Guest: Former US Senator Mike Gravel (D-AL), who made history by reading the then-classified Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, and has since become a leading voice of 9/11 truth and direct democracy.
Les Jamieson of HR14.org recently emailed me:
"Two days ago, June 13, 2016, H.RES. 779 was submitted by Walter Jones, Steven Lynch, and Thomas Massie which cites the intention to use the Speech and Debate Clause to reveal the 28 pages.
"Nearly a year ago an effort began to inform legislators about the Speech and Debate Clause in the Constitution which could be applied to revealing the 28 pages. This clause protected former Sen. Mike Gravel when he read the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record. This effort began with a legal article by whistleblower attorney, Mick Harrison, in collaboration with Barbara Honegger. Other attorneys aided with research. Mike Gravel, himself, reviewed the article. With the help of Jeff Steinberg and other legislative activists in DC, Gravel delivered the article to Walter Jones, Rand Paul, and Ron Wyden."
In this interview Sen. Gravel discusses the 28 pages and other 9/11 issues, opining forthrightly that "9/11 was an inside job." Sen. Gravel also discusses the anthrax component of the 9/11-anthrax false flag event; voices his suspicions about possible post-9/11 false flag terror events; explains that the US is not a democracy; mentions Obama's fears of going the way of JFK if he took on the military-industrial complex; and even touches on the UFO issue.
Bottom line: According to Sen. Gravel, the Bernie
Sanders "revolution" will accomplish nothing unless it becomes a real
revolution i.e. a popular uprising demanding direct democracy: The right
of citizens to enact laws, not just elect (inevitably corrupt)
representatives. For details, check out the National Initiative for Democracy.
Kevin's blog
TruthJihad.com
24k CF Download
Download From Archive.org
2 comments:
Equating democracy with any form of "freedom" or Natural Rights (which have to be fiercely defended to be brought into existence) is a total fraud and the wedge by means of which the win-dialectic of the parasite installs itself within the win-win dialectic of all creative and productive people in basically all see-will-I-zations (only when you can see more than a certain degree of your freewill in action do you even have a civilization, ripe for plunder by parasites or not).
Someone should force this limited-hangout obfuscator Barrett and that equally vague "senator" to answer the question:
What's so good about "democracy"? What's so "great" about the dictatorship of the retarded opinions of the lowest-common-denomintor majority, who moreover more-often-than-not are led by the nose by a fully-controlled Media?
And what makes the opinions of ONE often-quite-knowledgeable-&-competent leader, as long as he is forced to respect the Natural Rights of all individuals in his extended family, so bad or so much "worse" than the opinions of a pack of rabble?
And, in case of encroaching tyranny, isn't it harder to depose the deep-rooted opinions and physical actions of an entire mob of irrational tyrants than only ONE leader and his few helpers?
Last but not least: Isn't it better to NEVER have this fraud of "democracy" decide anything ever again unless ALL OF THE PARTIES to the act agree? Why force anyone to give in to the group if he's not initiating force or fraud and violating anybody else's freedom of choice? So in that sense, who even needs a "democratic Republic" or democratic anything?
"Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage." -- Henry Louis Mencken
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." -- Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816
Correction: the WIN-LOSE dialectic of the parasite
Post a Comment