fire congress

Let’s Fire Congress by Alan Adaschik Our Constitution establishes a Congress with a House of Representatives and Senate. These assemblies comprise the legislative branch of our government and our Constitution clearly delineates what Congress shall and shall not do when fulfilling their legislative responsibilities. A list of these responsibilities follows: In General: Members of Congress are bound by a sacred oath to faithfully obey the provisions of our Constitution. Congress is empowered to make all laws necessary and proper for executing its responsibilities. However, the converse is also true. Congress may not pass any law which does not meet these requirements. Responsibilities granted solely to the House or Senate by our Constitution: The House retains the sole power of impeachment. The Senate is solely responsible for trying those impeached and will be under oath for this purpose. What Congress shall do according to our Constitution: Meet at least once a year. Raise revenue through duties and direct and indirect taxes. Tax incomes derived from the sale or exchange of goods and services. Borrow money and pay debts. Provide for our defense and general welfare. Admit new states into the union. Propose amendments to the constitution and call conventions for this purpose. Regulate commerce. Establish rules of naturalization. Establish bankruptcy laws. Create money and regulate its value. Establish standards for weights and measures. Establish punishment for counterfeiting. Establish post offices and post roads. Establish the laws governing copyrights and patents. Conduct tribunals inferior to those of our Supreme Court. Define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations. Establish a punishment for treason. Declare war and grant letters of reprisal. Establish the rules of seizure on land and water. Raise and fund armies. Establish and maintain a Navy. Establish rules for the regulation of the Army and Navy. Call upon the Militia to execute the laws of the nation and to suppress and repel invasions. Remove sanctions imposed for the crimes of insurrection, rebellion, or giving aid or comfort to the enemy. Establish laws for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia with the exception of the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia as prescribed by Congress. Exercise exclusive authority over the District of Columbia and other Federal facilities and property. Publish a timely statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money. Approve the acceptance of presents, salaries, offices, or titles from foreign authorities by citizens working under Congressional authority. Approve treaties, the appointment of ambassadors, judges of the Supreme Court, and other public ministers, consuls, and officers of the United States. What Congress shall not do according to our Constitution: Suspend a writ of Habeas Corpus for reasons other than rebellion, invasion, or matters of public safety. Pass retroactive laws. Pass laws establishing a religion. Pass laws prohibiting or abridging the exercise of free speech or freedom of the press. Pass laws prohibiting or abridging the right of peaceful assembly and the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Pass laws requiring the forfeiture of rights or property after a citizen is sentenced to death for treason or some other felonious crime. Pass a direct tax prior to a taking a census of those being taxed. Pass a tax or duty on articles exported from any State. Pass laws giving preference to the ports of one state over another in regard to revenue and commerce. Expend funds from the Treasury without a lawful appropriation. Grant titles of Nobility. no NO I WILL NOT COMPLY PERIOD TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER! Now that we know what our Constitution requires of Congress, it is easy to identify the actions taken by Congress that are unconstitutional. Toward this end I offer the following: The Constitution gives Congress the authority to approve or disapprove treaties. However, Congress should not approve a treaty which subordinates its legislative authority and the authority of our Supreme Court and President to a foreign trade organization. When Congress enacted GATT this is exactly what it did. Nowhere in our Constitution is Congress authorized to take such action and this is especially true in consideration of the fact that the ultimate consequence of GATT is that the United States is no longer a free and independent nation. The Constitution gives Congress the power to establish an Army and Navy. However, for reasons that are obvious, no Air Force is provided for in our Constitution. Therefore, the existence of the United States Air Force is unconstitutional. This being the case, when members of the Air Force take their oath to support and defend our Constitution they are swearing that they have a duty and responsibility to dissolve and dispose of the organization they just joined. I am sure you think this is ridiculous and I agree, but because it is ridiculous does not make any less true. However, what is more ridiculous is that Congress, when establishing the United States Air Force did not properly perform its responsibilities and amend our Constitution so as to allow the legal establishment of this very necessary and important element of our national defense. If this had been done, the foregoing ridiculous situation would not exist and members of our Air Force would be able to take their solemn oath without demonstrating that they have no idea that the oath they are taking is absurd. I am sure you still think this is ridiculous, but now I strongly disagree because this situation exemplifies what is so terribly wrong with our government. Through the years, because, like the creation of the Air Force, most new legislation made sense, Congress did not feel compelled to amend our Constitution even though this was required and necessary. No apparent harm arose from these wrongful actions because, like our Air Force example, the actions in question were clearly of benefit to all concerned. However, in recent years, Congress has enacted NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT which are not to the benefit of this Nation. However, because we blindly accepted the unconstitutional actions of Congress in the past, we are now conditioned to blindly accept them in the future, even when they are not in our best interest. Unfortunately for us, the future is here now. What we fail to realize and understand is that in a Constitutional Republic, it is imperative for Congress, our President, the Supreme Court, and citizens, above all other considerations, to ensure that the actions of Congress are in keeping with constitutional stricture even for items of little consequence, irrespective of how desirable or necessary the action in question is. Furthermore, if any desired action is not specifically provided for by our Constitution, then it is incumbent upon Congress to amend our Constitution so that the action in question is rendered constitutional. Any departure from this governing principle, even an inconsequential one, is an abomination to our Constitution because it renders this sacred document null and void. This is the unapparent harm inherent in just one minor departure by Congress from constitutional stricture and the truth of this is clear when one realizes that if Congress can violate one provision of our Constitution, then it has the power to violate all its provisions. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, but does not give Congress the power to assign this authority to the President. A declaration of war means that our Nation gears up to fight the enemy with every means and resource available. Unfortunately, since the close of WW II, instead of declaring war as prescribe by the Constitution, Congress has authorized the President discretionary power to use our armed forces in police actions against other nations throughout the world. These police actions or mini-wars are wrongful and unconstitutional because they are undeclared by Congress and because our armed forces are supposed to be used for our defense and not bending the rest of world to our will. The Constitution gives Congress the power to create money and regulate its value. It did not give Congress the authority to assign this responsibility to a private organization as it did when the Federal Reserve Bank was created. The Federal Reserve, despite its name, is not a government agency. Instead, it is a private corporation owned and operated by a group of people unknown to us. Not only does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of and create the currency used by the United States, it charges our government interest on the money it creates out of thin air. Presently, most of the money citizens pay in income tax is used to pay the interest on this ridiculous and unconstitutional debt. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce and trade with foreign nations. It did not give Congress the power to assign this power to a foreign trade organization as it did when GATT was enacted. Under GATT, the Congressional authority to regulate trade and commerce with other nations has been surrendered to the Ruling Panels of the World Trade Organization and Congress no longer performs this constitutionally mandated function. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to propose amendments when necessary. Congress has failed to do this for the majority of laws it has passed and by so not doing, has made the gross and flagrant violation of their sacred oath of office a routine practice of government. The inescapable conclusion from this state of affairs is that Congress is a criminal enterprise which deliberately operates outside the law. Congress has placed itself above the law while, in contrast, the citizens of this Nation are forced to obey the law through actions of the criminal justice system. In a Republic, no one and no organization is above the law and this is especially true for Congress and those we elect to serve us. Our Constitution gives Congress the authority to borrow money and pay debts. However, it did not give Congress the authority to pay interest on borrowed money that it is empowered to create itself. Unfortunately for us, Congress has wrongfully and in violation of our Constitution, assigned its authority to create money to the Federal Reserve, a private corporation, and as a result we must pay interest on money that the Federal Reserve creates our of thin air. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to tax income. “Income” as used in our Constitution means profits derived from the sale or exchange of goods and services. Therefore, income is not something earned through the labor of individual citizens. As citizens we have a right to ownership and our government does not have the authority to appropriate or confiscate the things we own, as a whole or in part. The fruits of our labor, salary and wages, are property owned by us. Therefore, they are not taxable and the Federal income tax is unconstitutional. The Constitution gives the Senate the authority to try impeachments. It does not give the Senate the power to not try impeachments. This authority is provided solely to the House of Representatives as the other side of the coin to its power of impeachment. In the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, the Senate held a vote to dismiss the charges against the President which was, for all intents and purposes, a vote to not try him. Therefore, the Senate vote to dismiss the charges against President Clinton was unconstitutional. Similarly, in an impeachment trial, Senators are under oath to judge the President’s guilt or innocence based upon the evidence presented. During the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, the Senate voted to limit the amount of evidence House prosecutors had assembled to prove his guilt. Therefore, the vote by the Senate to limit the amount of evidence violated both their oath of office and the oath they swore as jurors making the vote in question unconstitutional. Congress may not pass a law which is not necessary or proper for executing the responsibilities and powers granted by our Constitution. In other words, if a power or responsibility is not provided for in our Constitution, Congress has no authority to assume this authority without amending our Constitution. A partial list of unconstitutional actions and activities by Congress follow: The Personal Income Tax NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT The Federal Reserve The United States Air Force Social Security The Federal Highway System Medicare The Agricultural Department The Coast Guard The Education Department The Farm Service Agency The National Aids Policy Office The FDA, DEA, NASA, OSHA, VA, TVA Etc., etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum Senators and members of the House of Representatives swear a sacred oath to God and the people of this Nation to support and preserve our Constitution. It should now be clear that they willfully, deliberately, and as a matter of routine practice ignore the provisions of our Constitution. But our situation is far worse than this. Approximately 200 years ago, we the people met to create our Constitution. This document was a compact between citizens whereby, each of us agreed or consented to be governed by the government our Constitution established. Therefore, the Constitution is not a pact or contract between our government and the citizens of this Nation. Instead, it is a pact or contract between citizens that creates an agreed upon government. In all contracts, it is wrong for one party to unilaterally change a contract’s provisions. However, as bad as this is, it is far worse for our government to unilaterally change the provisions of a document that it had no part in establishing. What is truly incredible about this state of affairs is that a majority of citizens have no problem with our government doing this and fail to realize when they condone or accept the wrongful and illegal actions of our government they are, in fact, in breach of contract with their fellow citizens. To be sure, when our government acts contrary to the provisions of our Constitution, citizens have a prima facia duty and responsibility to condemn and prevent such transgressions. You and I agreed to be governed according to the provisions of our Constitution. If our government violates these provisions and you have no problem with this, then you have violated our agreement. Unfortunately, if you are in the majority, the end result is that I am forced to endure a government that governs without my consent. This is the very essence of tyranny and our government is an expert at playing upon the misconceptions associated with this state of affairs so they can have their way with us. But our situation is far worse than this. Practically speaking, it is not possible for individuals to hold other citizens responsible for allowing our government the latitude of violating our Constitution. The Founders understood this and this is why they enshrined within our Constitution the right to petition our government for the redress of grievances. If I, as a citizen, have consented to be governed in a specified manner and my government violates this trust, then as the aggrieved party a mechanism should exist for me to have my grievances addressed. According to our Constitution as provided for by the Founders, the proper mechanism for airing my grievances is to bring this matter to the attention of our Supreme Court, which is the final authority on all cases in law and equity arising under our Constitution and the laws of the United States Viola! Problem solved! If our government does not abide by the provisions of our Constitution, I do not have to rise up in civil war against my fellow citizens to reconcile the problem. Instead, all I have to do is bring this matter to the attention of the Supreme Court and if the transgressions in question are proven to be true, it is incumbent upon the Supreme Court to render them null and void by declaring them unconstitutional. This is how the system is supposed to work. Incredibly, our government has taken formal steps to ensure that it does not work this way and its actions have left me and you with no way of preventing our government from passing unconstitutional laws. In the first and final analysis, this means that the government we presently have is not the government created by our Constitution. Instead, it is a government created by those who govern us. And if you think this state of affairs is in our best interest, then you must also believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin. There are two rulings by our Federal Courts that that brought about the above state of affairs. The first is that in order to meet the prerequisites of a class action lawsuit, plaintiffs must prove and demonstrate that they have suffered a specific and particular injury as opposed to a generalized and theoretical one. In other words, if Congress passes an unconstitutional law that injures all citizens equally as a group, with no one citizen or identifiable group of citizens suffering a unique personal injury, then the plaintiffs lack standing or recourse in a court of law. This ruling is ridiculous because it gives Congress license to violate the provisions of our Constitution no matter how absurd their actions are. For example, the Revolutionary War was fought to free this Nation from British rule. Suppose Congress, in its infinite capacity for ignorance and stupidity, voted to subordinate the laws of the United States to those of Great Britain. This is not as far fetched as it sounds because this is exactly what Congress did when it enacted GATT. In any case, if Congress so voted, the effect of such Legislation would essentially undo the American Revolution and place the citizens of this Nation under British rule. This action, by its nature, would affect all citizens equally in a generalized and theoretical way with no one citizen suffering a unique and personal harm. Therefore, our Federal Courts would rule that no citizen, group of citizens, or even all citizens as a group, have no recourse in a court of law to challenge this absurd action by Congress. The second ruling is known as the speech and debate clause. This “clause” is not something one can find and read. Instead, it is an interpretation of Articles 1 and 6 of our Constitution that, incredibly, is accepted as valid by our Supreme Court. Article 1 of our Constitution provides that the legislative power of the United States shall reside in Congress. The so called “clause” reasons that because the legislative power resides in Congress, it cannot reside in any other place. If the legislative power of the United States cannot reside in any other place, then it cannot be questioned in any other place including a court of law and this prohibition is absolute. In other words, according to the speech or debate clause and our Supreme Court, Congress makes the law; end of story; go away and mind you own business. Article 6 of our Constitution states that the laws passed by Congress shall be the supreme laws of the land. With this in mind, the speech and debate clause reasons that because the laws established by Congress are supreme, they cannot be questioned by citizens, even in a court of law. In other words, the law is the law and you must obey it even if it is not constitutional. And incredibly, our Supreme Court agrees with this argument. In fact, they clarified their position in this regard by stating that citizens do not have a prima facia right to have their Government act in accordance with the law and therefore, legal challenges in this regard are insufficient to confer jurisdiction in a Federal Court. In conclusion, in violation of their oath of office to protect and preserve our Constitution, Congress, with the complicity and concurrence of our Supreme Court, has knowingly and deliberately acted to ensure that the provisions of our Constitution are not binding upon our government. These wrongful actions have opened Pandora’s Box for this Nation and its citizens. Presently, not only do we have more laws in violation of our Constitution than we do in accordance with its provisions, but our Nation, the United States of America, is no longer sovereign because Congress voted to subordinate itself, our President, and our Supreme Court to the Ruling Panels of the World Trade Organization. We fought a revolutionary war against the British because of taxation without representation. Under GATT and the auspices of the WTO, we are now subject to legislation without representation and most Americans have no clue as to what has been done to us. The Government of the United States of America is an ongoing criminal enterprise and the Republican and Democratic parties are directly responsible for this despicable stare of affairs. Most of us, through ignorance and blind loyalty still vote for and support these criminal organizations which are led by traitors and globalists. By so doing the majority foolishly and wrongfully think they are being good Americans. Nothing could be further from truth and instead they are enabling tyranny, servitude, subjugation, destruction of our heritage, plunder of our wealth and resources, and the destruction of the United States as a free and independent Nation. source: http://howardwasright.com/index.php/more/167

rudd

You won't see this on American Television Prime Minister Kevin Rudd pulls country's troops out of Iraq Going to war with Iraq was wrong, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd admits to his credit. But don't expect Bush, Blair or Brown to display the same integrity Nick Squires – Telegraph.co.uk June 2, 2008 You won't see this on American Television Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has pulled the country's troops out of Iraq. In an admission that will make uncomfortable reading in London and Washington, the Labour leader dismissed one-by-one the reasons used by his predecessor, John Howard, to join the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq five years ago. "Have further terrorist attacks been prevented? No, they have not been, as the victims of the Madrid train bombing will attest," Mr Rudd told parliament. "Has any evidence of a link between weapons of mass destruction and the former Iraqi regime and terrorists been found? No. "Have the actions of rogue states like Iran been moderated? No ... Iran's nuclear ambitions remain a fundamental challenge. "After five years, has the humanitarian crisis in Iraq been removed? No it has not." Mr Rudd, whose campaign for election last November included a pledge to withdraw Australian combat forces from Iraq, said pre-war intelligence had been "abused" by the Howard government. He said there had been a "failure to disclose to the Australian people the qualified nature of the intelligence - for example, the pre-war warning that an attack on Iraq would increase the terrorist threat, not decrease it". Mr Rudd, a former diplomat, also dismissed his predecessor's argument that Australia had been obliged to send troops to Iraq because of its long-standing alliance with the United States. He said while he valued the alliance highly, it did not mean that Canberra should automatically accede to US requests for military support. His comments came a day after Australia's 550-strong combat force began leaving its base at Tallil, 185 miles south of Baghdad. Mr Howard, who has kept a low profile since being ousted from office six months ago, said he was still convinced that being part of the 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified. "I firmly believe it was the right thing to have done," he said, while acknowledging that it was the hardest decision he made as prime minister and that the cost of the war had been "very, very heavy and much greater than anybody would have liked". His decision to send troops was deeply influenced by the fact that he was in the US on an official visit on September 11, 2001, when terrorists struck New York and Washington. You won't see this on American Television Mr Howard was one of four leaders who supported the US-led coalition but who are all now out of office: Tony Blair, Jose Maria Aznar of Spain and Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski. One of Mr Howard's former senior officials said the government had been fully briefed on the fact that invading Iraq would damage US prestige, foster anti-Western sentiment, require a massive troop presence and destabilise the wider Middle East. "All that was predictable and I don't think the benefits of the West going in were worth the cost," the official, who declined to be named, told the Sydney Morning Herald. "That was my judgment at the time and that hasn't changed." Australia will still have about 800 military personnel in and around Iraq, including a 110-strong diplomatic security detachment in Baghdad, sailors on board warships in the Persian Gulf and Royal Australian Air Force crew.   source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia

The Iron Triangle - The Carlyle Group Exposed				Congressmen want Bush & Cheney Held Accountable for Guantanamo Bay Tortures

against war

WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!				Justice Department is now Collecting All DNA Samples

ww3

WW3 for USA - wake up and listen to someone USA				Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show 5/19/08 Part I

rumsfeld

Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show 5/19/08 Part 2				Rumsfeld wished for another terrorist attack on America

rumsfeld fascism

Olbermann on Rumsfeld re: Fascism				Bob Feuer: Bush Will Bomb Iran, Impose Martial Law and Suspend Elections

mccain nightmare

McCain's YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare				Britain's Brainwashed courtesy of the New World Order

authorized 911

George W Bush Authorized 911 Attacks Says Government Insider Listen to interview  Click HERE Tuesday, 20 May 2008 06:20 Pakistan Daily E-mail Print PDF Keep in mind when reading this, that the man being interviewed is no two-bit internet conspiracy buff. Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole (R) and has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get this information out to people. The following is from his latest visit to Alex Jones' radio show. Note: All honor to Stanley Hilton for risking his life so that we may know the truth of 9/11. The Bush Junta Unmasked "This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder." --Stanley Hilton Alex Jones interview of Stanley Hilton, attorney for 911 taxpayers' lawsuit AJ: He is back with us. He is former Bob Dole's chief of staff, very successful counselor, lawyer. He represents hundreds of the victims families of 9/11. He is suing Bush for involvement in 9/11. Now a major Zogby poll out - half of New Yorkers think the government was involved in 9/11. And joining us for the next 35 minutes, into the next hour, is Stanley Hilton. Stanley, it's great to have you on with us. SH: Glad to be on. AJ: We'll have to recap this when we start the next hour, but just in a nutshell, you have a lawsuit going, you've deposed a lot of military officers. You know the truth of 9/11. Just in a nutshell, what is your case alleging? SH: Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years. AJ: That's right. They were all Straussian followers of a Nazi-like professor. And now they are setting it up here in America. Stanley, I know you deposed a lot of people and you've got your $7 million dollar lawsuit with hundreds of the victim's families involved. SH: 7 billion, 7 billion AJ: Yeah, 7 billion. Can you go over some of the new and incriminating evidence you've got of them ordering the attack? SH: Yes, let me just say that and the basic three arguments are this is a taxpayers' class action lawsuit as well as a suit on behalf of the familiesthey violated the Constitution by ordering this event. And secondly that they [garbled] fraudulent Federal Claims Act, Title 31 of the U.S. Code in which Bush presented false and fraudulent evidence to Congress to get the Iraq war authorization. And, of course, he related it to 9/11 and claimed that Saddam was involved with that, and all these lies. AJ: Tell you what, stay there. Stanley, we've got to break. Let's come back and get into the evidence. BREAK AJ: All right my friends, second hour, the anniversary of the globalist attack coming up. It's an amazing individual we have on the line. Bob Dole's former chief of staff, political scientist, a lawyer, he went to school with Rumsfeld and others, he wrote his thesis about how to turn America into a dictatorship using a fake Pearl Harbor attack. He's suing the U.S. government for carrying out 9/11. He has hundreds of the victims' families signing onto it - it's a $7 billion lawsuit. And he is Stanley Hilton. I know that a lot of stations just joined us in Los Angeles and Rhode Island and Missouri and Florida and all over. Please sir, recap what you were just stating and then let's get into the new evidence. And then we'll get into why you are being harassed by the FBI, as other FBI people are being harassed who have been blowing the whistle on this. So, this is really getting serious. Stanley, tell us all about it. SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And Personally ordered. this was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George W. Bush.We have incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this effect. It's not just incompetence - in spite of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this. The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on September 11th - when those videos showed that Andrew Card whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was another rehearsal. These people had dress-rehearsed this many times. He had seen simulated videos of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a California press conference when he said he had, quote, "seen on television the first plane attack the first tower." And that could not be possible because there was no video. What it was was the simulated video that he had gone over. So this was a personally government-ordered thing. We are suing them under the Constitution for violating Americans' rights, as well as under the federal Fraudulent Claims Act, for presenting a fraudulent claim to Congress to justify the bogus Iraq boondoggle war, for political gains. And also, under the RICO statute, under the Racketeering Corrupt Organization Act, for being a corrupt entity. And I've been harassed personally by the chief judge of the federal court who is instructing me personally to drop this suit, threatened to kick me off the court, after 30 years on the court. I've been harassed by the FBI. My staff has been harassed and threatened. My office has been broken into and this is the kind of government we are dealing with. AJ: Absolutely and now it has come out - five separate drills of flying hijacked jets into buildings that morning - which you told us about before it even broke in the Associated Press. They were trying to get out ahead of you. You talked about how you interviewed military people who were told it was a drill that morning. Then to get out ahead of that, the news finally reported on it. Now, we've learned that all these operations - I want to get into that, I want to talk about the new incriminating evidence of ordering it and how they had drilled on this, how Cheney was in the bunker controlling this. That has even come out in the mainstream news but they won't release the details of that, Stanley. But what type of FBI harassment are you going through? SH: First of all, my office was burglarized in San Francisco several months ago. Files were gone through and some files were seized - particularly the ones dealing with the lady that was married to one of the hijackers. Fortunately, I had spare copies in a hidden place so nothing disappeared permanently. But more significantly, FBI agents have been harassing one of my staff members and threatening them with vague but frightening threats of indicting them. And it's just total harassment. They have planted a spy, an undercover agent, in my organization, as we just recently discovered. In other words, these are Nazi Germany tactics. This is the kind of government you have in this country. This is what Bush is all about. AJ: Stay there, Stanley, Bob Dole's former chief of staff. We'll come back after this quick break. Please stay with us. BREAK AJ: All right, eight minutes, 25 seconds into the second hour. Stanley Hilton, political scientist, lawyer, Bob Dole's former chief of staff, is suing the government for 7 billion dollars for carrying out 9/11 and for racketeering. And he joins us now. During the break, I first really did the big interview with Stanley Hilton after I saw him attacked on Fox News. And that interview got massive attention. And then he kind of went underground for a while because a judge, we're going to talk about that, ordered him to not do any more interviews. And now he's back doing interviews. He's had his office broken into, FBI threats and harassment. Bottom line, he has deposed military individuals, wives of hijackers, you name it, it was a government operation. It has even come out in mainstream news, a piece here, a piece there. They had drills on 9/11, that's why NORAD stood down. Cheney was in control of the whole thing. Stanley Hilton has now gotten documents about how Bush ordered the whole operation. And I'll tell you right now, his life is in danger, folks. And he's got so much courage. He went to school with these neocons at the University of Chicago. He wrote his thesis on how the government could use terrorist attacks to set up martial law. He is the man for the time and folks wondered why he disappeared for a while and just did his lawsuit and wasn't doing interviews, it was because he was ordered to. Stanley, can you get into that for us? SH: I did an interview with you, Alex, about a year and a half ago, and literally two weeks after that, I was contacted by the emissary of the chief judge of the federal court where I have the lawsuit. And I was warned not to publicize it but to keep it quiet and threatened with discipline. And it remained quiet until a couple of months ago and then I got on the air on some programs and some publicity and July 1st, I was threatened directly by the chief judge here, threatened with court discipline. This particular judge has been circulating communiqués to the other federal judges seeking anything negative she can get against me to try and discipline me after I've been on the court here for 30 years with no disciplinary problems at all. This is suddenly happening. And her assistants who are on the committee of the court met with me on July 1st in Palo Alto, California, and threatened me directly. They handed me a copy of the lawsuit and said that the judge wants me to dismiss this. What's this? She doesn't like the content of it. This is politically incorrect. This is outside the norm. I said I represented more than 400 plaintiffs, how am I going to dismiss this case? And they threatened me directly and they said, "the next time you'll be disciplined." And also they've threatened me not to go public, etc. And this is just outrageous. AJ: It's all color of law. No direct orders, just all in your face. SH: They sent a letter out, and of course they deny it's because of the political content of the suit but they told me directly on the phone that it is because of this suit and this judge is very, very angry, apparently has been in contact with Ashcroft's Justice Department. I got a call from Ashcroft's Justice Department a few months ago about this, demanding that I drop the suit, threatening sanctions and all kinds of things. I refused to drop it. AJ: Now let's go back over, you had them break into your office, harassment. Let's go over that in detail. SH: My office was broken into about 6 months ago. The file cabinets - it was obvious they had been rifled through. Files were stolen. Files dealing with this particular case and particularly with the documents I had regarding the fact that the - some of these hijackers, at least some of them were on the payroll of the U.S. government as undercover FBI, CIA, double agents. They are spying on Arab groups in the U.S. And, in effect, all this led up to the effect that al Qaeda is a creation of the George Bush administration, basically. That the entity that he called al Qaeda is directly linked to George Bush. And all this stuff was stolen. Fortunately, I had copies. But this was just part of the harassment. The FBI has also been harassing some of my assistants and has planted a spy in our midst. And it is just outrageous that these Nazi tactics are being used - and the obstruction of justice, these people are criminals. And that's what's happening under the tremendous pressure here to just drop it. Or to shut up now and just go away. AJ: Now, let's talk about what they want you to drop. Let's talk about, without giving names, the people you deposed, what really happened, the picture you've got. You said earlier that Bush ordered this, they were simulating this which they now admit there were simulations on that morning. Let's go over what they don't want you to talk about, Stanley. SH: We have evidence both documentary as well as witness sworn statements from undercover former FBI agents, FBI informants, etc., that other officials in the Pentagon and the military and the Air Force that deal with the fact that there were many drills, many rehearsals for 9/11 before it happened. Bush had seen this simulated on TV many times. He blurted this out at a press conference in California a few months after 9/11 where he said he had, quote, seen the first plane hit the first building on the video. And that's not possible because there was no official video of that. There was one of the second plane not the first one. He had seen the first one. We do have some incriminating documents that Bush personally ordered 9/11 events. It was well planned. A FEMA official has admitted on tape that he was there the night before - September 10th, that is AJ: And now Mayor Giuliani, a few months ago in the 911 Commission, admitted that - Tripod II. They had their whole command post already moved out of Building 7. Now, this is very, very important. This is a key area of this whole event. You said months before it came out on the CIA's own website and the Associated Press, you said I deposed people. They said there were drills that morning and exactly what happened, happening - that was the smoke-screen for the stand-down. And then to get out ahead of it, the CIA comes out and said yeah we were running a drill that morning. Now, we've learned that five, possibly six, were confirmed. Five of these - one drill with the exact same thing happening that actually happened, at the exact same time in the morning. That's why NORAD stood down with 24 different blips on the screen. You've said this. You brought this up first. Now, I know you can't get too much into detail but can you tell us how you learned of this? SH: I have interviewed individuals in NORAD and the Air Force. I personally toured NORAD many years ago around the time that I worked for Dole. I'm very familiar with the operations at Cheyenne Mountain at Colorado Springs, where NORAD is. Individuals that work in NORAD as well as the Air Force have stated this, off the record, but the point is, yes, this was not just five drills but at least 35 drills over at least two months before September 11th. Everything was planned, the exact location AJ: But five drills that day. SH: That day, that day, and Bush thought it was a drill. That's the only explanation for why he appeared nonchalant AJ: We also had NORAD officers and civilian air traffic controllers going, "Is this part of the exercise? Is this a drill?" SH: Yes. AJ: On the tapes and in TV interviews, they thought it was, quote, a drill. SH: That's right. That's exactly what I said long before it became public. I've known about this since earlier in March of '03, as I stated before. This was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder. And now, obstruction of justice by attempting to use a federal judge and FBI agents to inhibit a legitimate civil lawsuit in this country, in federal court. Even a chief judge in this court tried to harass and threaten me personally for representing legitimate plaintiffs. And they got Clinton for allegedly lying under oath about Paula Jones and now - look what's happening now. And Ken Starr used to be across from me in Duke Law School in the early `70s and it´s interesting that he got away with trying to get Clinton impeached, so we have a far worse criminal sitting in the oval office today - somebody guilty of mass murder as well as obstruction of justice. AJ: Well, I mean look, they say they never heard of a plan to fly planes into buildings - said it all over television - Rice, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft. And then we find out they were running all these drills that morning. Even if they weren't involved, that proves they were liars about ever hearing of such a plan. SH: Well, I'm trying to take their depositions - I've been trying to take their depositions for months. They've been trying to object to it. They will have to admit they were either lying then or now. It's clearly perjury either way. They are liars and perjurers; that's what they are. These are the people that we have running this government and, of course, they knew about it. How are they going to claim now that they didn't know about these drills? Their idea is that nobody knew anything. It's the old know-nothing mentality. And how anybody considers this believable is beyond me. AJ: All right, now people ask how could a huge organization, how could the AWACs, how could the military let this happen; whereas before, if your Cessna got off course for five minutes, they would launch F-16s on you. It's real simple. It's what Stanley Hilton said here a year and a half ago. It's what came out in the news after that. The military, good people, were told this was all a drill. And it was not a drill. And ABC News admits that Cheney was in control of [?] out of the White House [?] and that he ordered the military to quote "do something." Our inside sources from Hilton and others say it was a stand down and they admit they will not release that under national security. Stanley? SH: Well they are going to admit it, they're going to release it in the court case because if you demand it under subpoena powers and they must release it. And part of our lawsuit is brought in the name of the U.S. because under the federal fraudulent [Claims Act], we accuse the Bush Administration of presenting a fraudulent claim to Congress. And under the statutes of Title 31 of the U.S. code, they must release this information. That's why they are trying to threaten me, harass me, invade my office, steal my files, commit blatant obstruction of justice and other crimes to try and prevent a legitimate civil suit from exposing these criminals and their acts of treason and mass murder. AJ: I think you need to publicly tell folks that you are not planning suicide. Would you like to tell folks that? SH: (laughs) I'm not planning suicide. I've got family and I'm not planning that but I don't like the threats I'm under - but I can tell you this, it's taking a toll emotionally on me and my staff. And particularly, when you get a threat from the chief judge of your own court. AJ: Why have you decided to go public again after a year of being under the radar? SH: Because the more and more evidence that I've been adducing over a year and a half has made it so obvious to me that this was now without any doubt a government operation and that it amounts to the biggest act of treason and mass murder in American history. I mean George Bush makes Benedict Arnold look like a patriot. He makes Benedict Arnold look like George Washington. I mean that's what we have - a criminal and a traitor sitting in the White House pretending he's a patriot, wrapping himself in the flag. And it's pretty disgusting because the other side of the so-called opposition, the Kerry camp is just saying nothing because they're afraid to speak. AJ: Stay right there. We'll be right back. BREAK AJ: Stanley Hilton will be with us for another 15 or 16 minutes. Then he's got to go into court. Bob Dole's former chief of staff, political scientist, lawyer, represents 400 plus plaintiffs - most of them victims of 9/11. When I was in New York last week, everybody I was talking to, I mean 90 plus percent of them at ground zero - "I had family, I worked in the buildings, my son's a Navy Seal - he called the night before and said don't go to work." You know, all of this, and then now they never had any idea - and it turns out they had all these drills - and one drill of hijacked jets flying into the World Trade Center and Pentagon at 8:30 in the morning. That morning - come on people! And Stanley Hilton brought all this out on this show before it was in the mainstream news. And I was talking to him during the break. I mean, the harassment, the moles, the threatening of his staff, the judge threatening him. Stanley, let's get specifically into the documents that you have now got that they have now been robbing you for, that you luckily, thank God had copies. Specifically, Bush ordering this. Can you get into that for us - ordering 9/11? SH: National Security Council classified documents which [garbled] and it's was part of a series of documents that were involved with the drill documents. This was all planned - they had it on videotape. These planes were controlled by remote control, as I stated previously a year and a half ago, there's a system called Cyclops. There is a computer chip in the nose of the plane and it enables the ground control, the military ground control, to disable the pilot's control of the plane and to control it and to fly it directly into those towers. That's what happened. It's also a technology used on what's called the Global Hawk, which is an aircraft drone - a remote- controlled aircraft. And they were doing it. We are talking about National Security Council classified documents that clearly indicated that [garbled] had a green light to order this to go and this is no drill. These drills that were running were clearly a dress rehearsal and this was a government operation. You wonder why these people are trying to threaten people and trying to intimidate people who have written this suit, I guess if you murdered 3000 of your own citizens, in conjunction with the corrupt Royal family of Saudi Arabia as Bush did. And if you then waste billions more on a worthless garbage war in Iraq, I guess you've got something to worry about and you want to threaten people to prevent it from coming out. AJ: I mean let's look at this. Not only are there dress rehearsals, they are smoke screens so the good military stands down and doesn't know what's happening. But it's now coming out, even in mainstream news, that yes these drills were going on. Yes, and some of these drills, quote, passenger-type jets were under remote control - this is decades old technology. In 1958, NORAD was [ ] old jets and using them for target practice. Decades ago they flew jumbo jets from LA to Sidney Australia. So since that's going on, everybody knows that. And it's the same MO. Just like the first World Trade Center [bombing] where they get two retarded men who followed this blind sheik who had a tiny mosque above a pizza parlor. And they set them up as the patsies. Then the FBI cooks the bomb, trains the drivers. This informant goes, "You're not going to bomb the building? They go "Yeah, we're letting it go forward." He tapes them to protect themselves. The two retarded gentlemen, thank God, didn't park it up against the column, as the FBI instructed them to do, so it didn't bring down the tower - because you have to be right up against the column. That doesn't happen. Yet, it's the same thing with 9/11. You've got these CIA agents, these Arabs, who were trained at U.S. military bases, Pensacola Naval Air Station - mainstream media, out creating their legends for this background. They're on board the aircraft. My military sources say nerve gas kills everybody on board the plane - nerve gas packets. Then they fly the planes into buildings. From your inside sources, is that accurate? SH: It's one of the things that we are looking into - that nerve gas or something else disabled people. It's possible. I can't say for sure to be honest with you AJ: All you know is they were government agents and they were on board and the planes were remote controlled. SH: Yeah, it was basically a smokescreen. I mean, the events of the hijackings, how someone snuck in those cutters, it was a plant. It was like a classic decoy. I've got some military background. And it's called decoy. It's a decoy operation. You make the people focus on the decoy to avoid looking at the real criminals. So they are focusing on these so-called nineteen hijackers and saying, "Oh, it must have been these Arabs. When, in fact, the guilty person is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue - sitting in the oval office. That's the guilty person. That's the one who authorized it. There is only one man who could have authorized this operation and that's Bush. And anyone at NORAD will tell you as I have been told personally at NORAD in the war control room, there is only one man who has the power to do this kind of thing and that's Bush. Even though many believe he's a puppet. And I think in many ways he is. The fact of the matter is where was [ ] Cheney, Rumsfeld and these other traitors. The fact is Bush personally ordered and he's guilty and liable and he's going to be re-elected apparently because the media's asleep and [garbled] for Bush. AJ: Well, the media is owned by the same military industrial complex that carried out the attacks. SH: Yeah, the media is only interested in maintaining the official government fantasy that this was a little lone Arab. These Arabs couldn't even steer that plane down a runway. AJ: Stay there Stanley, final segment coming up. BREAK AJ: Mr. Hilton, when you talk to these FBI agents, when you talk to these military men and women, what's their attitude? They've got to be pretty freaked out to have the big picture and know what actually happened on 9/11. SH: Yes, you know it's like clouds just before a thunderstorm in the sense that they are sort of pregnant with rage. They are just enraged at the criminal politicians who have perverted and misused the government to murder its own citizens and pursue these dubious political ends. And many of them, in increasing numbers, are willing to talk and will talk under subpoena - but only under subpoena because the official party line of the government is shut up and don't talk to the trial lawyer. But more and more, they are very outraged that part of the government has done this to its own people, to its own people. I mean you have to go back to Stalin to see something - not even Hitler did this to his own people. You have to look at Stalin who murdered the Kulaks, the Russians for his own dubious gains. Also we've got - we have a Stalinist mentality in this country. And, if these people pose as patriots and wrap themselves in the flag, it's disgusting. I wanted also to point out that the Japanese television network, Asahi, is going to be airing a special on primetime tomorrow, on September 11th. They interviewed me for eight hours a couple of weeks ago. I'll be on that. I wish - of course, the America media don't care so they are not going to care. But in Japan, people are very serious in interviewing me and others. And we have a website now, called deprogram.info, if more people are interested: www.deprogram.info. But the other thing, I just wanted to say that if anything happens to me - and I don't know why - because I'm being threatened here now. And it seems you can't bring a case in this country anymore against criminals in power without being threatened. And this is how they operate. The stakes are pretty high when you've got a world historical level of treason and fraud by this government against it's own people. I guess this is what you have to expect. AJ: Stanley, the globalists, the new world order crowd, definitely intend to carry out more terror attacks. I know they would have carried out more attacks if we wouldn't have done what we've been up to, if you wouldn't have been out there boldly speaking out and many others. And then their electronic Berlin wall has a bunch of cracks in it now. Thanks to good people like yourself and many others who are speaking out and telling the truth. But do you think that they may carry out what they've been hyping - a suitcase nuke attack, a biological release to try to smokescreen all of this? I know it's a catch 22, you've got to expose the murderers. We've got to get the word out on this but some government people that I've talk to say, "Yeah, but if you do that, they are going to go even more hard core and must totally try to take over." But I say regardless, they are already doing that. So what do you say to that? SH: Well, yeah, I think they have an agenda. They have contingency plans. I think they are laying low now because there are an increasing number of people, like myself, who are openly challenging them and accusing them of criminal conduct. I think they would have done it again if we had not spoken up. I think they're planning, what they would like to do is silence any dissenters. That's why we are trying to get the Patriot Act declared unconstitutional in this lawsuit also. AJ: Let's talk about polls. In the beginning a patriot is a scarce man, hated and feared, but in time when his cause succeeds, the timid join him, because then it costs nothing to be a patriot. You are one of those guys who hit the barbwire for us, or figuratively jumped on the hand grenade for America. But when you've got a Zogby poll, who is highly respected, half of New Yorkers believe that the government was involved. When you have a Canadian poll, 63% on average believe that the U.S. government was involved. And some groups, as high as 76% in polls believe the government was involved. European polls, two- thirds show the same thing. We have German defense ministers and technology ministers and another member of their government now, three of them going public, known conservatives, and progressives. You have an environment minister, Michael Meacher, saying that if they didn't do it, they sure as hell knew what was going on. Look, if anybody who is a thinking person looks at the evidence, their official story is impossible. Then you investigate and they are involved in it. Comments to this massive awakening and what's happening. SH: Well, I think that's why they want the Patriot Act to suppress political dissent. They have to, they're anticipating, they are not dumb individuals. I know these people personally, Wolfowitz. These are criminal individuals but they are smart and so they anticipated political dissent. And that's why, like the Nazis, their forebears, and their blood brothers, the Nazis and the Stalinists, they're all for political repression. Every corrupt and criminal government has done this - they suppress their own