Press Releases



Importance of Including Truth Emergency and 9/11 Inside the International Progressive Anti-War Movement 

The international truth emergency is the result of fraudulent elections, compromised 9/11 investigations, illegal preemptive wars, and a continued top down corporate media propaganda. Glenn Beck recently was able to say on national Fox television news that 9/11 truth people openly supported the shooting at the Holocaust Museum. Beck claimed that 9/11 truth proponents see James von Brunn as a “hero.” Beck’s statement is completely without factual merit and represents a hyperrealist slamming of a group already slanderously pre-labeled by the corporate media as “conspiracy theorists.”


A truth emergency is predicated on the inability of many to distinguish between what is real and what is not. Corporate media, Fox in particular, offers news that creates a hyperreality of real world problems and issues. Consumers of corporate television news—especially those whose understandings are framed primarily from that medium alone—are embedded in a state of excited delirium of knowinglessness. This lack of factual awareness of issues like election fraud in 2004, and the increasing evidence of 9/11 Commission report inaccuracies, often leaves people politically paralyzed.


To counter knowinglessness, progressive activists need to include 9/11 Truth and many other issues as important elements of radical-progressive political efforts. We must not be afraid of corporate media labeling and instead build truth from the bottom up. Critical thinking and fact-finding are the basis of democracy, and we must stand for the maximization of informed participatory democracy at the lowest possible level in society.


Conspiracies tend to be actions by small groups of individuals rather than massive collective plots by entire governments. However, small groups can be dangerous, especially when the individuals have significant power in huge public and private bureaucracies. Corporate boards of directors meet in closed rooms to plan to how best to maximize profit. If they knowingly make plans that hurt others, violate laws, undermine ethics, or show favoritism to friends, they are involved in a conspiracy.


The first thing that critics of new investigations on 9/11, election fraud, and other issues do is to link all the questions—including some of the most hair-brained ideas— together in a crazy hodgepodge of irrationality that undermines legitimate investigations. We must not be afraid to openly discuss, research, and validate these issues.


Former Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones and some 700 scientific professionals in the fields of architecture, engineering, and physics have now concluded that the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings is implausible according to laws of physics. Especially concerning is the collapse of WTC 7, a forty-seven-story building that was not hit by planes, yet dropped in its own “footprint” in 6.6 seconds in the same manner as a controlled demolition.


To support his theory, Jones and eight other scientists conducted chemical research on the dust from the World Trade centers. Their research results were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2, 2009. The authors write, “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction and is used in controlled demolitions of buildings.


Progressive anti-war activists should openly support 9/11 Truth as an important component of building a new non-exploitative world based on democracy, openness, and human rights.



Shea-Porter Secures $9 Million in Funding for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Shea-Porter today announced that she was able to secure $9 million in funding for the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in the 2010 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill. Shea-Porter secured $2 million for the consolidation of structural shops and $7 million for Gate 2 at the Shipyard. The bill, which also increases funding for veterans health care by 58 percent and provides funding for military construction, passed by a bipartisan vote of 415 to 3.


“The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is critical to both our local economy and our national defense and I am committed to ensuring it remains properly funded,” said Congresswoman Shea-Porter. “I am pleased that I was able to secure this important funding for the Shipyard, which will increase the yard’s efficiency and safety.”


The House Passes Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act:


  • provides quality health care for 5 million veterans;
  • increases health care access for veterans in rural communities;
  • invests in 28 new Vet Centers and 30 new Community Based Outpatient Centers;
  • expands eligibility for VA health care to an estimated 266,000 non-service-disabled veterans (Priority 8 veterans);
  • assists homeless veterans by increasing funding for the Presidential Initiative to combat homelessness;
  • increases funding for mental health care for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan;
  • offers supportive services for low-income veterans and families;
  • reduces the Veterans Claims Backlog;
  • increases funding for military construction;
  • invests in child care centers for military families; and
  • funds overseas contingency operations.



DSCC - NH: Conservatives Upset About Ayotte?


The GOP has yet another message problem on their hands.

Two candidates the National Republican Senatorial Committee has recruited for 2010 are at odds with the anti-stimulus opposition being put forth by the Republican National Committee.

While RNC operatives busy themselves compiling reports of government waste tucked inside President Obama's stimulus bill and issuing hard-hitting talking points against it, they're being undermined by their Senate fundraising arm.

It appears the RNC is attempting to win elections based on principle while the NRSC is more concerned with who may be electable, a classic political clash. The top example is the NRSC's support for the popular Florida Governor Charlie Crist. NRSC Chairman Sen. John Cornyn endorsed Mr. Crist over the more fiscally conservative Republican Marc Rubio earlier this year, outraging many conservatives.

The same scenario is playing out again, this time in New Hampshire. When New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, another high-polling Republican, announced she was resigning from her post to begin exploring bid for the U.S. Senate, the NRSC immediately issued a statement calling her a "formidable candidate for the U.S. Senate if she decides to run" — a strong indication they would be likely to support her once her candidacy is declared. They also e-mailed conservative bloggers items promoting flattering things political reporters had written about her.

But, like Mr. Crist, she doesn't appear to be much of a fiscal conservative, either.

>From her post as attorney general, Mrs. Ayotte encouraged New Hampshire's justice system to apply and obtain stimulus money, saying "in times of economic uncertainty and with the potential for increasing crime, we need to continue to support these programs." Her number two, Deputy Attorney Orville "Bud" Fitch, has been in charge of doling out stimulus dollars as head of New Hampshire's new "Office of Economic Stimulus." At that post, he acted as the state's "stimulus czar."

If she does harbor any opposition to the stimulus, she hasn't told anyone. Reporters have complained she's been vague when asked directly about the bill, much in the same way Republican candidate Jim Tedisco was in his failed special election bid for New York's 20th District last fall. His reluctance to make his support for opposition to the bill clear is credited as a key reason for his loss by many election watchers.

Many race watchers view Mrs. Ayotte as moderate, and compare her to other senators who voted for the stimulus like Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine.

Meanwhile, there are other Republicans may challenge Mrs. Ayotte in the GOP primary, like former Rep. Charlie Bass and 1996 Republican gubernatorial nominee Ovide Lamontage. And another one, named Fred Tausch, even founded a group based on his upset with government spending. He created Save the Economy Without Accumulating Debt to demand more fiscal responsibility after passage of the stimulus bill.

But the NRSC appears to have already picked their favored candidate. Mr. Lamontage traveled to Washington last June to discuss his candidacy, but the NRSC remained silent about his bid, unlike when Mrs. Ayotte announced she was ready to begin exploring her Senate run.



WNO - Video: DeMint Says The Facts Don't Support Obama On Honduras 

Who: Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)

What: Exclusive interview regarding the situation in Honduras.

When: July 10th, 2009

Where: Dirksen Senate Office Building


DeMint Soundbite #1: The facts don't support Obama in Honduras.


"I am just at a loss to understsand why the Obama Administration is saying that this was an illegal coup and that the constitutional process was interrupted. The facts don't appear to back them up."



DeMint Soundbite #2: Chavez is not on the side of freedom.


"When the United States is on the side of Chavez, who hates us, who's trying to organize the whole region against us, we've just got to ask if we're on the right side. Chavez, Ortega, the Castro brothers are clearly not on the side of freedom."



DeMint Soundbite #3: Zelaya abdicated his role as president.


"In my mind, the facts say this was a constitutional process that way carried out by the government and Zelaya abdicated his role as president when he attempted to change the constitution.



Length of Full Interview: 2:20

Click for full video file:


NRCC - Will Carol Shea-Porter Back Small Business Tax to Pay for Government Healthcare Takeover? 

Party Bosses Come Calling Again to Pay for Another Budget-Busting Job Killer


Washington- After refusing to face reality for weeks, Democrat leaders will finally have to admit that there is only one way to fund their massive government healthcare takeover: more taxes. After the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office scored the proposal at a whopping $1.5 trillion, top Democrats in Washington have begun to wheel out plans for new taxes as they scramble to come up with a way to pay for a bill that will raise costs and eliminate patients’ available health care options. As party bosses prepare to come calling once again, Carol Shea-Porter will feel the heat to back another massive tax hike.


“Carol Shea-Porter must answer a very simple question: Will she support a tax on small businesses to pay for the Democrats’ government takeover of the healthcare industry?” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Shea-Porter simply cannot have it both ways – she can choose to stand with middle-class New Hampshire families or she will cave to her party bosses with a vote to raise taxes on small business, force millions of Americans off of their current coverage, and potentially destroy five million American jobs. “


After Democrats unveiled their reckless health care plan last month, they remained tight-lipped about plans to pay for it. But now, Shea-Porter's party bosses have begun to leak their plans to pay for a government healthcare takeover. Unsurprisingly, they feature tax hikes as the centerpiece:


“As House Democrats work to finalize their healthcare overhaul discussion draft, sources say CBO has individually scored provisions of the legislation that together approach a total of $1.5 trillion.


“Sources also said House Ways and Means Democrats plan to help pay for the bill by raising taxes on people earning $250,000 or more and taxing sugary beverages.


“The tax on sugary drinks is expected to raise about $50 billion. A previous Ways and Means paper revealed Democrats were considering raising taxes on the wealthy through a 2 percent surtax that would raise $256 billion.” (Anna Edney, “Sources Say House Bill At $1.5 Trillion,” CongressDaily, 7/7/09)


With her party bosses breathing down her neck to fund their $1.5 trillion bill with another tax hike, will Carol Shea-Porter stand up for New Hampshire families or cave under pressure?