By Jeannine Putrelo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0-hGHJSgNA&feature=player_embedded

By Jeannine Putrelo

It’s one thing to counterfeit a twenty or hundred dollar bill. The amount of financial damage is usually limited to a specific region and only affects dozens of people and thousands of dollars. Secret Service agents quickly notify the banks on how to recognize these phony bills and retail outlets usually have procedures in place (such as special pens to test the paper) to stop their proliferation.

Read Article

http://www.viewzone.com/fakegold.html

By Jeannine Putrelo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txQk1HlWSlQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxZsvozY2oE

By Jeannine Putrelo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTpzqTJeH-o

By Jeannine Putrelo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9kM6vWL2QA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvtU2srN8Y4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A725vBawbw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj6PSNwK_u4&feature=player_embedded

By Jeannine Putrelo

You want to hear about chutzpah? You want to hear about sheer gravity-defying audacity? Well, ladies and gentlemen, comrades and friends, prepare to catch your lower jaw. Forget Limbaugh’s racist anxieties. Forget about Pat Robertson drooling about Haiti’s ‘pact with the devil’. He’s a senile old bigot, and his sick provocations are familiar by now. This is the Heritage Foundation on the Haiti earthquake, which is estimated to have killed 100,000 people:

Read Article

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/haitian-earthquake-made-in-usa/

By Jeannine Putrelo

While the loss of life and devastation in Haiti is unimaginable there may be a more hidden agenda behind this tragedy. Suppose this “natural disaster” been a weather weapon

Read article

http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/could-haitian-earthquake-been-weopan-aimed-cuba

By Steve Cooper

Jan Malina interview with Communist political prisoner, Petr Cibulka

Q:When we look, for example, at the “former” Soviet military officer Viktor Bout, who has supplied weapons and explosives to Al Qaeda, is it possible to assume that Al Qaeda is controlled by the Russian Secret Services [FSB,  GRU],and that the 9/11 attack, and any other upcoming terrorist attack on America, is in reality fully controlled and run by Moscow?

Cibulka: Personally I don’t doubt that Russia hasn’t given up her plan to rule the World. At this time Russia is not trying to defeat the West by herself in a direct confrontation; but she is using anybody willing to help, to destabilize and cause the total breakdown of the West.

This method involves subversion from within, and also from without, against western countries.

It is unimaginable that Al Qaeda, whose main headquarters were in long-time Soviet occupied Afghanistan, wouldn’t be infiltrated in its leading structures with people trained by the Soviet occupation forces. Of course, I wouldn’t say that the majority of the members of such terrorist groups are phony Islamic radicals,but I think they are directed and manipulated through cadres coordinated by Moscow.

I am convinced that Russian military intelligence (GRU) is directing terrorist activities against the United States and the West. This is Moscow’s main option for defeating the West. Therefore the GRU is supplying the Islamic terrorists with Russian nuclear weapons so the planned attack against the United States by Russia, China and their allies can follow.

http://theconservativemonster.com/2010/01/13/jeff-nyquist-interview-with-communist-political-prisoner-petr-cibulka.aspx

By Steve Cooper

Raw Footage of buildings collapsing during 7.0 earthquake Jan. 2010

I put links to donate to the Red Cross and video of the earthquake and footage of the disaster area.

http://theconservativemonster.com/2010/01/14/raw-footage-of-buildings-collapsing-during-70-earthquake-jan-2010.aspx

Secretary Janet Napolitano
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

After much reflection I have decided to write this letter both as a document of inquiry and protest. An officer of the Secret Service came to my office where I counsel people about the most intimate and troubled details of their lives, and asked me to explain statements made concerning Barack Obama. The officer knew, or should have known, with a minimum of due diligence, that those statements could not possibly be construed in any way as a threat to the physical safety of Obama. Time after time in my statements I have made clear that any action taken against Obama should be done within the bounds of legal process. Yet this agent came into this church, this sacred soil where God dwells, with seven men including members of the New York Police Department, to ask me to explain statements. I made clear that any action taken against Obama should be done within the bounds of legal process. It suggests to me that either your agency is incompetent or that you came with an insidious intent.

Besides the fact that I have openly declared that any action against Obama should be lawful and constitutionally prescribed, you also know that I have done no act that could remotely constitute a crime or justify your pollution of this holy space with your presence. The freedom of speech is, or at least was sacrosanct in this nation. The fact that I made statements, however strong and distasteful to you, does not warrant your agent coming to my office with six other men in tow to ask me my meaning. While your agent “needed” three men by his side to ask me a question in my office there were three other men outside of this house taking pictures. Your time would have been better served guarding the White House from uninvited guests.

Your agent came here because he wanted to send me a message. Your agent wanted me to know that I am being watched. If it were otherwise he would have come and arrested me. You wanted in essence, to chill speech. It is therefore you and not I who pose the danger to all that is lawful.

Now your actions create a presumption, but it is rebuttable, so I give you the opportunity to explain yourself. What specifically did I say that causes you concern and why? Why did he need the New York City Police Department to follow him? Why were men taking pictures of this house of worship? What clippings of my sermons and statements other than the one in question have been reviewed? What specific actions as opposed to speech, have I taken that are illegal? And finally, have you read the Supreme Court cases on inflammatory speech where even the overthrow of the government by violence is constitutionally protected? I deserve answers. Furthermore, there is an old legal doctrine that silence in the face of an accusation which one ought to answer constitutes consent or admission. If you choose not to answer this letter, you have already answered.

In His Royal Service,
The Honorable James Manning

cc: Mark Sullivan, Director of United States Secret Service