"Government" admits "acceleration" of WTC7
Mort Zuckerman
Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu, gary_w...@nymc.edu,
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: "Government" admits "acceleration" of WTC7
Date: Nov 21, 2009 11:21 AM
Gubbamint admits "acceleration" of WTC7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ
======================================
And we expect "The Government" to fix
healthcare and the economy?
People who *chose* not to believe the
physics of this controlled demolition
are who/what are obstructing our access
to a proper revolution or overthrow
of the sitting Lords:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/21
In science, what we try to do is
isolate variables until we come up
with the one that is the critical
mass, so to speak. The one function
that, when it is missing, has the most
effect on the reaction not running or
or the system won't run.
Now, we don't have a Justice
Department, a proper Fourth Estate,
access to our "elected representatives,"
or a Department, say, of Health and
Human Services (FDA, CDC, NIH, ACF, etc).
None of them is working, as intended.
But the essential one - Justice - is
the one at fault, here. It's their
job to expose the TRUTH.
So, how do we qualify TRUTH?
We show that stuff didn't happen as
per Random or Chance. There is a tool
called Mathematics, which includes
Probability and Statistics. This
tool helps us know what is a REAL
VERIFIABLE, and REPEATABLE phenomenon
as opposed to a collection of events
that only appeared to be a pattern
on the surface and without analysis.
How Stuff Works ^^, as I just described
is not a part of US Law School curricula.
They don't HAVE IT, see, in their brains.
They don't have the capacity to describe
a 3-4 dimensional system to a court or
to a judge. (Because if they did, they
would not be lawyers.)
It is very important for normal people
to understand what this cognitive disability
actually means. People who don't have
a mental disability, don't know what
it is like to have such a mental block.
I will therefore give another example:
http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/4827590/131869_Full.jpg
Alpha-Beta-Chicken-Zucchini soup
looks like a flow chart to a lawyer.
If someone said, "Thermodynamics," a lawyer
will want to know what the SEC symbol for it
is.
Do you understand how facts simply will not
enter the mind of a lawyer (or a psychiatrist)?
Whereas you can teach a child how
to change any part on his bicycle,
a lawyer will throw a conniption
over the fact that he was asked
to perform any such operation.
You NEVER SEE a lawyer under the
hood of his car, jangling around,
trying to install a new alternator.
NEVER.
*That* is why this country is irreversibly
broken. It is because the men no longer
have maleness. The Law never caught up
to Science or the Truth, because one would
not be a lawyer if one respected the Truth.
The country suffered the complete and total
incompatibility of self-alleged courts and
Reality.
911/WTC7 was a controlled demolition and
"Lyme disease" is an ongoing crime that
negatively affects all discovery in all
diseases, and the USDOJ has no one capable
of either understanding or describing either
event.
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
===================================
Published on Saturday, November 21, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
America's House of Lords Debates Health Care
by Steven Hill
The health care debate has been like a tennis match, bouncing from the
Senate to the House and back again. Now it's back in the Senate, as
the United States tries to end its status as the only advanced economy
without universal health care for its people. One hundred Senators
from 50 states will decide what lives and what dies, health-care wise.
With so much at stake, it makes sense to ask: who are these 100
Senators? Might that give us a clue as to what to expect from
America's upper chamber?
For starters, this "representative" body hardly looks or thinks like
the rest of the nation. Only seventeen are women, while the United
States is majority female. Only five are Hispanic, black, or Asian
American, even as the nationwide melting pot has become one-third
minority.
A Senator's average age is an elderly 63 years old, and most are
wealthy millionaires. A famous 19th-century aphorism said, "It is
harder for a poor man to enter the United States Senate than for a
rich man to enter Heaven," and things are hardly different today. The
senescent Senators already have great health care benefits too, even
while tens of millions of Americans do not. So this powerful
legislative body debating health care for the entire country is a
patrician gerontocracy more closely resembling the ancient Roman
Senate than a New England town meeting.
But it gets worse, for those who are hoping that majority rule might
end this health care nightmare. According to the U.S. Constitution,
each state is represented by two senators, regardless of population.
This arrangement is the legacy of a deal struck in 1787 at the
nation's founding, partly to keep the slave-owning states from exiting
the then-fledgling nation. As a result, California, with more than 36
million people has the same number of senators as Wyoming with only a
half million people.
That disproportional allocation has only gotten worse over time. When
the Senate was created, the most populous state had 12 times more
people than the least populous state; now it has 70 times more people.
In the 1960s, the Supreme Court established the groundbreaking
principle of majority rule based on "one person, one vote," meaning
that all legislative jurisdictions must be equal in population. Yet
the U.S. Senate completely violates this fundamental principle.
As a result, the 40 Republican Senators represent a mere third of the
nation, meaning Republican voters have more representation than
everyone else. That overrepresentation is bad enough, but it gets even
worse. For the US has added an arcane layer of parliamentary procedure
known as the "filibuster" that takes us out of the frying pan and into
the fryer.
The Senate's use of the "filibuster" means you need, not a majority of
51 votes, but 60 votes to stop unlimited debate on a bill and move to
a vote. So a mere 41 senators can kill any legislation. The 40
Republican Senators representing only a third of the nation need to
peel away only a single conservative Democratic or independent
representing a low population state like Montana, Nebraska or
Connecticut to torpedo what the Senators representing the other two-
thirds of the nation want.
Given such a vastly malapportioned and unrepresentative Senate
wielding its anti-majoritarian filibuster, it is hardly surprising
that minority rule in the Senate consistently undermines majoritarian
policy. Besides health care, Senators representing a small segment of
the nation have thwarted renewable energy policy, sensible automobile
mileage standards, cuts in subsidies for oil companies, tougher
campaign finance reform, Congressional oversight of national security
and war, and more.
Minority rule in the Senate has been with the nation for a long time;
in fact, it is widely blamed for perpetuating slavery for decades
(between 1800 and 1860, eight antislavery measures passed the House,
only to be killed in the Senate). For all these reasons, two of
America's most revered founders, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton,
opposed the creation of the Senate, with Hamilton warning in
Federalist Paper no. 22 that equal representation in the Senate
"contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which
requires that the sense of the majority should prevail."
Even though Democrats have a solid majority in the Senate, a majority
is not good enough. While Republicans warn against the Democrats using
"reconciliation," the 51-vote tactic the GOP frames as a "nuclear
option," Democrats should remind the public: There's nothing wrong
with invoking simple majority rule in a body that is, in some ways,
deeply unrepresentative and undemocratic by design.
So it's not just the Senators' credibility on the line if they fail to
provide to all Americans a similar level of health care benefits that
they themselves enjoy as senators. It's the very democratic legitimacy
of the body in which they serve. How long are Americans going to
ignore this constitutional defect?
Steven Hill is Director of the Political Reform Program for the New
America Foundation and author of "Europe's Promise: Why the European
Way is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age" (www.EuropesPromise.org) to
be published in January 2010.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci