Some Usefull Info.

Wow it has been a long time since I've even wrote anything here, but I figured I'd try here cause you guess will actually listen. I've been looking and researching and trying to find the truth. Well in my research I came a cross two websites. These websites are http://www.prisonplanet.tv/ and http://infowars.com/. On these two websites I found a multitude of iformation the dwells dark into the secrets of the US government. If you really want to know whats going on in this country I urge you to become a member to these sites. You should show all your friends and family. Because if we don't get the message out it will be to late. We won't be able to fight back, and we need to wake up people. I'm telling you it's all there the cover up of 911, the truth behind the Illuminati and the Bohemian Grove, the CIA secrets and many many more. If you want the truth and the facts go to these sites. Please people go to this sites and look at some of the info. We are looking at modern day Natzi, and we are waking up in a Police State. I've been trying to get this message across for a long time and people laugh, and it makes me sick because countless numbers of people and children are dying every day and not just from the so called drug war I'm talking about right here in your own country of Amerika. I would sit here and pled people to go to these sites all day, but I won't I'm just hoping some of you will atleast take the time to visit them to end this off. "civil disobedience. . . is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem." "It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it's more like a vulture. It used to be strong enough to go and suck anybody's blood whether they were strong or not. But now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only suck the blood of the helpless. As the nations of the world free themselves, the capitalism has less victims, less to suck, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It's only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely." I truley believe people are waking up to this and I hope that some of you do to.

 

Yeah, they are both pretty good sites.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2005/050405jonesreport.htm

I went there and found a report on "high-level homosexual control of the Republican party". So I had better tell all my friends and family, because if I don't get the message out it will be too late. "The media" is certainly covering it up.

AHH, what do you think about "high level homosexual control of the Republican party"? If you think this is a pretty good site you must be quite concerned.

 

No my concern wasn't about the "high-level homosexual control of the Republican party. My concerns are about the police state we are living in. maybe you should check out these videos "police state" or "martial law 911 raise of the police state" Some other concerns is the fact that the patriot act and patriot act 2 that has been passed around is completely washing us of our freedoms, and people dont know and they should those our my concerns.

 

So you're not concerned about "high level homosexual control of the Republican party"? Why not?

Anyway I checked infowars and found this:

http://infowars.com/print/Secret_societies/worldleaders.htm

The illuminati use hand signals! Yes Clinton, Bush and Prince William have all been photographed making the sign of the devil! "The media" have been hiding this too.

 

I am concerned about the homosexuality of the Republican Party, especially when several of its highest-ranking members have raped little boys up the ass.

If you don't believe this has occured, read John DeCamp's The Franklin Coverup. John DeCamp is a former Republican Senator of Nebraska, and has implemented several high-ranking members of the Republican Party (primarily those of the Reagan/Bush and Bush 41 administration) in lurid sexual acts involving young children in his book. This includes Bush Sr. himself.

THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED! It's not BS. Several of the children involved in this sex ring actually testified before a court!



Just look at the Jeff Gannon/Johnny Gosch story, which has been all over the mainstream news lately, where you have a fake reporter who turns up in the White House (allegedly by accident... yeah right!) that has ties to all these gay porno websites. Upon further investigation it is found that this man actually has ties to the Franklin Coverup child sex scandal, which had ties to the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. Jeff Gannon (aka Johnny Gosch) was actually one of the children involved in this ring he was abducted into when he was just nine years old.

If you don't believe any of this, just do a Google search for "Jeff Gannon, Johnny Gosch".

 

By implemented I presume you mean implicated.

Raping little boys up the ass makes you a pedophile, not a homosexual. Homoxexuals are no more interested in little boys, or in raping them, than you would be in little girls, or raping them. There is a lot of homophobic propaganda out there which tries to suggest otherwise, so it is important that you keep the distinction in mind. Maybe you are concerned about "high level child molester control of the Republican Party"?

Interesting that you feel the need to point that out. Shouldn't we be assuming that?

Anyway I'd like to take your word on it, but when I asked you why the Oklahoma Ryder truck photos were DEFINITELY LEGITIMATE, you didn't respond. Of course you have no obligation to respond to anything, but I can't help thinking that maybe the reason you didn't respond was because you had absolutely no basis whatsoever for claiming they were definitely legitimate. Similarly Hipster said "the base was near Oklahoma city, it was near the date in which the building was blown up, and Military sources which also remain anonymous, reported to the Washington Times that they were in fact real." Yet there is no basis for knowing whether the photo is of that base, whether it was taken on that date, and nobody has seen this Washington Times article which, even if found, Hipster still admits only quotes anonymous sources.

So I wonder what exactly the standard is for "definitely legitimate".

 

I could have said implicated, but I said implemented, which means to include or put into effect. The names of several high-ranking Republicans are included in DeCamp's book, added to the "official" media reports which implicated only lower-level people like Larry King (not the television personality).

THIS Larry King.

I understand that. Don't try to spin it as if I am trying to say gay people are child mollesters. But, in my opinion, men having sex with young boys IS gay. I don't care if that isn't politically correct or contrary to what some psychology professor at UC Berkeley says.

I am sure these "good Christian men" have sex with other men, too -- not just young boys. Just look at Jeff Gannon, the fake White House reporter/call boy from the GOP-funded Talon News Service (which has since disolved), whom Bush can be seen in photos passionately hugging.

Besides, the article you are referring to originated from GQ -- not Prison Planet. Did you even check to determine this? No.

Well, it's hard to be definite about anything. I think you're reading too much into it. Sure, the photos could have been faked. Any picture could have been faked, like in Time Magazine, or, well, The Washington Times.

 

I'm not spinning anything. If you say that you are concerned about high level homosexual control of the Republican party because of allegations of little boy rape, would you be concerned about high level heterosexual control of the Republican party because of allegations of little girl rape? No, so don't try to weasel out of it.

Excuse me, but I'll answer for myself thanks. Yes I knew that - my first clue was a photo of Alex Jones holding up a copy of GQ. However the GQ article had absolutely nothing at all to do with "high level homosexual control of the Republican Party". Did you check to determine that?

It is hard to be definite, which I why I figured you must have had some special reason for saying these Oklahoma photos were DEFINITELY LEGITIMATE. So, what's the reason?

It sure is starting to look like you are willing to say something is "definitely legitimate" based on absolutely nothing at all, seeing as you keep dodging the question.

 

Well rather than look at this from who they attack and what they want us to be wary of and let us ask what do they support?

Let us take Alex Jones a key person in infowars.com and Prisonplanet.com (X asks us to look at two sites when in fact they are just one extensions of each other basically one site with two domain names). Here is a list of sites-

Alex Jones' Infowars (http://www.infowars.com) Alex Jones' Prison Planet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com) Alex Jones' Prison Planet.tv (http://www.prisonplanet.tv/) Alex Jones' Arnoldexposed.com (http://www.arnoldexposed.com) Alex Jones' Infowars.net (http://www.infowars.net)

He is a libertarian a right wing political philosophy and so it’s not surprising that he is supported by Rat because he too is a supporter of this right wing philosophy.

Basically Libertarians want to give those that have power more power

They wish for very few or no taxes, very few or no regulations curtailing the power of corporations, banks or the wealthy. They want little or no state welfare, education or training schemes, and the repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, environmental abuse and the abolition of all employment laws.

This of course is a recipe for all of us to be domination and exploited by the wealthy.

I think it would be prudent to be as just as wary of these guys?

 

First of all, why are you attacking me?

Secondly, you haven't a clue what you are even talking about. You THINK you know my political philosophy, when in reality you don't know shit.

For one, I am not a Libertarian. I may vote Libertarian from time to time, and many of my views may fall under the libertarian ideology, but I have never once called myself a "Libertarian." I am more of a Constitutionalist than I am a Libertarian. Sadly, many so-called (L)ibertarians fit the stereotypes in which you laid out (which you have ignorantly lumped me under), which is precisely why I have no allegience to the party. The party has been hijacked by liberals and Republicans with their own agenda, who think they're libertarians when they're anything but.

The word "libertarian" -- like "conservative" -- has completely lost its meaning.

Unlike you, I don't find it necessary to cling to labels. I don't believe in right-wing/left-wing BS, since both sides are controlled by the same evil. I simply believe in freedom, and I believe that a person is either pro-liberty or pro-tyranny. I don't get caught up in this Democrat/Republican, left/right, conservative/liberal nonsense like you do. If I happen to lean more to the right, that's my business. I happen to be among the many who believe that LESS government equates to MORE freedom -- not the other way around. Unlike you, I don't need the corrupt government involved in every facet of my life.

Unlike the socialist, communist propaganda you envelop yourself in, most of my sources are not funded by globalist foundations like the Fords and the Rockefellers. That's because what I believe in goes AGAINST the agenda of the globalists and the New World Order.

It's socialists like yourself who are playing into the hands of the elite. (Contrary to what the rhetoric may suggest, most of which is aimed at uneducated "teens" and gullible twenty-somethings.) I have said this numerous times and provided facts to back up my words, yet you keep on ignoring it. Socialism is the transfer of wealth from the working-class to the elite-class -- a simple concept your feeble mind cannot comprehend. The goal of socialism is to eliminate the Middle Class in America, so you have only the very rich and the very poor. We see this happening in this country more and more each day as people lose their jobs to outsourcing, forcing them to rely on the government to survive, which is exactly what the government wants! The government wants people under the control of the system, so the government can have more control over the people's lives.

Because you're ill-informed, you also do not understand the difference between crony capitalism and free market. We don't live in a free market society. We live under a global crime syndicate which falsely refers to itself as "free market." Not all capitalism is bad capitalism. Capitalism becomes bad when it becomes intertwined with BIG, CORRUPT government, like it is today. Yet, being as naive, misinformed and gullible as you are, you think destroying the Constitution and bringing about a socialist welfare state (which is basically what we have now) is what is needed to bring about change.

Get a clue.

And who are you to say who Alex Jones is and what he advocates, when I am sure you have never listened to his radio show or seen his videos? All you've done is glanced over his websites and formed an opinion based on that alone.

Grow up. Don't be such an egomaniacal prick all your life.

 

By giving the people more freedom we also get more power. Why would anyone want to give the government more money?

It is a recipe for freedom. I can decide what to do with my money, I don't need the government to decide for me. The environment should never be compromised and I think there needs to be regulations against that because there are always people who will abuse it for profit.

 

**

"For one, I am not a Libertarian. I may vote Libertarian from time to time, and many of my views may fall under the libertarian ideology, butI have never once called myself a "Libertarian.""

(Pressed Rat, March 18th) "I am a libertarian, but that doesn't mean that I -- or any other libertarian-minded person for that matter -- believe that people who are in need should go without."

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75059&page=2&pp=10
Post 17

Ever heard the saying "if it looks like a duck and quack like a duck"

You might not be a paid up member of the Libertarian party, but as you have said on numerous occasions your views correspond very closely to those of the libertarian political philosophy.


**

"I am more of a Constitutionalist than I am a Libertarian"


Well thank you for correcting me but please tell us in what ways the ‘Constitutionalist’s’ viewpoint radically differs from that of libertarianism?


**

"Unlike you, I don't find it necessary to cling to labels"

For someone that is so anti-label you seem to throw about ‘socialist’ and ‘liberal’ with gay abandon in many of your posts, I mean just look at the one above -

"Unlike the socialist, communist propaganda you envelop"

"It's socialists like yourself"

"Socialism is"

"The goal of socialism is"

"socialist welfare state"



**

"If I happen to lean more to the right, that's my business"

So let me get this right you want to post on a political forum but wish for your political viewpoint to remain your business? Well I’m sure you’re not stupid but do you realise just how stupid that statement sounds?

**


"And who are you to say who Alex Jones is and what he advocates, when I am sure you have never listened to his radio show or seen his videos? All you've done is glanced over his websites and formed an opinion based on that alone."


Are you saying that the views expressed by Alex Jones on his websites are radically different from his views expressed in his radio shows and videos?

**




"I simply believe in freedom, and I believe that a person is either pro-liberty or pro-tyranny."

The thing is I cannot recall anyone here openly and actively being pro-tyranny.

But that does not necessarily mean that everyone’s views of what is or isn't likely to lead to tyranny is going to be the same.

That is often at the heart of political debate and why it is important to analysis and discusses people’s political viewpoints.

To me the policies that seem to be supported by libertarians or their like would give an overwhelming amount of power to already wealthy and influential forces in American society. I have given my own reasons for believing this many times and at length and so far they have not been refuted.

 

Green

You say that the environment should be protected by regulations because there will always be people who will try and exploit it for profit. Do you think that people have ever been exploited for profit?

Do you think the power of the exploiters will be diminished or increased under a libertarian system and why?

 

Balbus,

There is a difference between Libertarian (with a capital "L") and libertarian (with a lower-case "l"). The former indicates allegience with the Libertarian Party. The later indicates no allegience with the libertarian party, but to have a libertarian outlook on things.

The reason I called you a socialist is because, for one, you are. I am labeling YOU because you apparently have no problem labeling ME!

As far as Alex Jones' websites, if you actually looked through them, instead of glancing at the main page, you would see that 75% (the other 25% being analysis and commentary) of what is on these sites are links to MAINSTREAM SOURCES dealing with the police state and other related issues. There is no "agenda" being pushed like there is with all the socialist, anti-constitutional garbage that it out there.

 

Oh my poor Rat

If this is a pissing competition for pedants, I would go back and read the post in question I don’t call you a Libertarian but say –

“He is a libertarian a right wing political philosophy and so it’s not surprising that he is supported by Rat because he too is a supporter of this right wing philosophy”

Oh and I don’t have any problem labeling you that it just seems you that have a problem with what your are, come one rat come out of the closet you’re an extreme right winger.

**

But it is interesting what you don’t reply to –

"I am more of a Constitutionalist than I am a Libertarian"

Well thank you for correcting me but please tell us in what ways the ‘Constitutionalist’s’ viewpoint radically differs from that of libertarianism?



**

"If I happen to lean more to the right, that's my business"

So let me get this right you want to post on a political forum but wish for your political viewpoint to remain your business? Well I’m sure you’re not stupid but do you realise just how stupid that statement sounds?

**

"And who are you to say who Alex Jones is and what he advocates, when I am sure you have never listened to his radio show or seen his videos? All you've done is glanced over his websites and formed an opinion based on that alone."

Are you saying that the views expressed by Alex Jones on his websites are radically different from his views expressed in his radio shows and videos?

**

"I simply believe in freedom, and I believe that a person is either pro-liberty or pro-tyranny."

The thing is I cannot recall anyone here openly and actively being pro-tyranny.

But that does not necessarily mean that everyone’s views of what is or isn't likely to lead to tyranny is going to be the same.

That is often at the heart of political debate and why it is important to analysis and discusses people’s political viewpoints.

To me the policies that seem to be supported by libertarians or their like would give an overwhelming amount of power to already wealthy and influential forces in American society. I have given my own reasons for believing this many times and at length and so far they have not been refuted.

 

So it is "right wing philosophy" to expose government corruption?

It looks like you're the one that is obsessed with labeling me a "far right-winger". I try to avoid labels at all costs. If you think I am a far right-winger, that is perfectly fine with me. I'd rather be a far right-winger than a far left-winger, but what I am, or what you think I am, really isn't all that important to me.

I find it funny how every response you make to my threads always resorts back to this same argument about "what I am." Get over it already!

 

Sure, all the time. Some instances more serious than others. But that doesn't concern me to the degree that damaging the environment does. Humans are not in danger of extinction whereas many other species and habitats are. Environmental justice comes first for me as it is the most vulnerable and we are the reason it is in peril!

Diminished. The government exploits us now. I can't stand my money going to a disgustingly corrupt government. Smaller government means more power to the people (not just wealthy people either).

 

The reason why it is important to come back to Rats political views is that it is clear from a number of threats that he has a political agenda that he often seem to try and veil with his rather ridiculous claim to be an independent thinker without allegiance to the left or right. When in fact his have consistently being those of an extreme right winger.

The other thing that should be pointed out about him is this strange reluctance to discuss his political viewpoint in any great detail. He says he wants to keep them his “business” which is curious, why would someone come to a political forum pushing right wing views and propaganda refuse to discuss them in any great detail? On the few times he has been push it his reluctance seems clear to the point that it often seems that he is unable to discuss them in any depth.

I mean once you get passed the rhetoric and conspiracy theories he actually come across as…rather hollow.

Which begs the question of just what intellectual foundation, if any, Rat bases his fervent evangelisation of the libertarian viewpoint?

 

Green

So you believe that people and the environment can be exploited by the powerful, well in a capitalist society, wealth more than not equates to power and libertarian type policies would give more power to the wealthy making them more powerful and increasing their ability to exploit.

You then state that you believe the exploiter’s power would be diminished because the government is the main source of exploitation.

**

Is the government the only source of wealth and power in American society?

**

What is the “disgustingly corrupt government” corrupted by?

**

In a democracy the government’s power is in the hands of the electorate, wouldn’t that mean that a government is a reflection of the society that produced it?

**

Governments are just tools and it depends on who controls them, governments aren’t bad just the people who weld them. Absolute monarchy or Dictatorships don’t have to be ‘evil’, and a Democracy is not necessarily ‘good’. In the same way a large government it not necessarily a liability or a bad thing and a small government is not due solely to that fact an asset and a good thing.

So in what ways do smaller governments necessarily mean more power to ‘the people’?