Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

KN4M 11-13-06

Expand Messages
  • Robert Sterling
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 13, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Please send as far and wide as possible.

      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist

      Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
      Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS
      News poll
      Truth Movement has the huge majority of opinion
      How will the Bush Cabal react?
      Steve Watson & Alex Jones / Prisonplanet.com
      October 14 2006

      A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares
      that only 16% of people in America now believe the official
      government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks.

      According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of
      Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and
      the intelligence prior to the attacks:

      "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the
      truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are
      they mostly lying?

      Telling the truth 16%

      Hiding something 53%

      Mostly lying 28%

      Not sure 3%"

      The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A
      Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at
      89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went
      public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.

      A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame
      the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New
      York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the
      past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again
      risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of
      the population.

      It took 35 plus years for the majority of Americans to wake up to
      the fact that the assassination of JFK was a government operation.
      It has only take five years for MORE Americans to wake up to the
      fact that 9/11 was an inside job on behalf of the Neoconservative
      crime syndicate within the US.

      Reference to past polls show that in the last five years there has
      been an explosion in numbers of those who do not buy the official

      In 2004 a Zogby Poll showed that just over half of New Yorkers
      believed there was a cover up.

      In May of this year another Zogby poll indicated that around half of
      ALL Americans did not buy the official story.

      The latest poll also shows a massive awakening has occurred recently
      given that previous estimates indicated that around 34% still
      believed the official story and around 30% were oblivious altogether.

      Alex Jones declared that the Truth movement has cause to celebrate
      this evening as it is now beyond any doubt that the vast majority of
      Americans know that the official story of 19 Saudis with box cutters
      is ludicrous.

      The diligence of those who have worked to educate the world on 9/11
      truth from day one cannot be underestimated. We are now seeing the
      fruits of this hard and at times extremely trying labor hit home.

      We would add that although this is a major victory for the truth
      movement it does not mean that the hard work can stop.

      The next step is to use the majority opinion as leverage towards
      officially changing the record of what happened on 9/11, forcing the
      mainstream media into addressing the issue, not as a quirky news
      item, but as a serious re-defining of the state of the nation and
      the world today.

      We have not taken the country back yet and the cabal that has taken
      control of the government continues to systematically use 9/11 and
      the war on terror as an excuse to destroy the Constitutional
      foundations of law and order in America.

      As it becomes clearer that more and more Americans KNOW that their
      government is lying to them on the most fundamental issue of their
      lifetimes, we must consider what kind of reaction the government
      will undertake.

      Remember that the majority of American voters now believe the Sept.
      11 terrorist attack was a more significant historical event than the
      Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

      In July 2001 Alex jones issued an emergency warning that there was
      going to be a massive false flag terrorist attack in New York to be
      blamed on Osama Bin Laden. At that time there was not enough
      activism among the population to prevent it going ahead.

      In August of 2006 Alex Jones issued a second emergency warning that
      all the factors pointed towards an imminent attack. The activism
      that occurred in the wake of this warning and that of others was
      exponential and may indeed have helped stave off another attack.

      Our next warning is this, desperate times call for desperate
      measures. The criminal elements of the government now know that they
      have been totally exposed and are reviled by the majority of free
      thinking Americans. Will their response be to vamp up the crack down
      on that free thinking itself?

      In essence Americans have outright REJECTED giving up their liberty
      for security in the wake of 9/11. The only security IS liberty
      itself, and the only way to stay secure is to constantly defend
      "TerrorStorm sets a new standard in documentary filmmaking. Alex
      Jones knocks it out of the park yet again." -Dylan Avery,
      Director, "Loose Change"


      Robert Gates' Tentacle Tracks
      Kenn Thomas

      The Iranian arms dealer Richard Babayan swore an affidavit in 1991
      claiming that in a December 1988 meeting in Santiago, Chile with
      Carlos Cardoen, Cardoen claimed to have just met with Gates and Earl
      Brian. Brian is well-known in the Octopus story as the man who
      illegally profiteered from the sale of the super-surveillance
      software, PROMIS.

      Ari Ben-Menashe, an Israeli Weapons merchant, claimed in his 1992
      book Profits of War, that Cardoen was the intermediary of the sale
      of PROMIS to Iraq by Brian.

      The journalist investigating this connection, Jonathan Moyle—who
      may have been in contact with Casolaro—was found dead, his body
      hanging in his hotel room closet in Santiago in 1990. Moyle also had
      been investigating Iraq's purchase of WMD missile guidance systems.
      Moyle worked for Defense Helicopter World in London.

      Five days before the discovery of his dead body, Casolaro called a
      Texas oil engineer named Bob Bickel, who previously had aspired to
      become a whistleblower over Gates' role in shipping weapons to Iraq
      in the late 1980s.

      Thank gawd Donald Rumsfield resigned, eh?


      November 8, 2006

      From CNN:

      During the live broadcast of CNN's Larry King Live, Bill Maher
      suggested to Larry King that Republican National Committee chairman
      Ken Mehlman is gay.

      Partial transcript of Bill Maher's Live appearance on Larry King

      BM: A lot of the chiefs of staff, the people who really run the
      underpinnings of the Republican Party, are gay. I don't want to
      mention names, but I will Friday night...

      LK:You will Friday night?

      BM: Well, there's a couple of big people who I think everyone in
      Washington knows who run the Republican...

      LK: You will name them?

      BM: Well, I wouldn't be the first. I'd get sued if I was the first.
      Ken Mehlman. Ok, there's one I think people have talked about. I
      don't think he's denied it when he's been, people have suggested, he
      doesn't say...

      LK: I never heard that. I'm walking around in a fog. I never...Ken
      Mehlman? I never heard that. But the question is...

      BM: Maybe you don't go to the same bathhouse I do, Larry.

      When CNN re-aired the interview later that night, they edited out
      Larry King and Bill Maher's discussion of Mehlman's potential
      homosexuality. Watch the censored clip and read the censored

      Partial transcript of Bill Maher's re-aired appearance on Larry King

      BM: A lot of the chiefs of staff, the people who really run the
      underpinnings of the Republican Party, are gay. I don't want to
      mention names, but I will Friday night...

      LK:You will Friday night?

      BM: Well, there's a couple of big people who I think everyone in
      Washington knows who run the Republican...

      LK: You will name them?

      BM: Well, I wouldn't be the first. I'd get sued if I was the first.

      LKL: But the question is...

      BM: Maybe you don't go to the same bathhouse I do, Larry.


      The FCC must stop shutting down microradio stations
      By Kéllia Ramares
      Online Journal Associate Editor
      Nov 8, 2006

      On October 27, I went to an informal FCC hearing on media
      consolidation. It was held at the Oakland Marriott as part of the
      California NAACP convention. It was informal because only two of the
      five commissioners—Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein--the
      Democrats—were present. So it wasn't an official hearing and wasn't
      mentioned on the FCC web site.

      Media consolidation is an important, often under-the-radar, issue
      for people who are concerned with preserving and strengthening
      democracy. The FCC is considering rule changes that will make it
      even easier for media conglomerates to own multiple media outlets in
      one market than The Telecommunications Act of 1996 did. And that
      says a lot. Since the Telecom Act came into effect, Clear Channel
      Communications, for example, has come to own seven radio stations in
      San Francisco, and three in San Jose, just 50 miles away.

      Media consolidation allows large corporations, such as Clear Channel
      and the Tribune Company, to own radio and TV stations—both broadcast
      and cable--newspapers, news and entertainment web sites, billboards,
      performance venues, and even the performing entities themselves.
      (The Tribune Company owns the Chicago Cubs baseball team). Thus it
      is possible for a media conglomerate that does not like the politics
      of particular performers to strike them from the playlists of their
      stations, even though their music fits the station's format. Just
      ask the Dixie Chicks, who are critics of George W. Bush.
      Conglomerates also can put a major crimp in music sales by
      politically disfavored performers by refusing to promote their
      latest CD release on company-owned billboards, show their videos on
      TV, or performing in certain venues. Just ask antiwar artists
      Michael Franti of the hip-hop group Spearhead or folk singer Ani

      When a media conglomerate can own many outlets in one market, it can
      manipulate political content in other ways. For example, more than
      one speaker at the hearing complained about the fact that Clear
      Channel owned AM stations that promoted right-wing, racist, hate
      speech, while at the same time owning urban hip-hop stations in the
      same market. Hip-hop formats appeal to young African-Americans. And
      the speakers said that on the hip-hop stations, Clear Channel
      promoted violent, hypersexualized hip-hop, rather than the socially
      conscious styles of that genre, and reduced public affairs
      programming relevant to urban youth of color.

      Speakers also complained to the two FCC commissioners about lack of
      minority media ownership, lack of quality programming for children,
      and the lack of localism and its attendant loss of local jobs. This
      latter phenomenon is the product of voice-tracking and the use of
      computers to run several stations out of one room. In looking for
      work in radio on the site tvandradiojobs.com, I have sometimes seen
      classified ads for voice-tracking jobs and ads for other kinds of
      media work that proclaimed such things as six stations being run out
      of one room. One man at the hearing played a short excerpt from a
      cassette tape he said was a recording of two stations running on the
      air simultaneously. Apparently there was no one in the room where
      the two computers running these stations were located, the man had
      tried to call to alert someone of the problem and got no answer. He
      later gave the tape to the commissioners.

      The people who favor media consolidation claim that the Internet
      more than offsets whatever reduction in diversity might occur by the
      consolidation of the over-the-air broadcast outlets. But that is not
      really true. First of all, the Internet is being dominated by the
      large corporate media. Just turn on your computer and you will see,
      and perhaps use, the web sites of major "free" and cable networks
      (e.g. ABC or ESPN), large newspapers (e.g. New York Times, L.A.
      Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post), or large corporate
      portals such as Google and Yahoo. In fact, Google has joined the
      American lexicon: "I Googled it and came up with this."
      Additionally, Congress wants to get rid of "Net Neutrality" and
      large corporations such as AT&T and Comcast want to own the `Net.
      This would basically drive up the costs of access and drive Internet
      service providers (ISPs) out of business. One speaker at the hearing
      mentioned that there had once been over 8,000 ISPs in the US and now
      we are down to 2,000. While that still sounds like a lot of ISPs,
      these statistics represent a 75 percent reduction in the number of
      available ISPs.

      Secondly, Internet access is already much more expensive than a
      newspaper subscription, an AM-FM radio or a small TV set. One must
      have an Internet capable computer, and as content gets more
      technologically sophisticated, it must be a computer and operating
      system capable of running the latest software fast enough. Then
      there is the cost of the Internet access itself, and possibly the
      cost of content.

      Thirdly, while it is true that the Internet provides publication
      space for thousands, if not millions of music, news, and public
      affairs producers from across the political, racial and age spectra,
      it is easy for independent producers such as myself (Radio Internet
      Story Exchange) to be lost in the crowd. We need local media to let
      our communities know that we exist.

      Although a couple of FCC commissioners are listening to people
      complain about the consequences of a lack of media diversity and
      localism, the FCC is conducting armed seizures of the transmitting
      equipment of microradio operators throughout the nation. When I
      finally got my turn to speak at the hearing, after Pacifica radio
      station KPFA-FM, where I am a news tech and occasional public
      affairs producer, shut down its live coverage an hour early, and
      after one of the two commissioners had stepped out of the room, I
      said that I would believe that the FCC would really do something
      about media consolidation when it stopped raiding these stations run
      by youth, by minorities and by the people outside the political
      viewpoints represented by the large corporate media.

      I have done stories about some of these stations and have had some
      of my R.I.S.E. public affairs programs run by a few of them. These
      stations are truly local and their local quality has enabled them to
      step in during emergencies to provide important local information
      when voice-tracked corporate stations, pretending to be local, could

      Limits on media ownership in a single market would help spread media
      ownership throughout a community. But if indeed the people own the
      airwaves as a commons—something that I think is a myth these days—
      the government has to put down the literal and figurative guns it
      points at microbroadcasters. The government needs to expand the Low-
      Power FM (LPFM) program to the bounds of technical feasibility
      rather than greatly limit it to accommodate the anti-competitive
      wishes of the National Association of Broadcasters and NPR.

      This means ending the armed raids and dropping the "bad broadcaster"
      rule that currently prohibits microradio broadcasters who operated
      without a license from getting licenses under the new program. Where
      choices among potential broadcasters in an area must be made because
      of technical considerations, the more local group should be favored
      over the corporate conglomerate. Pretend localization through voice-
      tracking should be disallowed. This way, underrepresented groups can
      afford to own media, and local music, news, media employment and
      emergency service can be developed. This would not mean that there
      is no room for international or national music or news, but that
      localities would decide for themselves what they wanted, instead of
      being homogenized by corporate programming.

      Of course, this means that local entities have to commit to the idea
      of local media workers being able to make sustainable livings at
      what they do. One reason media consolidation has been successful is
      that it is expensive to produce local news or to cover live cultural
      events. It's cheaper for the folks who own the equipment to lay off
      the local talent, take on the corporation's homogenized programming
      and eventually sell their studios and transmitters to a media
      conglomerate for a tidy personal profit. This has to stop. So does
      the expectation that programmers will be volunteers. Landlords want
      rent and grocers, even at the farmers' market, want cash for their
      fruits and vegetables from media workers, just as they want it from
      people engaged in other types of work.

      But that's another story. The first step to building diverse, local,
      democratic media is for the FCC to end its war of words, warrants
      and weapons against microradio stations.


      Born in the U.S.A. (CD)
      Bruce Springsteen

      What more appropriate a BuzzFlash premium for election day than the
      quintissential American populist rock album that is as exuberantly
      hopeful as it is wistful and feeling betrayed about the American

      The Reaganites couldn't even understand one song that was highly
      critical of how America abandons a Veteran.

      Springsteen is such a masterful rocker that his stellar performance,
      lyrics and vocals -- along with the fine-tuned back-up of his band --
      make you believe in America, because he himself exemplifies such
      accomplishment, skill and enthusisam, even as he sings about lost

      Because, Springsteen is quintissentially American in believing that
      there is one more opportunity for success, happiness and fulfilment
      down the road, awaiting one last uplifting ride in a pink Cadillac.

      He's a populist poet -- lamenting and celebratory -- but always
      wrapping any regret in the power of his songs and 10,000 watt

      Unlike the complete failures who run the country, Springsteen is a
      brilliant success. It would be cliched to say that in this album he
      captured an American sound of reflection and celebration for the 80s
      and 90s, but cliches sometimes ring true.

      Bruce is the American rebel, the rock poet, the rock star, the
      populist -- the soul of the middle American unsure of what his
      country has to offer him or her, but willing to gamble on a last
      shot of "glory days."

      Springsteen never loses hope in his music -- and neither will we: in
      this "anthem" of an album or in the promise of democracy and our


      Pepsi Dons Disguise in Attempt to Seduce Whole Foods Devotees
      Beverage Giant Launches Upstart Brands to Blend in With Retailer's
      By Stephanie Thompson
      Published: November 09, 2006

      NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Whole foods this month brings to its shelves
      a new line from a small entrepreneurial company: PepsiCo.

      Even the Fuelosophy website lacks any reference to the product's
      Pepsi parentage.

      Hiding ownership

      Of course, no one can accuse the $35 billion food and beverage
      behemoth of being little. But Pepsi the Goliath is trying to behave
      that way to slay the many Davids dominating Whole Foods' aisles. To
      compete with the homespun, lifestyle-oriented companies that appeal
      to the Whole Foods consumer, Pepsi is creating wholly new startup
      brands for the chain that bear no telltale trace of their corporate
      lineage and are supported with very little marketing.

      Its high-energy protein-drink line, called Fuelosophy, follows in
      the footsteps of its already-introduced Sun Snacks organic line of
      sunflower-oil chips and cheese puffs testing in the chain since last

      No comment from Pepsi

      Until now, most of the forays from Big Food into the explosive $25
      billion natural-foods category have come not from creating new
      brands but from buying up successful niche ones in the space. But
      Pepsi, which didn't return calls for comment, is far from alone in
      taking the entrepreneurial route to the shelves of the fast-growing,
      national-brand-eschewing natural-foods chain.

      "Every company I work with is designing products distinctively
      different than regular grocery products to appeal to the natural-
      foods channel," said Steve Gundrum, president-CEO of product-
      development firm Mattson.

      To do so, giant marketers need to change their thinking. Mr. Gundrum
      said Whole Foods is "not a reseller of branded package-goods like
      other retailers. They're really a curator of brands and products
      that fit their consumers' lifestyle" -- which means consumers trust
      products carried at Whole Foods and are willing to pay far higher
      prices for them.

      Spectacular growth

      That's why Whole Foods has grown spectacularly since its 1980 launch
      to a 180-store chain with sales up a stunning 20% for the first 40
      weeks of the year to $4.3 billion. That trajectory certainly catches
      food and beverage marketers' attention, especially when compared to
      the far slimmer growth of traditional grocers such as Kroger and
      Safeway, which last year were up 7% and 5% respectively.

      Distribution in Whole Foods allows big food marketers to test new
      products without the heavy costs of mainstream launches and
      establish much-needed credibility in health and wellness.

      "It used to be that the natural-foods channel was an afterthought in
      terms of distribution, but now it's almost like ... a beachhead for
      brands that are different and legitimately better products, even if
      the endgame is mainstream grocery," said Peter Murane, president of
      BrandJuice, an innovation and brand-strategy firm. Mr. Murane's
      client roster includes once-small startup brands Allegro coffee and
      Rudi's Organic breads; each is No. 1 at Whole Foods in its
      respective category.

      Testing new brands

      Scott Van Winkle, managing director of investment bank Cannacord
      Adams, said he believes PepsiCo's strategy is to use Whole Foods to
      test new brands instead of spending tens of millions to slot them
      into traditional grocery stores and advertise them. "Then they'll
      make the determination to go out ahead in mainstream grocery, since
      these days those guys are all watching what Whole Foods does."

      And big rivals are targeting it. On Nov. 3, Whole Foods stock had
      its biggest drop ever as investors fear lower sales as giant grocers
      such as Wal-Mart enter its territory.

      Ad spending for brands at Whole Foods is minimal. One executive
      close to PepsiCo noted it would be "counterproductive to advertise
      [Fuelosophy and Sun Snacks], as Whole Foods consumers like the
      discovery of things not tarnished by mass marketing."

      Whole Foods spokeswoman Kate Lowery said the company's regional
      buyers "do tend to meet with smaller local companies that meet our
      quality standards." But she said many small companies it started out
      working with have since been bought by larger ones.

      In fact, observers note Whole Foods is eager to get in bed with the
      big guys. "Whole Foods' growth is going to come from the
      mainstreaming of their products, and if they can green up these big
      guys to fit their ... criteria, they'll have much bigger margins,"
      the executive close to PepsiCo said.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.