Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Now to the Story . . .
Samuel Alito was confirmed by the U.S. Senate Tuesday, becoming the 110th Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, by securing almost 60 votes.
Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58 to 42. There are 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and One Republican -turned Independent. One Republican, Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, voted against Alito, while Four Democrats, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, & Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, voted for Alito. I couldn't find confirmation, but I think that Sen. Jim Jeffords, the Independent, voted against him.
Samuel Alito now faces an uphill battle for popularity. He is replacing Sandra Day O'Conner, the first woman and arguably the most influential person on the Supreme Court. While a majority, albeit not a huge one, voted for Alito, I believe many in the Senate are not crazy about him.
Alito can do a few different things. He can be exactly what President Bush wants him to be, which is someone that will turn the Court back to a far-right establishment, turning back LONG-established cases at will. However, that would be being loyal to the views of the President who nominated you, which isn't what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to put personal views aside and vote by what's right, not what you believe.
He can be like O'Conner, and hold true to the law. While there were many views and votes and views that I didn't agree with, I liked, along with most Americans, I liked how she voted most of the time. However, I don't Alito has the guts of knowledge to do so.
Or, he can be in-between. I realize that someone who doesn't fall to the graces of their political party, like O'Conner usually did, but I would like if he did sometimes, vote against his party, if it was in the best interest of the country. Some on the Court do vote along party lines, who of which were appointed by BOTH parties' Presidents. I think that Chief Justice Roberts MIGHT be able to be an in-betweener, but I don't think Justice Alito will be. While I could be wrong, and both end up like O'Conner, both could also end up always voting for what's best for the Republican Party.
I hope Alito won't screw up the country too much. Like I've said in a previous post, only time will tell . . .
Friday, January 27, 2006
When Chief Justice John Roberts went through Confirmation hearings, and was Confirmed by the Senate, it was covered by all the news networks. However, throughout the whole onfirmation, there was nowhere near as much coverage of Roberts as there is of Alito.
One reason is that he's replacing one of the most volatile members of the court. While in reality, the other four didn't vote and Renquist would say "It's four - four, Sandy; How are you gonna vote?", Sandra Day O'Conner, I believe, knew she would be the deciding vote. However, I don't think she was ever influenced by this fact.
Back to Alito. He will never be able to fill her shoes, even if they do vote differently. I think that's part of the reason that the news is covering it so much more. But I believe there's another reason, too. And that is that Alito is not as squeaky-clean as Roberts. As you know, some of his rulings are controversial.
And it seems apparant, now, that there will be a fillibuster. And while the Republicans say they have the sixty votes to halt any such attempt, the Democrats say they have the 41 votes to authorize the continuation of a fillibuster.
If I were in the Senate, I probably wouldn't partake in the fillibuster (unless everybody else was doing it!), but I might just vote to uphold it. I also probably would have voted for Roberts. Although, I'm not olf enough to be elected to the Senate. (You have to be 25!)
Anyway, all of us political bloggers are on Alito watch, so check back Tuesday, if not before, to hear the latest on Alito.
Ann Coulter, I hate her, suggested at a lecture that "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee." She then went on to say "That's just a joke, for you in the media."
...for you in the media? That means that she wouldn't mind if someone did poison. It' like saying "I'm gonna kill actor xxx, but I'm just joking, security." C'mon, Coulter. She also cut off two members in the crowd at the lecture, saying "I'm not going to be lectured to." At one point in the lecture, she said the crack cocaine problem "has pretty much gone away." She is so stupid!
Justice John Paul Stevens, the oldest and currently longest serving Supreme Court Justice.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
The results of the Palistinian election are in...the terrorists...I mean, Hamas, has won a majority of the 132-seat Palestinian Lesislature. When the results are finalized, Hamas will remove the Fatah Party, founded in 1965 by Yasser Arafat, from power.
Hamas disagrees with a recent exil poll that they would win, but NOT majority. Hasmas claims that they indeed DID win majority. Hamas boycotted the last election, which took place in 1996.
Prime Minister Ahmed Qorie acknowledged the majority win and announced that he and the Cabinet would resign. Qorie suggested that he would not help in forming the new government.
Only time will tell if this really has a long-term impact on the Middle-East Peace Process.
For more, click here to visit CNN.com.
NO ALITO MIRACLE
Pending some sort of Republican epiphany, where they all of a sudden realize they stand for (many) of the wrong things, I think that Judge Samuel Alito will become JUSTICE Samuel Alito, the 109th appointed. (That # seems wrong to me?)
Yes, Alito will most likey be confirmed. It's not going to be too much fun watching the Confirmation vote, mostly because a majority of each party and has already stated HOW they're going to vote.
Now, before you start grumbling that the Democrats "ALWAYS" vote together with it's something the Republican President wants, it's NOT trure, we don't . . .
(Pretend I'm addressing a Republican (Senator) )
Adam: Republicans think the Democrats only vote together, and that they'll "ALL" vote against Alito. I'll ask you, how many Republicans are voting AGAINST Alito ? ? ?
Senator: None, that I can think of.
Adam: Don't you think THAT'S wrong?
Senator: No, because Alito will make a great Justice, and is well qualified.
Adam: So, 40+ Democrats are COMPLETELY wrong? If they can ALL be wrong, who do you know that ALL the Republicans aren't WRONG? (By now, I've rudely interrupted). Last time I checked, there were at least two, maybe three Senators voting FOR Alito. WHo can we mostly all be wrong, Senator? Are the Republicans ALWAYS right? Is that why THEY always vote together?
Anywho, I kind of got bored there, so sorry if that whole conversation is pretty campy.
You know, I just really don't care whether he's confirmed of not. I know I should, but for some reason, I just really don't care. There are currently no cases, current or someday to come, that will strip me of my personal rights, that I'm aware of.
I'm not a woman, so I don't need to worry about Roe v. Wade. Even if I were a woman, which I'm NOT, I probably wouldn't have a need to have an abortion, but I suppose that if I ever were in a situation where I needed one, it'd be nice to know that's there.
I don't know anyone overseas, so I don't need to worry about "Domestic" oh, wait, "International" wiretapping. Actually, I have an uncle overseas, but I doubt that emails between my he and my dad of grandparents would be monitored, because 1) He has the same last name, 2) Our last name isn't Middle-Eastern sounding, 3) He lives in England, our best-est allie, & 4) upon further review, they'll find we're all WHITE. Sadly, if you contact a friend named Sayid al-Abhou, who's Middle Eastern & Lives in Saudi Arabia, this administration will be reading you emails.
I can't name anymore right now, maybe because I'm tired, but there's probably something that can take rights away from African, Mexican, Asian, other Latin, Native, and maybe even Russian, -Americans.
I DO actually care about these cases. I just really don't care about Alito. And since no Democrats are throwing the Philly-Steak Sandwich & Peanut-Buster Parfait around (Hmmm...), Alito will be confirmed, and, as I said in a previous post, I'll never hear about him again. I'll hear about the "reformed" Court, I'm sure, but I won't hear about "Alito" too much.
Get it over with, and make it stop! This way, we can move on and focus on winning in 2006!
-Adam, trying to avoid the Left arrow key :-)
Monday, January 23, 2006
Okay, moving on . . . Sorry, there's NO way I'm re-typing all that. So instead, I'm gonna give you a short summary on each topic.
Some of these stories are a few days old. Time to catch up . . .
The Feds want to know what people have been searching online. Yahoo! & MSN have given in, but Google refuses to. The Feds want search results to see how much and what type of pornography is searched. While they say they aren't asking for who searched what, the Government always could collect that information. Hampering the wide band of internet porn good. Knowing what people search, even if it's NOT case specific, bad!
Ford Motor Co. is shutting down 14 production plants, firing 25,000-30,000 people. Included is a plant in Hapeville, GA, which is the only plant which produces the Ford Taurus. More importantly, though, the plant employs several of the 6,200 residents of Hapeville. The plant also provides 10% of the yearly income of the city. The mayor must find another place to get $1.4 Million. Car manufacturers have a habit of putting plants in small towns. Then, when they decide to shut down the plant, the town is the one who suffers.
Photo's have surfaced which shows President Bush with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The White House denies, however, that even though they were at several events together, shook hands, and talked to each other, the President has NO connection with Abramoff. Oh, yeah, Abramoff donated the top amount, $2,000, to the Bush-Cheney campaign . . .
A tape surfaced days ago of Usama bin Laden. He talks of (pretty) recent events, which places the audio tape in the recent month or so. A day or two later, a tape by Ayman al-Zawahiri was released. Zawahiri was the one they were trying to kill, but most likely didn't, last week. However, the tape didn't mention any recent events, so the time it was recorded isn't able to be determined. It is unknown for sure whether he is alive or not.
Send in the Hawks ! ! ! Oh, yeah, Super Bowl bound, baby! Going to Detroit!
National Broadcasting Bastards (another extraordinary circumstance!)
They canceled the BEST show on T.V. The West Wing will be canceled after 7 seasons, when it concludes on May 14. The show's "failure" is COMPLETELY NBC's fault!
Some say the show started to go south after Aaron Sorkin & Thomas Schlamme left (or were fired). I think the show was still great, as did many people. But, the show, in the last year or two, started to lose viewership. So instead of trying to tweak the show a bit & try to increase viewership, they decide to move the show to Sunday. This was completely stupid, because no one seriously watches T.V. on Sunday.
Recently, this show has gotten a LOT better. If NBC were to move the show to any other day, it would get more viewers. Much more! This is a GREAT show, and I blame NBC for it's demise. If you look at what else NBC plans to do, like put Law & Order up against Lost (insane!), you know they are hurting, BAD!
That's all for today, folks! See you next time!
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Okay, I've changed the Email address to email@example.com. Yeah, there's not much of a difference between "info" and "admin", but I did it anyway. The old one, "info" is still active, so for those of you not reading this, your Email's won't go unread. I'll probably just leave it active, so use whatever you want.
Here are the Poll Results to the old poll, about the Presidential Primaries.
Hillary Clinton - 5
Al Gore - 1
John Kerry - 1
John Edwards - 1
Evan Bayh - 1
Mark Warner - 1
Joe Biden - 0
Tom Vilsack - 0
Bill Richardson - 0
Barack Obama - 0
John McCain - 3
Mitt Romney - 2
Condelezza Rice - 1
Rudy Giuliani - 1
Jeb Bush - 0
Bill Frist - 0
Chuck Hagel - 0
George Pataki - 0
Rick Santorum - 0
Dick Cheney - 0
From my Democratic point of view, it looks like people either want a Democrat, OR Republican with drastically different views than the current administration. We'll see if these numbers stand true.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
I have a couple of questions for you, Adam.
First, Ginsberg's "you already know what I believe in..." stance was only on some issues, and she ducked quite a few others. However, the Republicans in the Senate realized that she was qualified and let her through with a 96-3 vote because, though many of them disagreed with her ideology, they realized that a Democrat was in the White House and that means a Democrat gets to pick the nominee. Do you think that the Democrats in the Senate today are willing or prepared to give similar consideration to Alito?
Secondly, as a Christian and a Democrat, what is your position on Alito and, more specifically, do you have a problem with him because he may POTENTIALLY vote to overturn Roe someday?
Here is my Answer:
I honestly don't know if they're prepared to confirm Alito. Half of them confirmed Roberts, which means that at least 22 Senators are willing to see the best in the person. You are correct, they need to know that is NOT a Democrat up for nomination right now.
While I share most views and a Party with those Democrats in Congress, sometimes I think that they aren't always ready to be bi-partisen. I've noticed that Democratic Presidents are bi-partisen, while a Democratic Congress isn't. It's opposite for Republicans. Republican Congressmen CAN be bi-partisen, while Republican President aren't.
That, however, isn't ALWAYS the case.
We'll see how the Alito confirmation goes. They confirmed Roberts, who has the same chance of voting to overturn Roe as Alito does.
As far as me personally, like I said, I like politics, but I don't have the want to have watched ALL of the hearings. I have a general idea of where he stands on the bigger issues, but I couldn't name all of his decisions.
I think he'll be confirmed. But I don't care whether he is or not, because if he isn't, the President will continue to put people up just like him, so they might as well nominate him, so we don't have to go throught this again.
If he is truly a "JUDGE", then he will listen to ALL the facts, in ALL cases, and NOT throw his personal opinion into play. Abortion should be severly discouraged, but not illegal. You shouldn't FORCE a woman to have a baby if she doesn't doesn't to. True, she should have been responisible enough to have avoided this in the first place, but don't DISCRIMINATE against her because she did!
In other cases, too, I just hope that Alito, if he's confirmed, will not throw his personal views into play, like Justice Scalia, but instead be more like who he's going to replace, O'Conner.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
.........Huh? Oh, uh, yeah. What was I talking about? Oh, that's right, Alito.
I've listened tyo parts of the hearings, i.e. I've left the T.V. on and been doing something else on the computer at the same time. Nor do I have any ambition to read online articeles about this person who I will never hear about again. Sure, we'll hear "Yes, Wolf. In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court..." But we'll never hear about Samuel Alito again, just like Anthony Kennedy or Stephen G. Breyer (who?) Something tells me he WON'T be a Sandra Day O'Conner or William Rehnquist.
Obciously, he is qualified from a Judicial standpoint, it's his ideology that's in question. When he gets to the bench, will he put personal views aside and ONLY listen to the facts? Probably not. Will he try to overturn certain rulings, which may take away the rights of a certain group of people, of a certain gender? He just may, and that's why Democrat's are questioning him so toughly.
On the other hand, the Republicans repeatedly apologize about the questioning, and try to give him the easy questions.
Obviously, he's not the MOST qualified for the Supreme Court. I am assuming that Judge Alito was on the short list from before Rehnquist died. He probably was, because I can't see that they're ready to pick someone and Secretary of Yada-Yada Joe Smith, sitting on the couch, says "Hey, what about that Alito guy?" I say he's not the most qualified because he simply wasn't picked first. John G. Roberts, Jr. was.
1. O'Conner submits resignation
2. Roberts is picked to replace her -- not Alito
3. Rehnquist dies
4. Bush picks Roberts -- instead of picking Alito
5. Bush picks Alito
So, not only was Alito not picked first, he was also not good enough to be Chief. But yeah, Adam, Alito was picjked second! I know, and for some reason I've dedicated to paragraphs and a list to that point! Back to the main topic.
Alito, along with every other nominee. They REFUSE to say what they think about certain issues, which "may" come up in court sometime in the future. Is Roe v. Wade even IN current court dockets? Are any of the other cases he would NOT comment on already in the dockets? I doubt ALL, if ANY currently are, considering the Court currently would still go 5-4 in favor.
However, he DID comment on certain cases, which will probably NEVER come up again, in any courtroom. These include Marbury v. Madison, Dread Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, & U.S. v. Nixon. However, how can he be sure?
Joe Schmo could walk into court tomorrow and try to reverse Dread Scott v. Sandford. That would not make slavery legal, but it would make all Americans with black skin lose Citizenship. Or Joe could walk into court and challenge Brown v. Board. That would segregate schools. Or Joe could walk in and challenge Miranda .v Arizona. Then police officers wouldn't have to read you your rights when you get arrested. Might as well get rid of it anyway, jast watch any Cops episode and you'll see that NO ONE listens to them anyway!
Of course, even if one of these cases DID make it up to the Supreme Court, Joe Schmo wouldn't win. However, when it got there, Joe Schmo would ALREADY KNOW how "Justice Alito" would vote, because Joe like politics, and had watched the Confirmation Hearings.
So, what I'm getting at is, Smauel Alito either can comment on ANYTHING, or he can comment on NOTHING, because you never know when someone may want to take public defenders away from the poor criminals! (Gedion v. Wainwright)
Besides, he's a Republican Judge who's being appointed by a Republican President! I think we know how he'll vote on Roe v. Wade. That's the difference between him and Justice Ginsberg. She had a "You already know what I believe in and how I'm going to vote. But I'm going to humor you. Here's my views, you can take it or leave it!"
BTW, I'm streaming the Hearings. And guess what? A Republican is standing up for Alito against those "EVIL Liberal America-Haters!"
Jeez . . .
Sunday, January 08, 2006
This is really sick. I don't know HOW these people think that they're doing the "right" thing!
I thought I've heard of this site before. Basically, this "Church", if you want to call it that, thinks that homosexuals are responible for everything thats EVER gone wrong in this world! From 9/11 to Hurricane Katrine, they say that people who are gay are responsible for all of it.
For more information on them, here's the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
The Bible says that Homosexuality is wrong. But you know what, it doesn't bother me what people do in their lives. Why should it? As long as a gay man doesn't try to chase me down and have his way with me, I'm fine with their choices.
And you know what, if they DON'T end up going to Heaven when they die, WHY should it bother ME? I don't personally know any gay people. I know of people who are homosexual, but none of them do I see or talk to, unless we happen to run into them at the store. Better yet, why should it bother the people who set up that dispicable site?
Those people need to get lives. You can spread the Word of God, just don't drag people down in the process. I don't know of any religion, as a whole, who promotes the degrading of people who aren't JUST like them. That's NOT the right thing to do!
To make matters worse, that site has a link to another site, also owned by them, which is called God Hates America! I don't think ANYONE hates America. I really dislike the current leaders of the U.S., but I DO NOT hate America!
People like that should be shot.
God help those who set up that site!
UPDATE: It turns out the Preacher there was thrown out of his old Church, and those who follwed him to Westboro are either blood or marriage related. Infact, members aren't able to marry outside the "church", so this had led to certain levels of Inbreeding!
DeLAY RESIGNS LEADERSHIP POST
Tom DeLay permanently resigned his post as House Majority Leader, but will seek re-election to the House of Representatives when his term expires this November.
Tom DeLay, who held the Majority Leadership post for 3 years, faces illegal campaign finance charges in the state of Texas. Under Congressional rules, he has to step down until his indictment is over.
DeLay said at a press conference at Sugar Land, Texas, his home district, that:
[about giving up his Majority Leader job] it's "too important to be hamstrung by personal distraction.", and
[about running for re-election] "I plan to run a very vigorous campaign, and I plan to win."
A new House Majority Leader is expected to be elected as soon as Congress reconvenes on January 31.
I think we all expected that he would permanently step down after he was indicted and had to step down. I wonder though why exactly he did. If he was confident that he would be acquitted, why would he step down permanently. DeLay did a BIG No-No, and he knows it. If politics doesn't get in the way, which it very well could, DeLay should be convicted.
But keep in mind there are those people who will do virtually anything to try to keep DeLay in Congress. They will try, because come election time, voters in Texas, and maybe outside of Texas, will remember what Tom DeLay did. And if DeLay gets convicted, there will be repercussions at the polls.
As I type this, I am watching FOX News. The Anchor of "Heartland", John something-or-other, is literally praising Tom DeLay, saying he is, without a doubt, the best Congressional leader in recent times. Thanks for the "Fair and Balanced" reporting, FOX News!
9/11 RESCUE WORKER DIES FROM RESPIRATORY ILLNESS
A retired NYC Detective, who was involved in the rescue efforts at Ground Zero, died from a respiratory disease related to the recovery efforts.
Former Police Detective James Zadroga died at his home Thursday, at his home in New Jersey. He is believed to be the first 9/11 rescue worker to die from the dust and debris, which was floating in the air around Ground Zero.
The President of the Detectives' Endowment Association, Michael Palladino, who made the announcement, also said Unfortunately, I do not think he is going to be the last."
Zadroga, just like all of those other brave heroes at Ground Zero, spending hundreds of hours picking through the rubble, looking and hoping they would find survivors. Only five survivors were found after thebuildings collapsed. (Including a guy who rode the building down from the 83 floor!)
Palladino said that Zadroga, who spent up to 16 hours a day in the month after the attack, developed black lung disease and mercury in the brain. He also developed shortness of breath, as well as other respiratory problems. He retired on disability in 2004.
James Zadroga left behind a four-year-old daughter. His wife died of cancer in late 2004. It was not reported where his daughter will live now.
Several registries, tracking Ground Zero workers' health, have reported that the rescuers have worsened in the recent years.
I was hoping that this wouldn't happen, or if it did, it would take decades. Unfortunatly, it appears that this will not be the case.
Friday, January 06, 2006
The power of Presidential Recess Appointment was originally created for the President to fill an emergency vacancy, originally high importance, while Congress was out of town. However, in recent administrations, the recess appointment power has been used to get people into a job without the required confirmation from the U.S. Senate. This is usually used when the nominee is liked by the President, but is considered too controversial for the Senate to approve.
However, this appointment is even more controversial, due to who the President appointed. Here's a few facts about Julie L. Myers:
1. If her last name sounds familiar, that's because you've heard it before. She is the niece of former Joint Chief Chairman Gen. Richard Myers.
2. Her new boss will be D.H.S. Secretary Michael Chertoff. Her husband is the Chief of Staff of Michael Chertoff. That's right, her HUSBAND is the Chief of Staff of her NEW BOSS!
3. She already has an established relationship with Michael Chertoff, since he was her boss previously.
Here are a few stats about her old job and her new job:
Julie L. Myers currently works at the Commerce Dept.
There, she has 170 employees working under her,
At her new job, she will have 20,000
Her operating budget at her current job is $21.5 Million,
At her new job, the operating budget is $4 Billion
Some political consultant on CNN said that in the Private Sector, this sort of job change would never happen, due to the fact that she's not qualified for such a change in budget and personnel.
The news media is calling it an "Inside Job". I tend to agree with them. If you ignore the family associations, which is hard to do, she's simply NOT qualified to go from the Commerce Dept. to Immigration enforcement. The differences between her two jobs are too great, and with all those money and personnel increases, comes the greater chance of a screw up.
I'm not saying she can't do the job, I just think that they could find somebody better qualified.
However, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to ignore all the family connections. Her uncle, her husband, and her former (and now new) boss. This is the sort of thing that shouldn't happen in the Government. Unfortunatly, it does all the time.
Jack Abramoff used money to court votes from Congressmen; Bush is appointing someone close to his top general and his DHS Secretary. If Abramoff didn't break other laws, the the things these to politicans have done would have been just as bad!
When will it END?
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Indicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff accepted a plea deal Tuesday, agreeing to testify against former associates in an influence-peddling case, in exchange for a reduced sentence. Abramoff is pleading guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion. Prosecutors also said he used campaign contributions, lavish trips, meals and other perks to influence lawmakers and their aides. He will recieve about 10 years in prison.
The former associates are members of Congress. Abramoff's testimony is expected to be a blow against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who has already been indicted, and other members of Congress.
Abramoff's testimony is to be joined with the testimony of Michael Scanlon, who was a former associate of Tom DeLay, will probably not only bring down DeLay, but I'm guessing several other members of Congress.
On good thing about this is that, I believe, most of these Congressmen were Representatives, so if tthey're all indicted shortly, no special elections will have to be held. The people simply won't vote for them in 2006.
Today, well actually Wednesday, about 3 dozen politicans, including President Bush, Sen. Maj. Leader Bill Frist, & Sen. Hillary Clinton, said they are planning to donate the money they recieved from Abramoff, or Indian tribes he represented to charities. Three-forth's of those giving money back are Republicans.
Wednesday, Abramoff also pleaded guilty in a Federal Court in Miami, to conspiracy & wire fraud, which was connected to a 2000 purchase of casino cruise ships.
This just adds to a long line of politicans who are indicted or are expected to be indicted. This list is expected to grow.
Two things in this story are extremely pathetic:
1. The only time politicans donate to charities are when they recieve money in "bad faith",
2. The only thing Congressmen can agree on is taking money from Jack Abramoff.
That's why I won't post anything like that again without finding secondary sources.
Now that we've got that out of the way, there's something I want you to watch. I picked this up from Bulldog Politics. Sure, the story is six months old, but it's NOT a story, per se.
When you click on the above link, in paragraph #4 (they're numbered) click the words "check this out" and listen to the audioclip. That's Larry Fernstein (spelling?), the owner of the whole WTC site on 9/11 (I believe he still owns it). In the quote, which is from a documentary that aired on PBS, he says that Building 7, the other building that came down that horrible day, was actually pulled.
Okay, I know, "How do I know it's him? There's no picture!" Well, the next part which I want you to watch, has the PBS footage of the owner saying it.
Between paragraphs 4 & 5, select the proper one for you, depending on connection speed & program of choice. This is a segment of a documentary by someone just short of a conspiracy theorist. The video is mostly about Building 7, a 47-story WTC building that fell on 9/11.
PLEASE NOTE: Even thought later on in the clip he is screaming into a microphone at Groud Zero, don't pay attention to the actions of the man on the screen. Instead, just listen to what he says, and pay CLOSE attention to the footage, especially the one where Building 7 falls.
He's got one good thing going for him...Sources. He uses audio & video footage from WNBC helicopter in NYC & an NBC News report, which aired on Nightly News.
In addition to Building 7 stuff, there are a few thing about the twin towers. Of course, you can take it or leave it, but I can't argue with the footage and audio that he supplies.
At first, you'll be going blah, blah, blah...but keep watching!
Here are a few points I want you to pay attention to:
15:00 - Hints that Towers 1 & 2 were ALSO pulled,
16:45 - Firefighters say Towers 1 & 2 look like they were pulled,
17:30 - Chief of Safety for FDNY says it appears that a secondary device went off in WTC Tower(s) an hour later, the news chopper also says this,
19:30 - Firefighters went on record saying fires were almost out about an hour after attack,
20:40 - (most compelling) FDNY firefighters release tape of deceased firefighter at sight reporting only two isolated pockets of fire, which they should be able to be put out.
So why did the Towers fall?
While it's entirely possible that this man thinks the government KNEW about 9/11, which I HIGHLY doubt, I think it's entirely possible that there were som Terrorists IN the building, and they detonated a "secondary device". No person alive today can HONESTLY tell me that what I just said is wrong. I don't totally but it myself, but there's SO much evidence.
Reguardless of wehat you think about Towers 1 & 2, the Building 7 information definatly stands out! I simply can't dismiss those facts. Just bacause it's possible that the Gov't brought down a building, doesn't mean it's a conspiracy, though. So, it's entirely possible that the Building 7 stuff is true, but the other stuff could be pure speculation!
Here's the site again: http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/2005/07/911-and-five-major-coincidences.html
Take with a grain of salt, but see if you can swallow it...
I'd really like your Comments on this one!