Friday, March 12, 2010

Let Me Know When You See Fire: The Flaming Inferno Story on 9/11

You Tube
March 12, 2010
Major Reginald Shinn USAF (Ret.) gives commentary based on the radio intercepts of the first responders.

The presence of multiple rescue teams moving throughout the building is inconsistent with the raging inferno that would have been necessary to weaken the steel structure enough to initiate collapse, as the official explanation suggests. Instead, there were two isolated pockets of fire that fire fighters believed could be put out with two lines.

The audio proves the following about the 10 minutes prior to the South Tower collapse:

1) Firemen were working throughout the building

2) Battalion 7 had reached the 79th floor.

3) Battalion 15 had reached the 78th floor

4) Battalion 7 Alpha had reached the 55th floor

5) Rescue teams encountered only small, isolated pockets of fire

6) Rescue operations were finding numerous wounded survivors

7) The structure of the tower was NOT melted, or deformed.

Rescue teams were climbing on uncompromised staircases.

9) Elevators were operational and in use up to the 40th floor.

During the period that the Official story states that the South Tower building was consumed with raging office fires, fire fighers were up to the 79th floor; the stairs and elevators were operational, and they were “looking out” for fires—proving once again that the official story was a lie.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

"Crazy" People Who Question the Government's 9/11 Story

Washington’s Blog
March 8, 2010

Most Americans don’t know what kind of people 9/11 truthers really are. So they can’t figure out whether or not they are dangerous.

Below is a list of people who question what our Government has said about 9/11.

The list proves – once and for all – that people who question 9/11 are dangerous.

Email this list to everyone you know, to prove to them that 9/11 truthers are all dangerous nut cases (hahaha).

Senior intelligence officers:

• Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).

• A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

• A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11.” (and see this).

• A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored)

• 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”, and it was probably an inside job (scroll down to Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

• A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job

• The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup.”

• Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government’s version of the events of 9/11.

• According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here)

• Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?”

• Current Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on

• Current Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11

• Current Republican Congressman Jason Chafetz says that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11

• Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11

• Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new 9/11 investigation

• Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg says that the U.S. government “assisted” in the 9/11 attacks, stating that “I think there was a lot of help from the inside”

• Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

9/11 Commissioners:

• The Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)

• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue

• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting

• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”

• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access....

• And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

Other government officials:

• U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said “We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time.”

• Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

• Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence.”

• The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility

• President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government’s version of 9/11

• Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is “the dog that doesn’t hunt”

• The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

• Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated: “If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!”

Numerous other politicians, judges, legal scholars, and attorneys also question at least some aspects of the government’s version of 9/11.

Friday, March 5, 2010

What In The World Are They Spraying?

Michael J. Murphy
March 4, 2010
What would you say if you were told that airplanes were regularly spraying toxic aerosols in the skies above every major region of the world? That is exactly what a group of protestors were claiming outside of the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting that was held in San Diego from February 18-22. However, inside the convention center was a different story. The scientists gathered to discuss the “plausibility” of implementing various Geo-engineering campaigns throughout the world, all under the guise that the Earth has a man-made global warming problem that can be solved in-part by spraying aerosol aluminum and other particles into the sky to block the sun. When these scientists were asked about the possibility of existing aerosol programs; they stated that no aerosol spraying programs have been implemented to date. A little confused? Why would protestors gather outside of a meeting making claims that world-wide aerosol programs were under way if scientist were only now discussing the possibility of implementing these programs? Could it be that one of these groups is being deceived?

Mauro Oliveira, the Webmaster of, was one of the protestors. He claimed that the program for Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering (SAG), AKA chemtrails, has been well under way around the world. As a matter of fact, Oliveira stated that witnesses from around the globe claim that heavy aerosol spraying is occurring almost every day over just about every city. He went on to explain the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. He stated that when a jet airplane flies at a certain altitude, a visible trail of streaks of condensed water vapor sometimes form in the wake of the aircraft. This is called a contrail. Contrails are normal and usually dissipate in a few seconds. They are very similar to when we breathe in cold weather. According to Oliveira, what occurs behind a SAG plane spraying aerosols is quite different. What can be seen is a thick white line also called a chemtrail that lingers in the sky for several hours. The SAG lines are sprayed into the upper atmosphere and then spread out forming what then appear to be clouds. The particles from these aerosols then fall to the ground where they enter our soil and water and can also be inhaled.

Another group of protestors had traveled over 10 hours from a small Shasta County community in Northern California. They became concerned about SAG when many from this community began to see dramatic changes not only in the sky, but also on the ground. Trees were dying, grass was not growing and many farmers were having difficulty getting any crops to grow on their farms. The crisis prompted biologists from the community to take action by testing the soil. The results were shocking. Aluminum, barium and other elements were found to be up to thousands of times higher than normal limits. Such high quantities lead to unhealthy PH levels in the soil which can be deadly to ecological life systems. These shocking results led to additional testing of Lake Shasta with samples from the Pit River arm tributary that tested over 4,610 times the maximum contamination level of aluminum allowed in drinking water in the state of California. Also, peer reviewed scientific studies conclude that bio-available aluminum, now found in huge quantities in rain world-wide, is very harmful to flora and thus the eco-system. Ironically, these are the same substances the scientists are considering implementing in the various potential “future” aerosol spraying campaigns that were being discussed at the meeting.

A large number of other protesters became interested in SAG after experiencing burning eyes, migraine headaches, anxiety, irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure and other health problems on days that airplanes were allegedly witnessed spraying aerosols in the sky. Deborah Whitman, Founder and President of the non-profit environmental organization Environmental Voices and also Producer of the documentary “Sky Lines” is no stranger to these symptoms. She has been hospitalized over 51 times on what she calls “heavy spraying days”. Whitman has committed her life to helping people who claim to be experiencing similar problems resulting from aerosol spraying and gets calls from all over the U.S. in response to her website and documentary. Her recommended health tips can be found at Other indicators that possibly validate the claim that SAG is connected to health problems are the respiratory mortality rate, which has risen from eight on the list of mortality to third in the past five years, and the fact that Alzheimer’s and other illnesses linked to aluminum have continued to rise around the globe at astronomical rates since the inception of the alleged spraying.

The AAAS meeting hosted some of the world’s leading geo-engineering scientists. With years of education and even more experience in their respected fields, the scientists looked at geo-engineering issues from many angles. Workshop subjects ranged from, the effectiveness of geo-engineering to potential problems and even touched upon the issue of ethics. According to independent reporter Stewart Howe of Los Angeles, all of the scientists seemed to be looking for solutions to what they believe is the problem of global warming. Howe stated that the scientists appeared to be carefully weighing both the pros and cons of SAG when presenting potential campaigns to address the man-made global warming theory. Many were actually advocating alternative methods to combat this issue due to the potential risks of SAG that include droughts, ozone depletion, less solar power, decimated weather patterns, military use of technology and other various environmental impacts. Howe said, “after witnessing the aerosol spraying for years, I was surprised by the discourse among scientists.” Stewart went on to say that he believes that most of the scientists attending seemed to be separated from the knowledge of any current SAG deployment. As a matter of fact when asked about current SAG operations, leading geo-engineering scientist Ken Caldiera replied that he was unaware of any current aerosol spraying operations and when prompted to explain the long lingering trails left behind planes, he stated that they are simply normal contrails from jets.

David Keith, another leading scientist and expert in the field of geo-engineering, discussed the well-funded studies that have been conducted to predict potential future risks as well as benefits associated with geo-engineering. Some of the potential benefits include a cooler planet, and the reduction of melting sea ice and rising sea levels. Keith discussed what aerosol particles would be most effective in achieving the stated goals of the SAG program. He went on to say that initially sulfur was considered, however, aluminum is more effective and can be used by adding ten to twenty mega-tons per year into the stratosphere. When asked about health related studies that have been conducted to predict the potential risks of adding the particles in our air, Keith stated that many studies have been completed and indicate few risks. However, when asked specifically about the use of aluminum as an aerosol, he said “we haven’t done anything serious on aluminum, so there could be something terrible that we will find tomorrow that we haven’t looked at.” After the meeting, Keith showed consideration to the protesters by initiating a discussion about the SAG program outside where the protestors were standing. When confronted with concerns about SAG deployment from the group, he went on to say that he shared similar views and is against any deployment until proper research is completed to determine potential risks of aerosol spraying. He also went on to say that he is unaware of any current SAG operations, but, would be willing to look at any scientific proof if presented to him.

As the skies around our world continue to change, there is strong evidence that points toward current deployment of massive aerosol operations. Could it be that scientific data and studies are being used to implement pre-mature full-scale SAG programs with-out the knowledge of the top scientists who are involved with the research? If so, what kind of ethical considerations can we expect from the geo-engineering community in the future? It is hard to believe that the strange white lines in the skies witnessed around the world and the toxic elements found in the soil, water and air are from an unrelated source. We the people, in partnership with the scientific community need to challenge not only the environmental and health risks associated with SAG but also the numerous world-wide allegations about current deployment. It is imperative that we become educated and involved in uncovering the truth of this alleged crime against both nature and humanity. The future of our planet depends on it. As concerns continue to grow around the world about this issue, additional information including meet-up groups can be found on various chemtrail and geo-engineering websites.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Potential Progression of Events Leading to One World Government

1. Planned Financial Melt-down – Needing a world currency and financial system.

2. Economic Collapse – Requiring increased taxes and world economic authority.

3. Social Unrest – Requiring international military to police.

4. Virus Pandemics – Created in labs, requiring deadly vaccines, that secretly carry RFID (Radio-Frequency Identification) chips.

5. Environmental Scares – Needing immense austerity programs, resulting in greatly reduced standards of living.

6. Mega-Terror Attack – False flag operation by black ops units from US/UK/Israeli intelligence.

7. Major Middle East Atomic War – Demanded by Zionists.

8. Nuclear “Accident” – Requiring nuclear facilities and weapons to be turned over to world government.

9. Assassination of World Leader – Resulting with a world government of faceless, unelected leaders.

10. Total Destruction of “Rogue” Nations – Those “terrorist” states that resist one-world government.

Surely any, or all of the above, could come to pass if enough people do not become cognizant of the possibility of them happening. At this critical juncture of our world, it is vital that we drop some of our limiting and generally mindless pursuits in favor of enlightening ourselves and others, as our future well-being is of next to no importance to our so-called national leaders, who have sold their souls to the beast.



Timelapse video allows a more clear view of the pattern of lingering “chemtrails” in comparison with typical cloud cover movement.

We Are Change Norwich
March 3, 2010

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

4.5 SWAT Raids Per Day

Maryland's SWAT transparency bill produces its first disturbing results

Cheye Calvo's July 2008 encounter with a Prince George's County, Maryland, SWAT team is now pretty well-known: After intercepting a package of marijuana at a delivery service warehouse, police completed the delivery, in disguise, to the address on the package. That address belonged to Calvo, who also happened to be the mayor of the small Prince George’s town of Berwyn Heights. When Calvo's mother-in-law brought the package in from the porch, the SWAT team pounced, forcing their way into Calvo's home. By the time the raid was over, Calvo and his mother-in-law had been handcuffed for hours, police realized they'd made a mistake, and Calvo's two black Labradors lay dead on the floor from gunshot wounds.

As a result of this colossal yet not-unprecedented screw-up, plus Calvo's notoriety and persistence, last year Maryland became the first state in the country to make every one of its police departments issue a report on how often and for what purpose they use their SWAT teams. The first reports from the legislation are in, and the results are disturbing.

Over the last six months of 2009, SWAT teams were deployed 804 times in the state of Maryland, or about 4.5 times per day. In Prince George's County alone, with its 850,000 residents, a SWAT team was deployed about once per day. According to a Baltimore Sun analysis, 94 percent of the state's SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended.

Worse even than those dreary numbers is the fact that more than half of the county’s SWAT deployments were for misdemeanors and nonserious felonies. That means more than 100 times last year Prince George’s County brought state-sanctioned violence to confront people suspected of nonviolent crimes. And that's just one county in Maryland. These outrageous numbers should provide a long-overdue wake-up call to public officials about how far the pendulum has swung toward institutionalized police brutality against its citizenry, usually in the name of the drug war.

But that’s unlikely to happen, at least in Prince George's County. To this day, Sheriff Michael Jackson insists his officers did nothing wrong in the Calvo raid—not the killing of the dogs, not neglecting to conduct any corroborating investigation to be sure they had the correct house, not failing to notify the Berwyn Heights police chief of the raid, not the repeated and documented instances of Jackson’s deputies playing fast and loose with the truth.

Jackson, who's now running for county executive, is incapable of shame. He has tried to block Calvo's efforts to access information about the raid at every turn. Last week, Prince George's County Circuit Judge Arthur M. Ahalt ruled that Calvo's civil rights suit against the county can go forward. But Jackson has been fighting to delay the discovery process in that suit until federal authorities complete their own investigation into the raid. That would likely (and conveniently) prevent Prince George's County voters from learning any embarrassing details about the raid until after the election.

But there is some good news to report here, too. The Maryland state law, as noted, is the first of its kind in the country, and will hopefully serve as a model for other states in adding some much-needed transparency to the widespread use and abuse of SWAT teams. And some Maryland legislators want to go even further. State Sen. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George's), for example, wants to require a judge's signature before police can deploy a SWAT team. Muse has sponsored another bill that would ban the use of SWAT teams for misdemeanor offenses. The latter seems like a no-brainer, but it's already facing strong opposition from law enforcement interests. Police groups opposed the transparency bill, too.

Beyond policy changes, the Calvo raid also seems to have also sparked media and public interest in how SWAT teams are deployed in Maryland. The use of these paramilitary police units has increased dramatically over the last 30 years, by 1,000 percent or more, resulting in the drastic militarization of police. It's a trend that seems to have escaped much media and public notice, let alone informed debate about policies and oversight procedures. But since the Calvo raid in 2008, Maryland newspapers, TV news crews, activists, and bloggers have been documenting mistaken, botched, or disproportionately aggressive raids across the state.

Lawmakers tend to be wary of questioning law enforcement officials, particularly when it comes to policing tactics. They shouldn't be. If anything, the public employees who are entrusted with the power to use force, including lethal force, deserve the most scrutiny. It's unfortunate that it took a violent raid on a fellow public official for Maryland's policymakers to finally take notice of tactics that have been used on Maryland citizens for decades now. But at least these issues are finally on the table.

Lawmakers in other states should take notice. It's time to have a national discussion on the wisdom of sending phalanxes of cops dressed like soldiers into private homes in search of nonviolent and consensual crimes.

Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

SPLC Report: Heavy On Smear, Thin On Facts

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The preparatory conditioning for a domestic false flag terror attack to be blamed on “right-wing extremists” has reached fever pitch, with the Southern Poverty Law Center issuing yet another lurid report which smears their mainstream political opposition as violent extremists.
“The radical right caught fire last year, as broad-based populist anger at political, demographic and economic changes in America ignited an explosion of new extremist groups and activism across the nation,” states the SPLC report, which goes on to mention the OKC bombing and warns that there are, “Signs of similar violence emanating from the radical right.”

The only examples of such violence include a vague reference to the murder of six law enforcement officers, which presumably includes the Richard Poplawski incident, an event that arose not as a result of Poplawski’s political bent, but because of a domestic dispute with his mother.

As a USA Today report reveals, Poplawski’s slaying of three Pittsburgh police officers was prompted not by some kind of fanatical political belief, but as a consequence of the somewhat more mundane explanation that his mother was trying to kick Poplawski out of the house because his dog had urinated on the floor.

Other examples of violence as a consequence of “right-wing extremism” cited in the report are thin on the ground, but the scope of the hit piece is not about exploring actual facts, its almost exclusively about tarring increasing opposition to big government as a portend of domestic terror.

The intent is clear – when a domestic terror attack does take place – which from all indications is unfortunately inevitable – those smeared in the same breath as the perpetrators will be blamed for instigating the violence, which will lead to more laws and more restrictions on free speech and political activism.

Though the political left is often eager to jump on board with the SPLC and smear “right wing extremists” as a deadly threat, be forewarned, the measures introduced in response by the government won’t distinguish between partisan viewpoints – everybody’s free speech will be crushed, whether you’re an anti-war activist or a Tea Party member. Though they will invoke the supposed danger of fringe groups, the purge will impact everybody.

The smear attack seamlessly blends fringe minority groups, racist skinheads and militias with even mainstream political activists like Sheriff Richard Mack and Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt, people who have never advocated violence against anyone.

Even Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is thrown in for good measure. The fact that the SPLC is going to such lengths as to equate a sitting Congresswoman with mass murdering terrorists reveals the true purpose of the smear – another advancement of the effort to silence political opposition by demonizing peaceful political adversaries as violent extremists.

The SPLC couldn’t give a damn about preventing domestic terrorism, indeed, their funding and prestige will only increase if such attacks were to take place. The SPLC is begging for an incident that can be blamed on their political opposition which they will then exploit to silence dissent, so don’t be surprised if such an attack is dutifully provided by the network of federal government provocateurs who are routinely caught steering rag-tag terror groups in every major case.

The SPLC report predictably throws in the name of mass murderer and domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh, strongly implying that the groups demonized in the piece are intent on similar acts of slaughter.

The report even floats a potential flash point for when violence could possibly erupt – April 19th – the anniversary of both the Waco massacre and the OKC bombing, adding that the Second Amendment March in Washington, D.C. also takes place on this date.

While the SPLC, the ADL and similar organizations are happy to play the Timothy McVeigh card over and over again, they are less enthusiastic to mention the fact that McVeigh planned his deadly assault on the Alfred P. Murrah building under the intimate direction of a high-level FBI official, according to McVeigh’s co-conspirator Terry Nichols, a claim voluminously backed up by a plethora of evidence that has been presented in court on several occasions.

The fact that there are loosely affiliated gangs of semi-retarded racists dotted around rural America who occasionally make idle threats is a pathetically flimsy foundation on which the SPLC props up its feigned concern for the supposed threat of domestic terror in the United States, a threat that in every instance has been fostered, prodded and provoked by the only entity that ever benefits from acts of domestic terror – the federal government.