophole for foreign subsidiaries doing business here to raise the cash needed for 10 years, but sources have told The News that Senate Republicans do not like that maneuver.
Gillibrand is one of those hunting for a Republican backer.
“My boss is optimistic a Republican will support this,” spokesman Matt Canter said.