thinktankedusa's Blog

The Great American Strike - April 15, 2008.

Sure it may sound crazy but read on... here's 12 reasons why I believe Israel had major involvement in the attacks on September 11, 2001.

1.   It was an Israeli work team that was lying cable throughout the World Trade Center in the months proceeding September 11, 2001.

2.   We have an Israeli Mossad agent posing as Al Qeida and creating videos of Osama Bin Laden.  Refer to my previous post.

3.   An Israeli official named Oded Yinon revealed the Zionist strategy to Balkanize the entire Middle East into ethnic mini-states in the early 1980s. The plan for a global "war on terror" to accomplish this goal has been articulated since the mid-1980s ad nauseam by Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli prime minister of the extreme right-wing Likud party. The Israeli military's plans to realize these strategic goals have obviously been in the works for at least three decades.

4.   The FBI, for example, under the command of the Israeli dual-national Michael Chertoff, is responsible for the confiscation of the crucial evidence from 9-11, evidence which has been withheld for more than 6 years. This evidence includes video tapes of the Pentagon attack and physical pieces from the different aircraft involved.

5.   The five jubilant Israeli Mossad agents who were caught celebrating and filming themselves in front of the destruction of the World Trade Center and their subsequent public statements indicate that the Mossad had prior knowledge.

6.   The text message warnings of the attacks sent over the Mossad-controlled Odigo instant messaging system several hours prior to the attacks are further evidence of Israeli prior knowledge.

7.   The Israelis have a long history of committing "false flag" terror attacks, particularly against American targets. The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 and the Israeli terrorist bombings of U.S. and British civilian targets in Egypt during the 1954 Lavon Affair are the first that come to mind.

8.   The extent of Zionist control over the U.S. mass media, including the Internet, is astounding. The mass media has effectively prevented most Americans from understanding who is really behind the false flag terror attacks of 9-11, and, by extension, the illegal and genocidal wars in Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq.

9.   Israel is a nation which was founded by terrorists, ruthless men with histories of committing genocidal crimes and false flag terror attacks. Israel was created in 1948 in Palestine on land that had been "ethnically cleansed" of its indigenous Christian and Muslim inhabitants.

10.   The Israeli military and intelligence agency have long had the capability to convert and disguise large-body aircraft in the United States and their companies that do this kind of work are connected to ICTS, the Israeli airport security company that is a prime suspect in the "false flag" terrorism. ICTS is also a key defendant in the 9-11 litigation.

11.   It is also well known that Israeli gangs are heavily involved in illicit drug smuggling. A disproportionately large number of Israelis have been arrested in Europe and the United States with large amounts of narcotics and synthetic drugs such as Ecstasy. The numerous reports and allegations of involvement in drug smuggling are what the Bush and Clinton families have in common. These are the families which have dominated the executive branch of the United States government since 1981. There has been either a Bush or Clinton in the White House for the past 26 years, since January 1981. Is the illegal drug business something the Bush's and Clinton's have had a hand in with Israel's Mossad?

12.   9-11, after all, remains an unsolved crime. It is, however, quite obvious who is responsible for blocking discovery and obstructing justice for the victims and their relatives. At every critical point where the events and circumstances of 9-11 should have been investigated and discussed, there has been a Zionist, a dedicated devotee of the State of Israel, occupying the key position and acting as the controller and censor of evidence, the gatekeeper of information.

New Hampshire ballot boxes found slit

Bev Harris
Black Box Voting.org
Friday January 18, 2008

No worries, say New Hampshire officials when cuts up to eight inches long are spotted in newly delivered ballot boxes. "The only seal that counts is the one on top."

Except the seal on top can be peeled off without leaving a trace, then re-affixed.

Black Box Voting has been doing a chain of custody exam for the New Hampshire Primary's recount. On Wednesday night, Election Defense Alliance's Sally Castleman mentioned a troubling observation: After following the ballots back to the ballot vault following Wednesday's recount, she had the opportunity to enter the ballot vault, and noticed what looked like cuts, or slits, in the side of many ballot boxes. New Hampshire officials assured us that these cuts, which slice through the tape, seals and box itself do not permit access to the uncounted ballots, pointing to a label on the box top which they call a seal.

But the "seal" can be removed, like a Post-it, and re-affixed. So it's not a seal all!

We wanted to know if the ballot boxes were slit while in the vault, in the transport van, or came from the towns with slits in them.

I confirmed this morning that many if not most of the boxes scheduled to be counted today had slits in them. I went out when a van load of ballots arrived, and saw that they were slit at the time they arrived by van. Susan Pynchon and I drove to two nearby towns and watched as they handed over their ballot boxes to "Butch and Hoppy", the two men who drive around in the state in a van picking the ballots up. We observed as they loaded boxes of ballots into the van with no slits at all in them. We videotaped each of these up close. They arrived at the destination without slits. The label on the top was affixed, but in some cases was crumpled, or also damaged.

Huge disparities between votes cast on Diebold electronic voting machines and actual hand counted tallies are emerging during the New Hampshire recount, with Hillary Clinton gaining the most from over a hundred unaccounted for votes in one Manchester Ward.

The votes are in and Michigan has chosen Republican Mitt Romney and although Michigan won't receive any delegates on the Democratic side they have also voted strongly for Hillary Clinton to lead Michigan out of it's hard economic crisis. "We can count on Romney's foreign policy to cut aid to those Nations who do not wish to join NATO and only using one bomb per household in Iraq and Iran to spread Democracy", said one Michigan voter wearing a Go Mitt button.

As the lines grew longer at the polls on Tuesday, another Romney supporter said, "I only wish America had the new Biometric ID Card that Romney proposed so we can just swipe our card in the Diebold Voting Machine and it would know who we are voting for already, it would make this line go a lot faster."

Mitt Romney scored a sorely needed victory in Michigan's GOP primary, benefiting from his ties to the state and scoring well on the voters' top issue: economic troubles. "Although Mitt Romney moved away from Michigan with his family as a young boy, perhaps he will help Michigan like his father did by turning these empty Automotive factories into Weapons factories", said another Romney supporter waiting in line.


Romney 337,847 39% 12
McCain 257,521 30% 9
Huckabee 139,699 16% 0
Paul 54,434 6% 0
Thompson 32,135 4% 0
Giuliani 24,706 3% 0
Uncommitted 17,971 2% 0
Hunter 2,823 0% 0

Clinton 328,151 55% 0
Uncommitted 236,723 40% 0
Kucinich 21,708 4% 0
Dodd 3,853 1% 0
Gravel 2,363 0% 0

KILLER POSSIBLY FLEEING TO MEXICO
ThinkTanked Exclusive

Perhaps the reason why the military is being so quiet about the murder suspect of the pregnant Marine Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach who was killed by Cpl. Cesar Armando Laurean is because he is an immigrant from Mexico serving in the United States Marine Corps under a immigration Visa. His parents Salvador Sanchez-Laurean and Elvira Ramirez de Laurean are both Mexican immigrants as well who purchased a home in Las Vegas in 2002 and then sold the home in 2006.

In 2006 Cesar and his wife from Ohio Christina Smith-Laurean, whom he married in 2005 in North Carolina, purchased their home at 103 Meadow Trail in Jacksonville, North Carolina and gave birth to their daughter in that same year. The whereabouts of Cesar's parents have not been disclosed to the public.

Cpl. Cesar Armando Laurean was last sighted boarding a Grey Hound Bus in Louisiana which was bound for Texas. Cpl. Cesar Armando Laurean may be fleeing to Mexico to avoid prosecution in the United States.

KILLER POSSIBLY FLEEING TO MEXICO
ThinkTankedUSA Exclusive

Perhaps the reason why the military is being so quiet about the murder suspect of the pregnant Marine Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach who was killed by Cpl. Cesar Armando Laurean is because he is an immigrant from Mexico serving in the United States Marine Corps under a immigration Visa. His parents Salvador Sanchez-Laurean and Elvira Ramirez de Laurean are both Mexican immigrants as well who purchased a home in Las Vegas in 2002 and then sold the home in 2006.

In 2006 Cesar and his wife from Ohio Christina Smith-Laurean, whom he married in 2005 in North Carolina, purchased their home at 103 Meadow Trail in Jacksonville, North Carolina and gave birth to their daughter in that same year. The whereabouts of Cesar's parents have not been disclosed to the public.

Cpl. Cesar Armando Laurean was last sighted boarding a Grey Hound Bus in Louisiana which was bound for Texas. Cpl. Cesar Armando Laurean may be fleeing to Mexico to avoid prosecution in the United States.

Coming "out of the closet" with being gay or lesbian is a fairly new phenomenon here in America. Only since the 1980's have people been open about being gay, so it doesn't surprise me when the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his statement that the phenomenon isn't common in Iran. Sure there were plenty of gay people in America in the past, but just think back to 1960 of how many people kept their sexual preference a secret, most went to their graves with the secret.

On a second note, the Islam religion plays a major part in the laws that govern the land. The Quran which is the Bible of the Islamic religion not only states God's ten commandments but the prophet Muhammad went as far as to explain how the Government should be run, it would be as if Jesus wrote the Constitution, and an amendment of that Constitution would be blasphemy. In that law it forbids acts of homosexuality and that is a punishable offense by death. Not only does the Iranian President agree with this but all loyal worshipers of Islam would agree.

Many Christians also believe that acts of homosexuality are forbidden, it even states so in the Christian Bible as well.   All Islamic countries including our beloved allies in Saudi Arabia, punish homosexuality with death.  To single out Iran's president as the only person that condones this act is complete nonsense.  When the United States government includes the spreading of democracy to liberate people from their oppressing leaders, they need to take in account that these governments are mostly ruled by the Islamic religion itself.  To liberate these people from their religion is indeed a crusade against Islam and not a "War on Terror".  All countries should be fighting against terrorism but trying to reform their Governments should not be a policy of the United States or any country for that matter.   We have no right to force our religions and beliefs on other societies.

In 2006 during the Riga Summit, the North Atlantic Council signed into act an independent NATO Force of 21,000 troops to operate globally performing military operations to conduct and support multinational joint expeditionary operations far from home territory with little or no host nation support with the ability to sustain them for extended periods. This includes forces that are fully deployable, sustainable and interoperable and the means to deploy them.

The Riga Summit of 2006 also signatured  the first major contract for a NATO Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence system which is a major step towards improving the protection of deployed NATO forces.

How do you feel, as an American, about a military force operating around the globe, that is not responsible to any host nation when performing military actions with the ability to release nuclear weapons in their defense?

We can't deny the existence of organizations in America that are full of nut cases willing to do evil things. Like the Black Separatist, KKK, Neo-Nazi, White Nationalists, Skinheads, Neo-Confederates, Religious Radicals, Globalists, Satanists, and the General Hate groups. There are 844 active hate groups in America as of 2006 confirmed by the SPL.

And don't forget the American mafia, street gangs, the biker gangs, other world mafia organizations that have influence in America, government spies, secret services, etc.  We wonder where we get these far left and far right activists from?   Why wouldn't these organizations involve themselves in politics?  We should at least question any involvement in such  organizations if they are going to run our country. 

Now, under the Patriot Act, we can safely say all these hate groups in America are "Terrorists", perhaps we should use torture to get them to talk and find out what they are up to?  What if we found out one of these "terrorist" organizations in America infiltrated our own Government, with their radical belief of taking over the world?  What if we discovered they actually committed bombings and terrorists acts on US soil before? Surely we should start torturing the ones we know, who admitted to being members of these secret organizations.    Especially if they even admit to being a member of such an organization and refuse to talk about it like Kerry and Bush allegedly admitting to being members of a secret organization like Skull and Bones and some affiliations with not so secret organizations like PNAC.

Look at PNAC, they have a website and they list their top members. Is their idea to spread Democracy globally any different from let's say Islam, Christians, or Jews wanting to spread their belief globally. What about Russia or China wanting to spread Communism globally? Is this the practices of terrorism? Under the Patriot Act it is.  I'm starting to like this Patriot Act. Let's begin with President Bush.

 President Bush is an admitted member of a secret organization, which could be construed as a "terrorist organization" under the Patriot Act, he is indeed involved with the killing of our Troops in Iraq. I think we can safely freeze his assets and torture him to find out if he's planning to bomb or kill more Americans. How ironic it would be if we could use the Patriot Act he signed into Law against him.  We have proof that the CIA funded the Pakistani ISI from 1979 - 2001. The Pakistani ISI in turn funded the Mujahdeen (which Osama Bin Laden now calls "Al Queda") and the Taliban. We have proof these Presidents (Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter funded terrorism. Let's start using this Patriot Act to our advantage. Perhaps this Patriot Act is a good thing after all, perhaps we should allow torture on these terrorists and the people who fund them.

A war against terrorism isn't possible. It isn't possible for one simple reason; A terrorist would not confront our troops on the battle ground to fight. Terrorists are civilians, they prefer to plot and plan their attacks on the much easier and undefended civilian targets. Terrorists reside in every nation around the world.

Military Combatants are different from terrorists. Military combatants usually involve one or more nation's army or people against another. Military Combatants exist on the battle ground along the front lines where the two opposing sides meet. A war ends in the overthrowing of the losing nation(s) government and occupation of the losing nation(s) land.

I'm writing this post because it seems many are confused about what war is and what terrorism is and how to distinguish the difference between a terrorist and a military combatant.

For starters, America is not at war at all. According to the United States Constitution we require a declaration of war from our Congress in order for The United States to be at "war". So by calling these conflicts a war is a misrepresentation because as far to my knowledge, no declarations of war by our congress have been passed.

Many politicians in office today are saying if The United States loses the "War in Iraq" then the threats of terrorism on US soil would increase. In reality The United States already won the "War in Iraq" by overthrowing Saddam Hussein and forming Iraq's new government. If I remember correctly our President even gave a victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln when this was accomplished. Our belief that the "terrorists" are crossing into Iraq to confront our troops is dead wrong. Terrorists would much rather prefer to attack undefended civilian targets and be successful like the attacks on 9/11. No "terrorist" organization in their right mind would dare confront an army on the battlefield and killing an army soldier on a battleground isn't an act of terrorism on civilians, it's an act of war.

If the War on Iraq is over, yet our military are still there defending Iraq's new government from terrorist attacks, then they are simply doing the job Iraqi police could do. Why then don't we fund the Iraqi Government to hire enough policemen instead of spending millions of dollars daily to have our own troops pretending to be Iraqi policemen? I'm sure Iran is thinking the same thing, and perhaps Iran feels they are only there increasing the amount of troops with their "surge" in preparation for a War in Iran. This may explain the increased insurgency from Iran. Why wouldn't they want the troop threat out of Iraq for fear of an invasion of their government as well?

The enemy combatants that are most likely attacking our troops on the battlefield of Iraq are the remaining loyalists to the Iraqi regime, people who oppose government reform, or people who are against occupation of foreign troops on their land.

To say terrorism will increase after our troops leave Iraq is a simple lie. We are actually less protected by terrorism on US soil by having our military overseas instead of on American soil for greater protection. The terrorists are more happy to have the military away leaving the civilians undefended. The insurgents crossing into Iraq to confront our troops are not terrorists, they are fighting our troops, and every time an IED or mortar round goes off and kills our troops the message is quite clear "Leave Now, We Don't Want You Here!".

A "War on Terrorism" would consist of this. Opposing terrorism whenever it presents itself and preventing terrorism from occurring. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented. The pilots of the hijacked aircraft could have been made more secure to where hijackers could not access the cockpit with box cutters. Also our military and civilian flight controllers should have recognized the planes as being hijacked the moment the planes flew off course and did not respond to any radio messages. Normally, any plane that deviates from course without explanation is intercepted with pride by the military within 10 minutes (average time 6 minutes), top guns and afterburners are very impressive.

The "War on Terror" like the "War on Drugs" are not really "wars" but are conflicts without end which have always been fought, usually by police agents, not by a declaration of war but by law passed by legislation. We didn't need a newly elected President to wage these wars, we have always fought it and we always will as long as it remains a crime.

The United States Constitution perpetuates a dangerous illusion by asserting that a right to vote is guaranteed by the 15th Amendment. The trouble is the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way. The Court affirmed that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”

As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments.

Yes, our Constitution explicitly prohibits discrimination in granting the franchise based on a person's race, sex, or (adult) age via the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, but those protections are like a house with no foundation. States and other governments can and do disenfranchise individuals and groups of citizens, and so long as they do it without provable bias, it's entirely legal.

a 5-4 Court majority in Bush v. Gore denied Florida citizens a right to ensure their votes were counted, saying "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for presidential electors." Tens of thousands of Floridians who were purged wrongly from the voting rolls by faulty electronic voting machines were denied recourse against Republican state officials who, in the name of preventing felons from voting, disenfranchised them even though they were not felons.

The Bush v. Gore ruling also meant Florida 's legislators could have followed through on their threats to simply disregarded citizens' votes and choose electors themselves.

While we speak of “spreading democracy” globally, the U.S. is one of just 11 nations among 120 or so constitutional democracies that fail to guarantee a right to vote in their constitutions.

Although many constitutional scholars reject the Supreme Court's reasoning in denying such a right, blaming the justices will not solve our problem. It's time we caught up with our own rhetoric by amending our Constitution to transform a right to vote from myth to reality.