Liar! "Saudi Arabia & Iran Have Nukes!" Says Alex Jones - YouTube

The standard Alex Jones uses when he says someone has been right every single time is not the same standard I use when discerning objective, absolute truth from mere maybes. Someone told Alex that Iran has nuclear weapons and Alex believe that his "source" fits perfectly into the mold in Alex's head for being a "right-thinking" person. Therefore, Iran has nuclear weapons for sure according to Alex. It's called confirmation bias, but Alex does it to the extreme. There are worse offenders out there, but Alex is in the top 1% of them.

I guarantee that Alex's "source" does not know that Iran has nuclear weapons.

The Zionists have tried and tried to conjure up proof of an Iranian nuclear-weapons program and have not been able to do it. The US had to back off it's statements that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program. They became worn down by people (including yours truly) hammering them for any independently verifiable hard evidence at all. They had none even though they had been claiming they did.

Obama's administration is now negotiating a deal with Iran because of all that hammering.

The only people who don't want such a deal are the neocons and Takfiris. Pick your poison. Which one is Alex on this subject?

One thing is perfectly clear. Alex is very, very, very soft on Zionism. Why is that? Why does he always go out of his way to say that he's not bashing or demonizing (or words to that effect) Israel?

The Zionists are stinking land thieves and war criminals. Who did the USS Liberty on purpose? Who let them get away with it. Zionists!

Alex was very hard on the Bush-43 administration for 9/11, but that administration was neocon through and through. Neocons are Zionists, always!

Who did 9/11 at the very, very top? Zionists. It's the only way WTC 7 could have happened. The Saudis sure couldn't have pulled it off.

Watch the liar:


Tom Usher

He's toned it down concerning Iran a tiny bit (leaning on his unnamed source) since the last time I heard him spew the lie, but the title of his video is still emphatically lying.

If you think I shouldn't call him a liar, I say to you that you don't care enough about how critically important it is that the Zionists not get away with attacking Iran for a nuclear-weapons program they haven't been shown to have. Jesus called people serpents. He turned over the tables. Don't ask me to be meek and mild when people's lives are on the line. There are times and places to be "polite" and such. Alex doesn't speak that language. He doesn't hear it. He regularly calls people scum. He won't hear me if I'm all soft and gentle and pleasant. I'm not hurting him. I'm trying to wake him up. He thinks he's awake. He's not. He's lost.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#1 of 6: NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud

Do you buy the NIST purported theory for why WTC 7 completely collapsed?

Why "suspect"? Because NIST ignored the National Fire Protection Association protocol — specifically, the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations — and refused to perform a forensic investigation. As a consequence, NIST has no physical proof to back up its unusual explanation for WTC 7's destruction.

Even more concerning, NIST bases its finding on computer models whose input data it refuses to release to either the scientific community or the general public. Thus, it is impossible to independently verify NIST's work and its startling conclusion.

Source: #1 of 6: NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud.

"WTC 7 - Side by Side Comparison to Controlled Demolition" (WTC 7 is on the left):


Tom Usher

The NIST fake theory is now that all of the internal structure decoupled from the exterior walls before that exterior shell simply fell straight down in the building footprint. Decoupling caused by fires in the building sufficient to do that did not happen.

The government of the United States has been deliberately hiding what really happened. Extremely wicked minds are behind it.

They are the same people who deliberately lied to the American people and to the world about Iraq and WMD and 9/11 (Iraq had no WMD and was not involved in 9/11), who lied about the government conducting dragnet spying on the American people (the NSA spied on all of them and within the US; don't imagine they're not still up to it), who have lied about Iran and a nuclear-weapons program (which Iran does not have), who lied about whether they tortured people (the CIA and DIA using waterboarding is horrendous torture and can make, and has made, people admit to things they did not do), and who have done numerous other wicked things going back to the beginning.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

"Monsanto seeks retraction for report linking herbicide to cancer." Not so fast.

"There are a number of independent, published manuscripts that clearly indicate that glyphosate ... can promote cancer and tumor growth," said Dave Schubert, head of the cellular neurobiology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. "It should be banned."

Source: Monsanto seeks retraction for report linking herbicide to cancer | Reuters.


Tom Usher

We agree with Dave Schubert. We'll go even further. Napoleonic law is bad when applied to humans but essential when applied to chemicals to be introduced into the environment.

The possibility for justice to endorse lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries. (Wikipedia contributors, "Napoleonic Code," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, (accessed March 26, 2015).)

New chemicals need to be withheld from the environment until proven innocent. This should be retroactive to include all artificially created chemicals. Innocence should be easy to prove for chemicals that have been in the environment for a long time and have caused no unreasonable harm. Full disclosure and the ability of scientists and medical researchers to trace chemicals as causes of unreasonable harm must prevail. An example of "reasonable" harm would be were there is an overdose against clear warnings, which should be required and typically are.

Posted in Libertarian Capitalism | Leave a comment