So are you saying that Black's Law dictionary is not accurate ??? that the definition for Strawman is not accurate??? 😮

On Tuesday Bush referred to the strategy paper as “an unclassified version of the strategy we've been pursuing since September the 11th, 2001,” that takes into account, “the changing nature of this enemy.”

The document says that terrorism springs from “subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation,” and that “terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.”

[…]This is an outright threat to the 9/11 truth movement and is meant to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

It is also a callous reminder that the administration that has been the progenitor of the most heinous and deliberate campaign to mislead and lie to its own people is so transfixed by its own hubris that it has the temerity to accuse others of propagating deceptive information.

This is the same administration that deliberately included the Niger yellow cake fraud in a state of the union speech to sell a war – knowing that the information was completely bogus.

How dare they threaten us with the very defining characteristic of their black legacy and equate us with terrorists?

This is a direct assault on the alternative media and a continuation of the twilight zone rhetoric that saw the administration attempt to link its critics with Fascists and Hitler appeasers. The only fascists that should really concern us are not imaginary 'Blogofascists' or 'Islamofascists' but the Neo-Fascist slugs that occupy the White House and their cheerleading sycophants in the mainstream media and congress.

[Posted By drp2p]

Deseret Morning News / Tad Walch | September 8 2006

Brigham Young University placed physics professor Steven Jones on paid leave Thursday while it reviews his involvement in the so-called “9/11 truth movement” that accuses unnamed government agencies of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.

Steven Jones BYU will conduct an official review of Jones' actions before determining a course of action, university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said.

Such a review is rare for a professor with “continuing status” at BYU, where Jones has taught since 1985.

Jones was teaching two classes this semester, which began Tuesday. Other professors will cover those classes, and Jones will be allowed to continue to do research in his area of academic study, Jenkins said.

Jones became a celebrity among 9/11 conspiracy-theory groups after he wrote a paper titled “Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?”

The paper was published two weeks ago in the book “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out” and lays out Jones' hypothesis that the three towers fell because of pre-positioned demolition charges ? not because of the planes that hit two of the towers.

When Jones began to share his demolition theory publicly last fall, he politely declined to speculate about who set the charges other than to say terrorist groups couldn't have been the source.

Then, later, he started to speak publicly about research conducted at BYU on materials from ground zero. He said he found evidence of thermite ? a compound used in military detonations ? in the materials.

In recent weeks, after becoming the co-chairman of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Jones seemed willing to go further, implicating unnamed government groups but not President Bush.

The Deseret Morning News requested a statement from the university Wednesday afternoon for a story it was preparing on Jones and his high-profile role in the 9/11 truth movement. University officials informed Jones of the decision to place him on leave Thursday afternoon and released a statement to the newspaper Thursday night.

“BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty,” the statement said. “We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones.”

Last fall, BYU faculty posted statements on the university Web site that questioned whether Jones subjected the paper to rigorous academic peer review before he posted it at physics.byu.edu. Jones removed the paper from BYU's Web site Thursday at the university's request.

Efforts to reach Jones Thursday night were not successful. Jones told the Deseret Morning News on Wednesday that his paper had gone through an unusual third round of peer review in what is now an apparently unsuccessful effort to quell concerns on campus.

“BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues,” the university statement said.

Jenkins said BYU's reputation was a consideration, too.

“It is a concern when faculty bring the university name into their own personal matters of concern,” she said.

Jones, also known for his cold fusion research, provided academic clout to the 9/11 truth movement. C-SPAN repeatedly broadcast a conference that featured Jones this summer. Recent articles about Sept. 11 conspiracy theories that focused at least in part on Jones have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian in London and other publications.

Recent rebuttals to the demolition theory have been released by the State Department and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which published a 10,000-page report on the towers' collapse.

A modified version of Jones' paper was scheduled to be published this week in the online Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones is a co-editor of the journal.

BYU does not grant tenure, generally regarded as a permanent position, to professors. However, it does give continuing status to professors found worthy after six years on campus.

“Continuing status,” Jenkins said, “grants the expectation that faculty members will have continuing employment at the university, although it is not a guarantee.

They still need to meet satisfactory performance levels for scholarship, citizenship and teaching.”

The review will be conducted at three levels by the administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the Physics Department.

That being said, I am very interested in pursuing the 'opting out' process from the socialist security system.  I asked them years ago if I could agree not to pay into it and would not accept anything out of it.  Obviously I never heard back from them.  The second letter I sent wasn't quite as friendly but still no response.

I'm curious as to how many of you work a typical W-2 type job and have gotten your employer to stop witholding.  I saw the different forms available for getting this process underway and plan to begin doing so.

I'm not going to ask to be spoon fed but would like suggestions regarding which steps to take first.  I know what it's like when a newbie comes and starts asking things that are old hat to you.  I trust you will bear with me while I learn to crawl prior to walking. 

Thanks for any help.

RC

[T]he defendant has argued that the Government has no case for willfully attempting to evade the payment of tax because an assessment would be required to establish[] a tax due. And, then subsequent to that[,] an evasion. . . . And, defendant asserted that there was no such assessment either by way of self- assessment to the filing of returns or assessment through the Internal Revenue Service.

In connection with that point I stated in court this morning, . . . that I believed that that form of misconduct as a violation of this offense, namely the form that deals with evading — evading payment, would require an assessment of some type.

[…](2) Penalty for violation. In addition to the personal liability imposed by paragraph (1), if any person required to surrender property or rights to property fails or refuses to surrender such property or rights to property without reasonable cause, such person shall be liable for a penalty equal to 50 percent of the amount recoverable under paragraph (1). No part of such penalty shall be credited against the tax liability for the collection of which such levy was made.

The panel features incredible presentations by 9/11 Scholars for Truth founder James Fetzer, BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones, President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., Filmmaker and Radio Broadcaster Alex Jones, and Terrorism Expert Webster Tarpley.

C-Span viewers will witness what many consider to be the most hard hitting conference to date including the most professional and credible speakers ever assembled.

Many have expressed a degree of frustration that some quarters of the 9/11 truth movement are not as bold in their stance when drawing conclusions about 9/11 evidence as is necessary to make an impact. The American Scholars Symposium was crystal clear in its summation that 9/11 represents an inside job carried out by criminal elements within the US government. The deliberate implosion of the twin towers and Building 7 allied with the reversal of routine air defense procedures leave no other explanation than the fact that the attack was a self-inflicted wound.

Preaching to the choir is a method best left in the past and the C-Span airing is a positive step towards reaching out and educating those who remain in the dark about the staggering volume of evidence which clearly indicates that the official story behind 9/11 is a fraud.

The distinction, background and high esteem of the speakers at the conference, coupled with C-Span's notable reputation as a bellwether of the mainstream body politic, provides for a perfect symbiosis to advance the credibility and critical acclaim of the 9/11 truth movement as something far weightier and more influential than a cadre of conspiracy theorists – a label still peddled by fading elements of the blowhard establishment press.

It is crucial that everyone see this historic panel discussion on C-SPAN. Tell your friends and family, email colleagues, and post links on message boards. This is an incredible step in spreading the word about the truth about 9/11. It is vital that you focus your educational efforts solely on those who are still unaware of cover-up pertaining to 9/11.

The program will air on C-SPAN 1 at 8PM EST (7PM CST) on Saturday, July 29th and then air again for the West Coast at 11pm EST (10pm CST).

Scientific analysis on WTC steel debris undertaken by BYU Professor Steven Jones proves that the twin towers were demolished by means of incendiary devices and the release of the conclusive evidence is imminent.

The material that was first brought into question on the back of photos and video clips of the twin towers showing a dripping molten substance and floating white ash can now be confirmed as being thermate, combining thermite which is used as an incendiary device to bring down structures and sulfur, which cuts through steel quicker and leaves a yellow residue.

Pools of molten yellow metal were also found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.

“The evidence points directly to controlled demolition which means an inside job brought these World Trade Center buildings down,” Jones told radio host Alex Jones in a video interview.

[…]”In order to have thermite in these buildings in this way, to help bring the buildings down, that means that thermite had to be planted in the buildings which of course implies directly and inside job – someone had to have access into the buildings,” said Jones.

[…]Jones stated that thermite was a “clever” choice because its ingredients, aluminum and iron oxide do not require identifying tags by law, meaning they couldn't be traced back to their manufacturers.

02:00 AM Jun, 09, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO — Jim Harper left his hotel early Thursday at 5:30 a.m. to give himself more than two hours to clear security at San Francisco International Airport. It wasn't that he was worried the security line would be long, but because he accepted a dare from civil liberties rabble-rouser John Gilmore to test whether he could actually fly without showing identification.

Gilmore issued the challenge at Wednesday's meeting of the Department of Homeland Security's privacy advisory committee in San Francisco, which otherwise lacked much in the way of controversy. An entrepreneur and co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Gilmore recently lost a court battle seeking to unmask the government's secret regulations asking passengers to show identification when flying, and to have those rules declared unconstitutional.

Scolding the DHS committee for dithering over small matters, Gilmore said that it should be investigating the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program and that the committee's real job was to “protect the homeland from mean-spirited officials.”

Gilmore then dared committee members to place their driver's licenses in the envelopes he had passed out, mail them to their home addresses and then attempt to fly home without identification.

While signs in the airport and on the Transportation Security Administration website insist that showing ID is mandatory, the official policy, as revealed by the judges' decision (.pdf) in Gilmore's case, is that “airline passengers either present identification or be subjected to a more extensive search.” But Gilmore said that's not what really happens in an airport when one refuses to provide identification.

“You will find out what the real rules are,” Gilmore said. “Are you afraid to? You have good reason.”

Gilmore referred to his own experience when Southwest Airlines refused to let him fly in 2002 without identification, and a recent blog post by travel expert Edward Hasbrouck, chronicling his near-arrest for trying to figure out if the person checking identification at Washington Dulles International Airport was an airline or federal employee.

At the meeting's close, Harper, a committee member, said he'd take the challenge so long as he could hand his envelope to a reporter who accompanied him to the airport. He also challenged the other members to join him.

“We have influence,” Harper said. “I challenge my colleagues to believe in the law.”

None of the other committee members volunteered, but the committee's chair, former director of consumer protection for the Federal Trade Commission Howard Beales gave Harper a tongue-in-cheek blessing.

“I wish Jim the best and hope to see you in the future,” Beales said.

At 6 a.m. the next morning, Harper handed this reporter a green, self-addressed stamped envelope and entered the checkpoint line, which even at that early hour was filled with travelers facing a 20-minute crawl to the magnetometers.

Harper told the identification checker he had no ID, and the attendant quickly wrote “No ID” with a red marker on his ticket and shunted him off to an extra screening line — generously allowing him to bypass the longer queue of card-carrying passengers.

There Harper was directed into the belly of a General Electric EntryScan puffer machine that shot bits of air at his suit in order to see if he had been handling explosives.

TSA employees wearing baby blue surgical gloves then swiped his Sidekick and his laptop for traces of explosives and searched through his carry-on, while a supervisor took his ticket, conferred with other employees and made a phone call.

Meanwhile, a TSA employee approached this reporter, who was watching the search through Plexiglas, and said, “It's pretty awkward you are standing here taking notes,” but he did not ask for identification or call for a halt to the note-taking.

The TSA supervisor returned from her phone call and asked Harper why he didn't have identification and to where he was traveling. But she was satisfied enough with his answer — that he had mailed his driver's license home to Washington D.C. — that she allowed him to pass.

At 6:30 a.m., standing 50 yards away on the other side of the glass screen, Harper phoned to say he now had two hours to kill, having gotten through screening perhaps even faster than he would have if he'd shown ID. He guessed he was able to get through without much hassle by being polite and dressing well.

Why did he take the challenge?

“Part of it was my concern with the growing use of identification checks to control access to society, such as buildings, stadiums and air travel,” Harper said, referring to issues that are central to his recently published book called Identity Crisis.

And will he do it again?

“Yeah, I'm inclined to do it more and more and hopefully more people will follow my lead and it will become a clear option to not show government ID to fly,” Harper said. “My identity has nothing to do with the real risk.

“In fact, today, I'm the safest guy on the plane.”