Friday, 20 December 2013

#911TRUTH LIST OF 911 PERPS SENATORS? ?HOORAY!!!! #SAUDI #ISRAEL #PAKISTAN #TURKEY

#Abe #SecretBill Prevent #Radiation  NAZI GENOCIDE UPDATE ILLnews☢BlackParticleFound400kmAway #Fukushima☢


We did tell you:
http://www.occupythebanks.com/search?q=Bush+RAPE+RECORDS

LIST OF 911 SENATORS COMPLICIT IN THE CRIME OF 911? MASS MURDERERS?!

"Congressional Record: October 29, 2003 (Senate)
Page S13431-S13435
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004 [...] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from North Dakota is recognized to offer an amendment. Amendment No. 2000 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2000. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an amendment numbered 2000. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To urge the President to release information regarding sources of foreign support for the 9-11 hijackers) At the appropriate place, insert the following: Sec. Sense of the Senate on declassifying portions of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001. (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that-- (1) The President has prevented the release to the American public of 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001. (2) The contents of the redacted pages discuss sources of foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers while they were in the United States. (3) The Administration's decision to classify this information prevents the American people from having access to information about the involvement of certain foreign governments in the terrorist attacks of September 2001. (4) The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested that the President release the 28 pages. (5) The Senate respects the need to keep information regarding intelligence sources and methods classified, but the Senate also recognizes that such purposes can be accomplished through careful selective redaction of specific words and passages, rather than effacing the section's contents entirely. (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that in light of these findings the President should declassify the 28-page section of the Jointly Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 that deals with foreign sources of support for the 9-11 hijackers, and that only those portions of the report that would directly compromise ongoing investigations or reveal intelligence sources and methods should remain classified. This section shall take effect one day after the date of this bill's enactment. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I also offered yesterday. I was not able to get a vote on it yesterday because of a ruling that it was nongermane. I have filed a notice that I intend to move to suspend Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. I will do that at the end of my presentation. That will give us a vote on this important issue today. Let me describe why I think a vote is necessary and what this issue is. This issue deals with 9/11, the day on which our country was attacked and thousands of Americans were murdered by terrorists, many of whom came into this country and lived among us and plotted an attack against the World Trade Center; they plotted an attack against the Pentagon and perhaps the U.S. Capitol. They hijacked commercial airliners and used commercial airliners, full of both passengers and fuel, as flying bombs and missiles. No one in this country will forget the devastation, the loss of life, and the horror of the terrorist attacks committed against the United States on September 11. We know a fair amount about September 11: who organized it and how it was organized. We know Osama bin Laden has taken credit for it. We know it was planned by Osama bin Laden and a terrorist group called al- Qaida, and they were supported by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. We know a fair amount about the details of that day and the activities of the hijackers. There has been a great deal of discussion about how did it happen--how did it happen that these coordinated attacks by terrorists occurred in this [[Page S13432]] country without our intelligence community knowing it was going to happen and taking action to prevent it. As we know as well, from testimony before the Congress and from other information, we had some warnings. The FBI had some warnings. In fact, one FBI agent wrote a memorandum inside the FBI saying he worried about certain people of certain nationalities taking flying lessons, potentially for the purpose of using an airplane for hijacking and as a tool of a terrorist attack. We had other evidence that existed in our intelligence community from both the FBI and CIA. So there has been a great deal of discussion about how do we find out what we knew, what the agencies knew, what we could have done to prevent these attacks, and what we now know about those who committed the attacks and how to prevent future attacks. That is all very important. There are a couple of efforts underway. One was an effort before the Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee. They did an inquiry into intelligence community activities before and after the terrorist attacks of September 2001. That inquiry was done and finished with a report that was released this past summer. The report was authorized for release by the Bush administration. It took 9 months to write, 7 months to declassify, and when it was released, we discovered there are 28 pages of that report that are redacted; 28 pages of the report have been classified, so that the American people cannot know what is in that report. The question is, Why? On behalf of the victims, the victims' families, the American people, I ask, Why would 28 pages of that report be classified and unavailable to be seen by the American people? We are told it contains information about other governments, or another government and its activity with respect to some of these issues. We are told by some that there were areas of support by another government, or governments, for the terrorists themselves as they began to work and put together the resources and plan these attacks against the United States. If that is the case, the question is, Which governments? Who was involved? How were they involved? Are those governments still involved in supporting terrorists who would strike at the heart of this country and kill innocent Americans? Why do we not have the right to know if governments supported some of the terrorists who were working and planning and gathering the resources to attack this country? If another government provided any support for that, do we not have a right as an American people to know that? Why has that information been classified? Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield. Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from North Dakota makes eminent good sense in what he is saying. I recall at the time this report came out--and we all remember the blacked-out pages--the country of Saudi Arabia sent over emissaries to say--and I don't know how serious they were about this--would you release this. My question to the Senator is: Insofar as the majority of hijackers at the time of September 11 were from Saudi Arabia, and insofar as we know from press accounts--not classified material but press accounts-- that a lot of funding of al-Qaida came from Saudi Arabia and may still be coming from Saudi Arabia, don't you think it would be helpful to know if Saudi Arabia is mentioned in this blacked-out part and to what extent, considering the fact that they apparently have turned a blind eye to some of the terrorists who are striking at the United States? Mr. DORGAN. Well, Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont is absolutely correct. The American people ought to have a right to know if a foreign government was involved in helping provide resources for and planning for attacks against this country. We have a right to know that. The amendment I am offering is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that says to the President: Declassify this material. What is so sensitive that the American people can't know whether a foreign government was involved in the planning and providing the resources for a terrorist attack against this country? Let me tell you what the chairman and the ranking member--a Republican and a Democrat--of the Intelligence Committee said on this issue when these 28 pages were withheld from the American people. Senator Shelby, the ranking member then on the Intelligence Committee, a Republican, said: I went back and read every one of those pages thoroughly. My judgment is that 95 percent of that information could be declassified and become uncensored so the American people would know. Asked why this section was blacked out, Senator Shelby said: I think it might be embarrassing to international relations. Senator Graham said: During the negotiation that was held with the administration prior to the release of the documents, we had submitted a counteroffer indicating what we thought were legitimate areas of national security with the rest of the section dealing with foreign governments to be released to the public. The counteroffer was not accepted. The administration took the position that the totality of this section dealing with the role of foreign governments should remain censored and beyond the view of the American people. Question of Senator Graham: Can you give us some idea of how big the counteroffer was? Senator Graham said: It was in the range, which Senator Shelby indicated he thought it was, of 28 pages that represented genuine national security interests which was 95 percent open and 5 percent continued classified. I am not trying to embarrass anybody with this amendment. I just feel strongly that when the 9/11 commission--that is the inquiry by our Intelligence Committee--was completed and the effort was released, to have 28 pages censored or classified and to be told the American people can't see it leads me to ask the question, Why? Why? If there was another government--and all the indications are there was another government--involved in providing support for the terrorists who attacked this country, the American people have a right to know it. They have a right to know who it was, what were the circumstances, why, how do they justify that. The Saudi Government has asked that this information be declassified and released. The Saudi Government has asked that. Most of the speculation, of course, is the questions about Saudi support of terrorism, as my colleague from Vermont just described. But the Saudi Government has asked this be declassified so they can respond to it in public. There is no basis, no good reason for this to remain censored and classified. My sense-of-the-Senate amendment asks the President to declassify that portion of the 28 pages. As Senator Shelby and Senator Graham have described, 95 percent of it does not deal with national security or our national security interests, and would not compromise our interests. Senator Schumer is a cosponsor of this amendment, and Senator Lieberman is a cosponsor as well. My hope is we will certainly have a vote on this amendment this morning. My amendment will require a vote under suspension of the rules. I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am not a member of the Intelligence Committee. I lead off by saying this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. We should not be having this debate at this time. With regard to the issue, there are those on the Intelligence Committee who can speak to it with much more knowledge than I. I am hopeful some of them will come over in the course of this debate. Let me make the point the war on terrorism is an ongoing operation. The decision to classify this material was reached between the intelligence authorizing committees and the executive branch. Declassifying the information should be carefully considered. For example, would it place in jeopardy the lives of U.S. men and women fighting the war on terrorism? Declassifying material without careful consideration could also have a chilling effect on the sources of information in the war on terrorism, including individuals and foreign governments. It is conceivable [[Page S13433]] both individuals and foreign governments would be afraid their participation and cooperation in the war on terrorism would become public. The main point I wish to make is there may be a time and place for this debate, but it is not on this bill. I hope once the debate is concluded we will make a decision not to proceed down this path at this time on this measure. I retain the remainder of my time. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes 31 seconds. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Kentucky, there is, in fact, an ongoing war on terrorism, and it is critically important for this country, it is important that we be successful in preventing terrorist attacks against this country. It is important we be successful in hunting down those in the world who are planning terrorist attacks against this country and destroying their network of support. But with respect to the ongoing war against terrorism, it is critically important, in my judgment, for this country to know, Are there foreign governments that have supported terrorists? Are there foreign governments that have given active financial support to those who attacked this country on September 11, 2001? If so, who are they? How would it compromise any interest of this country or, for that matter, any other country under any other circumstances to disclose a discussion in the inquiry that was done, a painstaking inquiry that was done about another government that provided support to terrorists that murdered thousands of Americans. The American people have a right to know that information. I know the easiest way to withhold information is to always claim there is some important sensitive information that would compromise some intelligence operation. The people in the best position to know that would be the chairman and the ranking member of the committee who did the inquiry, Senator Graham and Senator Shelby, a Democrat and a Republican. Both of them have already made a judgment about this. They said: Nonsense, this won't compromise anything. Ninety-five percent, they said, of these 28 pages of censored, redacted material could and should be made available to the American public without compromising anything. If one is wondering whether this compromises anything, I say go to the experts, go to the authorizing committee, go to the Republican and Democrat who were chairman and vice chairman of the committee and ask them and they will tell you they did not support redacting this material, censoring this material, and classifying this material. It came from the White House. It wasn't fair to the American people to do that. If there is another government that provided active support-- financial support and comfort and assistance--to those who decided to commit acts of terror against this country and murder thousands of innocent Americans, then, in my judgment, by God, the American people have a right to know that. The American people have a right to know that, and classifying 28 pages that describe the circumstances in which another government may well have provided support to terrorists attacking this country is wrongheaded, in my judgment. If, in fact, this inquiry describes that, another important question exists: Is the country that provided support--financial assistance and comfort and aid--to the terrorists who attacked this country in 2001 still providing support and aid? Do they still have adjuncts in that society, in that government, that provide support and comfort to terrorists? We have a right to know that as well. In my judgment, withholding information from the American people is, in most cases, a bad decision. If it is necessary because it would compromise something that is important with respect to the intelligence community, I understand that. But the two experts would be the chairman and the vice chairman of the committee who decided to launch the inquiry. And those two Senators, Senator Shelby and Senator Graham, have already spoken on this issue. They have said 95 percent of that information ought to be made available. I will make one additional point. Talk to the families of the people who were murdered on 9/11 and ask them, if a foreign government was involved in supporting acts of terror against this country, whether they think that information ought to be made available to the American people or ought to be censored, classified, and out of the reach of the American people. They will say we ought to disinfect this whole area by deciding to give everybody as much information as possible about what happened on 9/11, not by closing the books and pulling the veil and deciding whether to keep information from the American people. As I indicated, even the Saudi Government that has been so much the subject of this speculation wants this information made available, and it ought to be made available. My sense of the Senate is very simple. It says to the President: Declassify this. Now, I also understand that this is a foreign operations bill. It is an appropriations bill. There is no good time to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution come to the Senate floor, I suppose, if one does not support declassifying this information. But this amendment does not interrupt the foreign operations bill. I support that bill. I am happy to work with the chairman and ranking member who, I think, have done a remarkable job on that bill. It seems to me we have a right to have a vote in the Senate about whether this information ought to be made available to the American people, whether it ought to be declassified, uncensored, and the question answered: Is there another government or governments that participated with the terrorists by providing aid, comfort, and financial support to terrorists who committed acts of terror against this country? That is information, in my judgment, the American people deserve to have. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the time running without debate be charged equally to both sides. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, how much time remains on each side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes 58 seconds, and 18 minutes 17 seconds for the majority. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have a few additional comments at some point. If the Senator from Kentucky has other speakers--I had expected a couple of other speakers. I do not know whether that will occur before the end of the time. I believe we have 40 minutes, 20 minutes equally divided. Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from North Dakota, I had expected some speakers as well. So I think we have the same dilemma. I just do not want to delay the vote, and I assume the Senator from North Dakota would rather not delay it as well. Mr. DORGAN. I do not intend to delay the vote. It is fine to have a quorum call and have it equally divided, but let me ask the courtesy of the Senator that if we get to the point where we have 6 or 8 minutes remaining, that I would have the opportunity for a couple of those minutes so that we could close and have a debate at the end. Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the other consent just asked for, Senator Dorgan have 2 minutes before the vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DORGAN. How much time remains on this side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes 54 seconds. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida. Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be [[Page S13434]] added as a cosponsor of this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, for a year, a joint committee of members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee carried out their responsibilities to do a comprehensive review of what happened before September 11 as it related to the role of the intelligence community; what happened after September 11, particularly in utilizing the information that was gathered around that tragic event; and then what recommendations for some fundamental change that would enhance the capacity of the intelligence community to reduce the prospect of another 9/11. That report took over 800 pages. It had some 19 recommendations for action. After the report was completed, it was submitted to the administration--primarily the CIA, the FBI, and the White House--for review as to whether there were any elements of that report that would be categorized as national security and therefore not for general public distribution. The section of the report that received the greatest degree of such classification, in fact, virtually 100 percent, was the section that related to the role of foreign governments in the events leading up to 9/11, and then how well our responsible agencies had followed the leads and tracked the developments and events before 9/11; after 9/11 for purposes of potential criminal prosecution, for purposes of understanding why we had these gaps; and what the role of foreign governments would be; for the purpose of diplomatic or other policies that might be instituted vis-a-vis countries that were found to have been cooperative or even complicitous in the actions of the 9/11 terrorists, and then finally to form the recommendations of what fundamental change should be made. The consequences of denying to the American people access to that section of the report are many. No. 1, the American people have been denied the opportunity to know fully what, in fact, happened. No. 2, they have been denied the opportunity to hold accountable those agencies or individuals who were responsible for that inappropriate action by a foreign government. We have been unable to hold the State Department accountable for its action vis-a-vis the foreign governments. Finally, we have taken a substantial amount of the impetus and sense of urgency out of the recommendations for fundamental reform. In fact, the Senate has yet to hold a first hearing on the 19 recommendations that we made. I think it is of the highest order of concern for the American people that they have access to this information and then they will do with that information what they believe is appropriate. But ignorance and secrecy serves no national purpose. I urge the adoption of this amendment to urge the President to reevaluate the decision to censure the chapter on the role of foreign governments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 11 minutes 50 seconds. Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee however many minutes of the 11 that he so desires. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dorgan amendment. I do not think that rule XVI should be waived. The amendment is not germane. More important, speaking as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I believe this amendment is unwise. I think it will damage our Nation's efforts in the ongoing war against terrorism. I, for one, and members of the committee, have read the 28 pages from the Joint Inquiry Report and have been briefed by the FBI and the CIA. As a matter of fact, the distinguished Senator from Florida indicated that we have not even had hearings. That is not correct. We have had hearings. We had hearings in mid-September as to whether or not it would be in our national security interest to release the 28 pages. I would also say to all Members, if they have a keen interest in this--and I am aware of the legislation, or I am aware of the letter that went to the President signed by a great many Senators asking for the 28 pages to be made public--as I said at the time, please come to the Intelligence Committee and we will provide you the information on the 28 pages. Some of the very people who are sponsoring amendments have not read the 28 pages. I wish they would do so. It is my firm position--firm position--in order to protect our national security, specifically the methods and the sources and ongoing investigations, that this so-called redacted material should not be released to the public. I think it would endanger lives. I am not in a position to discuss the specifics in regard to the urgent pleas and the warnings that were provided to us by the FBI during this hearing. But I think I can speak for a majority of the Intelligence Committee who thought this was not a good idea and certainly would be counterproductive to our national interest. I might add that one of the statements I heard as I entered the floor was from the distinguished former chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He is somebody I admire, whose advice and counsel and friendship is very important to me. Senator Rockefeller, who is the distinguished vice chairman of the committee, and I have agreed that we will hold hearings in the next session of Congress on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Some I agree with, some I don't. We were going to make this year the year of modernization and/or reform in regard to the intelligence community, but something interrupted that. It was called a war--the war against global terrorism. In addition, we were going to make an inquiry as to the credibility and the timeliness of the intelligence prior to going to war in Iraq. It is not that we have not wanted to do these things. It is that the schedule of the committee has been taken up almost exclusively by those two subjects, plus our weekly threat briefings of which I know the Senator from Florida is certainly aware. So we will have hearings on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We made that promise to the families of the victims. But if we disclose the information that compromises the close cooperation we have from our allies in the war on terrorism, and much better cooperation today than before then these same allies may choose not to support us in the future. That is another concern. Again, from the standpoint of endangering sources, methods, ongoing investigations, and, yes, lives--and I think I am speaking for a majority of the Intelligence Committee that has had a hearing on this, has taken a hard look at it--I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. I want to make sure I don't have a misunderstanding with the Senator from North Dakota. Did he wish to speak right at the end, before the vote, essentially? My understanding is we are ready to yield back the time over here. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time on this side and ask unanimous consent the Senator from North Dakota be given 2 minutes, and at the end that we proceed to a vote on or in relation to the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from North Dakota is recognized for 2 minutes. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his courtesy. Let me say to my colleague on the Intelligence Committee, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Porter Goss; Senator Shelby of Alabama, the past vice chairman; the past chairman of the Intelligence Committee here in the Senate, Senator Graham--all have indicated that at least some of this redacted classified material should be [[Page S13435]] made available. But they have taken that position with no success. I would expect the two former chairmen of the committees and the vice chairman would not take that position if they believed it would compromise intelligence sources and methods. Let me quote, if I might, Bill Harvey, a member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 independent commission. He lost his wife on 9/11. She was killed in the Trade Center. He is pretty critical of both the White House and Congress. The White House's refusal to produce the 28 pages is just one more example of its manipulation of intelligence for political purposes, but the Congress's reluctance to remedy the situation by declassifying the redacted information is equally troubling. The United States of America deserves to know the true nature of its supposed allies, and the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks deserve to know what our Government new about the terrorists that took their lives. That is the key. After this commission has completed its work, the inquiry is complete, and we have knowledge and information about whether another government provided financial support and other support to terrorists who attacked this country, do we have a right to know who that government is, which government it is, and whether that government still provides support to terrorists who still would like to commit an act of terrorism against this country and who would like to murder innocent Americans? The American people have a right to know what is in that redacted portion of the report. If there is 5 percent of it, as Senator Shelby and Senator Graham have suggested, that ought to be withheld, I understand that. But if the bulk, as they have indicated, ought to be made available to the American people, I believe it ought to be made available now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Kentucky is recognized to make a point of order. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane under the requirements of rule XVI. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I move to suspend rule XVI of the standing rules of the Senate during consideration of H.R. 2800 for the consideration of amendment No. 2000. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the motion to suspend rule XVI of the standing rules of the Senate in relation to amendment No. 2000. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to called the roll. Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote "yea." The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 54, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 415 Leg.] YEAS--43 Akaka Baucus Biden Bingaman Boxer Breaux Byrd Cantwell Carper Clinton Conrad Corzine Daschle Dayton Dodd Dorgan Durbin Feingold Graham (FL) Harkin Hollings Jeffords Johnson Kennedy Kohl Landrieu Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lincoln McCain Mikulski Murray Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Pryor Reed Reid Sarbanes Schumer Specter Stabenow Wyden NAYS--54 Alexander Allard Allen Bayh Bennett Bond Brownback Bunning Burns Campbell Chafee Chambliss Cochran Coleman Collins Cornyn Craig Crapo DeWine Dole Domenici Ensign Enzi Feinstein Fitzgerald Frist Graham (SC) Grassley Gregg Hagel Hatch Hutchison Inhofe Inouye Kyl Lott Lugar McConnell Miller Murkowski Nickles Roberts Rockefeller Santorum Sessions Shelby Smith Snowe Stevens Sununu Talent Thomas Voinovich Warner NOT VOTING--3 Edwards Kerry Lieberman The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 54. Two-thirds of the Senators voting not having voted in the affirmative, the motion to suspend rule XVI pursuant to notice previously given in writing is rejected. The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls. ____________________ "
"Bush in court for raping, a hoax?
author: nobody         e-mail:e-mail: nobody@ilema.net
Is this story a hoax or for real?

Bush is in court in Texas for rape.

I tired to give an overview with information I found
By LeaAnne KlentzmanA Fort Bend County woman files a lawsuit on former Governor and current sitting President George W. Bush.Margie Schoedinger of Missouri City, Texas has filed a lawsuit against George W. Bush in Fort Bend County Court. In her suit she is alleging "race based harassment and individual sex crimes committed against her and her husband." The suit lists numerous offenses and asks for actual damages, punitive damages and judgments against George W. Bush.In her suit, among the many allegations, she has stated, "On or about, October 26, 2000, an attempt was made to abduct Plaintiff (Schoedinger) by three unknown assailants. Because of the actions of these assailants, Sugar Land police officers were dispatched to the scene. In the end, no report was taken. The assailants were treated respectfully and allowed to go free while Plaintiff (Schoedinger) was repeatedly and aggressively questioned. After filing a lawsuit, the Plaintiff's family and past contacts were questioned and harassed." As a result, Plaintiff dismissed Plaintiff's lawsuit. Irrespective of Plaintiff dismissing the lawsuit, the harassment continued." Schoedinger, goes on to allege "at some point, she contacted the Houston office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, filing a raced based harassment complaint, advising that the Sugar Land Police Department may or may not be harassing Plaintiff on behalf of her neighbors in Sugar Land or possibly on behalf of the First Colony Community Services Association."Schoedinger further states in her lawsuit, "The (FBI) agent in question advised her that the situation appeared to be highly organized and most likely higher level, such as a racist organization." Furthermore she states, "Throughout this conversation, she learned that there was no time that the Defendant (Bush) ever stopped watching Plaintiff', nor did he stop having sex with Plaintiff. The sole concern of the Defendant and his representatives was whether Plaintiff could actually recall whether Plaintiff could actually recall, the individual sex crimes committed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff's husband, utilizing drugs.Section VII of the lawsuit states; "Whether or not Plaintiff's husband was raped remains in question, as Plaintiff was drugged after she was raped and her husband was drugged before her rape. Plaintiff can only state that these men purported to be FBI agents raping her for the purpose of covering for how many times they had drugged her and allowed the Defendant to rape her in the same manner."She also alleges that in writing letters directly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Houston Office," instead of assisting Plaintiff with her concerns, the FBI took on the same demeanor as the Sugar Land Police Department. Eventually, Plaintiff learned, via telephone conversations, that both the Sugar Land Police Department, and the Houston Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation were acting at the behest of the Defendant, George W. Bush. As a part of their defense, the Sugar Land Police Department conducted a background investigation into Plaintiff's past activities. In the end, this investigation yielded the following information: Plaintiff had seven dates, (which became seven lovers), had told no lies, committed no crimes, gotten 2 traffic tickets and dated George W. Bush as a minor."Sugar Land Police Department Captain Marcaurele said his department has no record of any complaints by Ms. Margie Schoedinger. Several attempts were made to contact Ms Schoedinger, she never returned any calls.Ms. Schoedinger's law suit was filed on December 2, 2002 and is currently in the Fort Bend County system in County Civil Court at Law 3. Schoedinger is listed as her own legal representative.

 http://www.fortbendstar.com/121102/n_Woman%20files%20lawsuit%20against%20President.htm

The accusations:

NO. 22127

MARGIE SCHOEDINGER, IN THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT
Plaintiff AT LAW NUMBER 3
vs.
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORT BEND COUNTY, T E X A S
Defendant
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, MARGIE SCHOEDINGER, Plaintiff,. in the above styled and numbered cause, submitting Plaintiff's Original Petition, and shows the court the following:I.Plaintiff is a resident of Fort Bend County, Texas, residing at XXXXX, Missouri City, Fort Bent County, Texas, 77459. Defendant is George W. Bush, Former Governor of Texas and current President of the United States and can be served with process at: Office of the President of the United States, Executive Office Building, The Executive Office of the President, Washington D. C. 20501.II.On or about,October 26, 2000, an attempt was made to abduct Plaintiff by three unknown assailants. Because of the actions of these assailants, Sugar Land police officers were dispatched to the scene. In the end, no report was taken, the assailants were treated respectfully and allowed to go free while Plaintiff was repeatedly and aggressively questioned. After filing a lawsuit, Plaintiff's family and past contacts were questioned and harassed. As a result, Plaintiff dismissed Plaintiff's lawsuit. Irrespective of Plaintiff dismissing the lawsuit, the harassment continued. At some point, Plaintiff contacted the Houston office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, filing a raced based harassment complaint, advising that the Sugar Land Police Department may or may not be harassing Plaintiff on behalf of her neighbors in Sugar Land or possibly on behalf of the First Colony Community Services Association. The agent in question advised Plaintiff that the situation appeared to be highly organized and most likely higher level, such as a racist organization. III.Eventually the harassment increased to the point where Plaintiff took the step of writing letters directly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Houston Office. Instead of assisting Plaintiff with her concerns, the FBI took on the same demeanor as the Sugar Land Police Department. Eventually, Plaintiff learned, via telephone conversations, that both the Sugar Land Police Department and the Houston Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigations were acting at the behest of the Defendant, George W. Bush. As a part of their defense, the Sugar Land Police Department conducted a background investigation into Plaintiff's past activities. In the end, this investigation yielded the following information: Plaintiff had seven dates, (which became seven lovers), had told no lies, committed no crimes, gotten 2 traffic tickets and dated George W. Bush as a minor. IV Instead of looking at this information and keeping this information concealed, both agencies began revealing this information within their own intranets. In an effort to defend himself, the Defendant and his representatives began contacting Plaintiff regarding the relationship. While Plaintiff assured the Defendant and his representatives that she neither personally revealed this information, nor would she confirm it in any setting, the Defendant, his family and his representatives continued to threaten Plaintiff. V. In the end, Plaintiff learned that while the Defendant and his representatives requested that she be harassed at all costs by both agencies, the Defendant also informed Plaintiff that his only option to assure his never having to answer for the previous contact would be to simply see Plaintiff pressured to the point of committing suicide. Plaintiff s opinion was that Defendant should simply leave Plaintiff to pursue a second attempt at a degree, even a PHd. Additionally, even if the previous contact were revealed in the future, it would be of no consequence. In response to Plaintiff s refusal to give in, Plaintiff s bank account has been expunged, Plaintiff s husband has been dismissed from his place of employment, and Plaintiff has been raped and beaten -which resulted in a miscarriage. Upon going to the hospital, Plaintiff was threatened by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of the Defendant. The purpose being to keep Plaintiff from remaining in the hospital and be administered thorough treatment. The reason being that the Defendant might have been the father of the child that was lost. VI. Now Plaintiff continues to be threatened. According to the office of the Defendant and the Defendant, Plaintiff s background has been ruined, Plaintiff will never be able to have a clean credit bureau, Plaintiff's husband will never be able to find a job, Plaintiff degrees will continue to be expunged as well as any other achievement on Plaintiff's parts, Plaintiff will be placed on an AIDs watch list for the rest of her life, watched by the CIA, harassed by the Secret Service, placed on the National Security Agency's Photo Array, (which would cause Plaintiff to be considered as a suspect in any crime where the suspect remotely fits Plaintiff s description), Plaintiffs home is under surveillance in a manner that is fully recordable in all aspects and this surveillance is able to be loaded onto an internet page within minutes; including but not limited to prison Web sites, military web sites and any internet locale that might cause Plaintiff to be killed, raped, beaten or put in harms way. Moreover, the Defendant took personal responsibility for these decisions, explaining to Plaintiff that committing suicide would be her best option as in his opinion; Plaintiff is essentially dead in any case. No matter what Plaintiff's background was before, no matter how pristine, Plaintiff would be destroyed completely. At this point, the question repeatedly became whether or not the Defendant could have fathered the child and whether or not the hospital had actually collected the pathology on the unborn child. Finally, we decided that Plaintiff should be killed rather than being harassed to the point of committing suicide. However, the defendant stated he could not convince anyone he could trust to keep the secret to do this for him. The decision then became that the defendant should kill the Plaintiff personally. Instead of following through and just killing Plaintiff', defendant decided to go forth and ruin Plaintiff's life instead. This is the cause of Plaintiff filing this lawsuit. VII.Throughout this conversation, Plaintiff learned that there was no time that the Defendant ever stopped watching Plaintiff, nor did he stop having sex with Plaintiff. The sole concern of the Defendant and his representatives was whether Plaintiff could actually recall the individual sex crimes committed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff's husband, utilizing drugs. Whether or not Plaintiff's husband was raped remains in question, as Plaintiff was drugged after she was raped and her husband was drugged before her rape. Plaintiff can only state that these men purported to be FBI agents raping her for the purpose of covering for how many times they had drugged her and allowed the Defendant to rape her in the same manner. VIII.Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges allegation in Paragraphs I through VII. Plaintiff has sustained 1 million dollars in actual damages and seeks punitive damages in the amount of 49 million dollars for reasons of emotional distress, loss of freedom and ability to pursue Plaintiff's own dreams, alienation of affection from Plaintiff's spouse, loss of privacy, being disparaged on the internet, and loss of Plaintiff ability to be a Christian writer. Plaintiff has suffered all of the aforementioned and more as a result of Defendant's actions as described herein. Plaintiff prays that in addition to the aforementioned recovery, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs in preparing this action for trial, pursuing any necessary appeal of this action and retaining an attorney to pursue said action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Defendant, be sited to appear and answer, and that on final trial, Plaintiff be granted the following: 1. Judgment against defendant for actual damage suffered by the Plaintiff. 2. Judgment against the defendant for punitive damage. 3. A further judgment against the defendant in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of the court. 4. Costs of Suit. 5. Pre-Judgment Interest. 6. Post-Judgment Interest. 7. Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Dated this 2nd day of December, 2002 Margie D. Schoedinger


Link for all the complaints Margie made:

 http://ccweb.co.fort-bend.tx.us/court/courtResults.asp?cur=civil&scur=Results

more info:


The Complaint:
 http://ccweb.co.fort-bend.tx.us/imgcache/CCCIVIL217038-1-7.pdf


SUBPOENA ISSUED TO GEORGE W. BUSH
 http://ccweb.co.fort-bend.tx.us/imgcache/CCCIVIL217041-1-1.pdf
homepage: homepage: http://www.fortbendstar.com/121102/n_Woman%20files%20lawsuit%20against%20President.htm
add a comment on this article
Hoax by trick (YOU are assuming something) 13.Dec.2002 05:23
Mike stepbystepfarm@shaysnet.com link

Where in the story does it say that the "George W Bush" involved in this case is PRESIDENT George W Bush? You aren't dealing with a rare or unusal name. Try opening the phone book of any fair sized city and see if you don't find many people named George Bush and among these some with the middle initial W.

OK, then cosider, if there are several hundred to several thousand people named "George W Bush" in the country, it shouldn't be difficult to find a story like this. Happens all the time and usually causes some merriment in the courtroom when it does (somebody up on charges with the same name as a prominent person).

read near the top, genius 13.Dec.2002 08:53
GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com link

"Defendant is George W. Bush, Former Governor of Texas and current President of the United States"

read it again and retain the words this time."



TOP TUNE!  



FREE #BITCOIN TUTORIALS http://www.open-transactions.com



Mor!  Laura Bush - A MURDERER?  A COVER-UP?


"According to New York Times writer Anahad O’Connor, former First Lady Laura Bush “has finally opened up publicly about the mysterious car accident she had when she was 17, a crash that claimed the life of a high school friend on a dark country road in Midland, Tex.”

In her new book, “Spoken From the Heart,” Mrs. Bush describes in vivid detail the circumstances surrounding the crash, which has haunted her for most of her adult life and which became the subject of questions and speculation when it was revealed during her husband’s first presidential run. A copy of the book, scheduled for release in early May, was obtained by The New York Times at a bookstore.
RAW STORY was unable to find an advance copy, so it’s premature to conclude that the account isn’t so “vivid”, however, there are curious details left out of the New York Times write-up regarding the crash.


“On a November night in 1963, Mrs. Bush and a girlfriend were hurrying to a drive-in theater when Mrs. Bush, at the wheel of her father’s Chevy Impala, ran a stop sign on a small road and smashed into a car being driven by Mike Douglas, a star athlete and popular student at her school,” O’Connor writes.

But the Times neglects to mention – perhaps because Laura Bush neglects to mention it – that the former first lady reportedly had some sort of a romantic involvement with Douglas.

Multiple accounts, including an unauthorized biography of Laura Bush, have quoted classmates or simply referred to Douglas as an ex-boyfriend.

After the police report was finally released to the Associated Press in 2000, Jim Vertuno wrote as his lead sentence, “At 17, Laura Bush ran a stop sign and crashed into another car, killing her boyfriend who was driving it, according to an accident report released to The Associated Press on Wednesday.”

MOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN HANDLE IT HUMAN!

 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
                         ___                                                  
                        / _ \                                                
                       / /_\ \_ __   ___  _ __  _   _ _ __ ___   ___  _   _ ___
                       |  _  | '_ \ / _ \| '_ \| | | | '_ ` _ \ / _ \| | | / __|
                       | | | | | | | (_) | | | | |_| | | | | | | (_) | |_| \__ \
                       \_| |_/_| |_|\___/|_| |_|\__, |_| |_| |_|\___/ \__,_|___/
                                                 __/ |                        
                                                |___/                        
                               _  _                     _         _          
                             _| || |_                  | |       | |          
                            |_  __  _| __ _ _ __   __ _| | ____ _| |_ __ _    
                             _| || |_ / _` | '_ \ / _` | |/ / _` | __/ _` |  
                            |_  __  _| (_| | | | | (_| |   < (_| | || (_| |  
                              |_||_|  \__,_|_| |_|\__,_|_|\_\__,_|\__\__,_|  
                                                                             
                                                                                                                              #anakata | @Free_anakata | #Anonymous | #Freeanakata
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
   
   
Greetings from @free_anakata --
   
    We would like to call your attention to the matter of Gottfrid Svartholm  Warg and ask you to join us in a Tweetstorm scheduled for Monday to raise awareness regarding his treatment in the hands of the Danish authorities.
   
    Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, better known as anakata, is currently held in an isolation cell at an arrest prison 30 miles outside of Copenhagen, Denmark. As many of you know anakata is the co-founder of The Pirate Bay and has also been linked with WikiLeaks and the decryption of Collateral Murder video that was leaked by Private Manning.
   
    There  is no legal order for this isolation.- none - and we object strongly to the Danish government holding anakata in this manner.
   
   anakata is being denied mail, winter clothing, time out of doors, reading  materials. He is allowed only 1 hour weekly supervised visitation with  his mother.
   
  His attorney has confirmed that the judges did not order his isolation, but that order has come from the prison services, citing a law used to isolate extremely violent offenders, and once since being codified, a  terrorist.
   
   We find this wholly unacceptable. He is not a terrorist. This is inhumane and must end.
   
    Our request is very simple. We want fair and humane treatment for anakata  during his time in Denmark. We want him removed from isolation, allowed  reading material, warm clothing, his incoming mail, and longer  unsupervised visits with his mother and other visitors.
   
    It  is understood that this is political persecution for his involvement in  Wikileaks, and the  threat he poses to those who seek to maintain power  via copyright,  intelligence collection, and media control. He is a  triple threat to  the planets 1% and for that he is being made an  example.

    We ask that you join us in speaking out for anakata this Monday December 16th. See instructions below for scheduled Tweetstorm.
   
    If you wish further information regarding anakata's legal plight information and news links are provided below.
   
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TWEETSTORM %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
   
    TIME:  MONDAY NOON WORLDWIDE
   
    GOAL: Trend hashtag #anakata to raise awareness
   
    INSTRUCTIONS:
     - Use the hashtag #anakata in as many tweets as you can.
     - Wherever you are in the world, begin to tweet at the noon hour.
     - Copy + Paste these tweets. Do not retweet, as the hashtag will not trend.
     - Do not post more than once every five minutes, especially if you wish to avoid Twittergulag
   
Denmark must answer for unprecedented mistreatment of #anakata
   
Do u know why #anakata is isolated? Educate yourself then demand his freedom. https://www.rebelmouse.com/FreeAnakata
   
"The danish prison authorities are holding my client in solitary confinement without a warrant" - Luise Hoj #anakata's lawyer
   
Denmark has a lot to answer for in mistreatment of #anakata http://rt.com/news/pirate-bay-denmark-hacking-gottfrid-201/ …"
   
Politisk fange #anakata holdt i isolation uden afgifter eller dommerkendelse i Danmark. Demand frihed & retfærdighed.
   
Court did not order solitary confinement. Police have taken it upon themselves to toture #anakata http://t.co/kCQjdHqV2K
   
Assange calls #anakata "political prisoner who worked tirelessly" for public knowledge of Collateral Murder. End his isolation.
   
Denmark more scared of smart people than serial killers. Genuis in unwarranted isolation. Demand freedom. #anakata
   
Pirate Bay founder #anakata locked away in Denmark isolation cell treated like violent criminal. So smart he scares the government.
   
#anakata urgently needs light to be shed on his mistreatment at the hands of #Denmark - trial date 18 Dec '13
   
URGENT Pls demand #anakata is permitted human rights IMMEDIATELY. Email Justice Ministry jm@jm.dk
   
Muy Importante! Solitary confinement Is Cruel n Unusual 4 a Human Being!  #anakata
   
Do you remember #spectrial ? #anakata is in solitary cell , how long until it's YOU or me ?
    #anakata
   
Punishment before conviction isn't due process #Denmark . Remedy this miscarriage of justice.
@folketinget @petertaksoe @IngaEF
   
#anakata is political prisoner in solitary confinement without conviction. #freeanakata
   
#anakata suffers torturous solitary confinement as political prisoner of Denmark #freeanakata
   
Swedish little piggy went to the market and bought #anakata http://qnrq.se/swedish-little-piggy-went-to-the-market/ …
   
Ameliorate cruel conditions #anakata is subjected to w/out conviction. Trial 18 Dec '13 #Denmark want to stay on the map of decent nations?
   
The definitive history of "the kidnapping and selling of #anakata" http://qnrq.se
#Danmark uskyldig, indtil det modsatte er bevist.
   
Isolationsfængsel før overbevisning er grusom og uretfærdig #anakata
   
Danish Govt is mistreating #anakata, via terrible prison conditions and isolation, while he awaits court hearing http://is.gd/Km31M3
   
#Danmark er verden ser som du benægter #Anakata menneskerettigheder, tvunget til at udholde isolationsfængsling uden overbevisning
   
@plaid_helle @larsloekke @villysoevndal #Danmark holder #anakata i isolationsfængsel før overbevisning er uretfærdig
   
Political prisoner #anakata held in solitary confinement without charges or warrant in Denmark. Demand freedom & justice.
   
Denmark must remedy and answer for cruel mistreatment of #anakata http://rt.com/news/pirate-bay-denmark-hacking-gottfrid-201/ …
   
#Anakata is not a terrorist, rapist, serial killer! Just a smart person who likes to share.
   
   
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% BACKGROUND & INFORMATION LINKS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
   
    anakata's   plight began in September of 2012 when he was arrested in Cambodia   for   charges in Sweden related to the Pirate Bay trial - he failed to show  up to serve his 1 year jail sentence. Despite there being no  extradition treaty between the two countries anakata was deported to  Sweden shortly following arrest.
   
    Following  this dubious extradition to Sweden once there further charge were  added, hacking and fraud. He was found guilty and was sentenced to 2 years in jail
   
    Upon appeal his charges were reduced to one year jail time and he would have been free 29 December 2013. However, Denmark requested extradition on suggested charges of hacking into CSC and the driver license bureau.  He was extradited to Denmark 27 November  2013.
   
    Denmark charged anakata with hacking into CSC database (contractor, identification information). It is of note that anakata was acquitted on similar charge of hacking in Sweden and his appeal to the Danish courts to stop the extradition process on the basis of the acquittal in Sweden was rejected  out of hand.
   
    This case is in no way connected to his work with The Pirate Bay.
   
    09/03/2012 - Arrested in Cambodia
    Arrested  in Cambodian and deported to Sweden due to an warrant issued for Pirate Bay trial.
    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/02/pirate-bay-founder-arrested-cambodia
   
    09/11/2013 - anakata deported to Sweden
    anakata is deported from Cambodia to Sweden for prior convicktion
    http://www.thelocal.se/20120911/43148
   
    09/11/2013 - Sweden holds on hacking charges
    Upon arrival in Sweden anakata further held in hacking probe
    http://www.thelocal.se/20120911/43158
   
    04/16/2013 - Sweden charges for hacking
    Sweden charges for hacking -anakata faces time in addition to prior 1yr sentence
    http://www.thelocal.se/20130416/47376
   
    06/07/2103 - Denmark files charges
    anakata indicted for hacking
    http://www.thelocal.se/20130607/48370
   
    6/20/2013 - Sentenced in Sweden
    anakata sentenced to two years in prison for data breaches and fraud
    http://www.thelocal.se/20130620/48616
   
    09/27/2013  - Swedish sentence reduced
    Sentence for anakta reduced to one year in prison. Release set for 12/29/13
    http://www.idigitaltimes.com/articles/20102/20130927/pirate-bay-co-founder-hacking-fraud-sentence.htm
   
    10/23/13
    anakata to be extradited with no identifcation or passport
    http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founders-imminent-extradition-raises-big-questions-131123/
   
    10/28/13
    anakata is extradited from Sweden to Denmark
     http://cphpost.dk/news/pirate-bay-founder-extradited-from-sweden.7909.html
   
    11/26/13
    anakata charged in russia while imprisoned in Sweden
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/11/26/pirate-bay-founder-prosecuted-in-russian-court/
   
    11/29/2013
     Julian Assange makes a public statement concerning anakata being held on political motivation
    http://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-consultant-Gottfrid.html
   
    12/13/13 anakata kept in solitary to avoid internet access
     http://rt.com/news/pirate-bay-denmark-hacking-gottfrid-201/
   
    Legal Documents
    http://wikileaks.org/gottfrid-docs/
   
    Niklas Femerstrand's analysis of Cambodia/Sweden Aid Package
    http://qnrq.se/
   
    Further, anakata is wanted in Russia for charges related to The Pirate Bay
    http://en.ria.ru/russia/20131126/185020311.html
   
    We Are Anonymous
    We Are Legion
    We Do Not Forgive
    We Do Not Forget
    Expect Us."

The White Rabbit!  
#BankstersRabbit   
PS Send friends Hero Humans! That's how we grow!  Send:
TWEET/FACEBOOK(1): #OccupyTheBanks Operation #OTB


No comments :

Post a Comment

Only members (obviously) can comment; no moderation; direct to page.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Popular Posts - All Time