Mainstream Journalists Expose 9/11 HoaxDr. Kevin BarrettPress TVOctober 20, 2013

Several leading American mainstream journalists say that the US government is lying about 9/11 and the so-called war on terror. Unfortunately, media owners and editors won’t let them report their findings.Recently, Seymour Hersh, America’s top mainstream investigative reporter, broke the news that the US government’s claim to have killed Osama Bin Laden on May 2nd, 2011 is “a big lie. There is not one word of truth in it.” Hersh went on to harshly criticize his long-time employer, the New York Times, and other big media outlets: “We lie about everything, lying has become the staple.” He said all big US media outlets should be shut down for lying to the American people. Other mainstream journalists agree that the US government’s story of Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 is a big lie. Sherwood Ross, an award-winning journalist who has worked for the City News Bureau of Chicago, the Chicago Daily News, and for Reuters and other wire services, told me in a recent radio interview:

“It’s very doubtful that Muslims were behind 9/11. Think about this for one minute: That President Bush’s family had done business with the family of the man who allegedly made the terrorist attack, Osama Bin Laden. The Bin Laden family was actually on the board of Bush’s oil company. How is it possible that of all the billions of families in the world, the one family that makes the attack on Americahas done business with the President of America. That sounds more like a favor than anything else. I don’t think 9/11 was an Arab conspiracy or a Muslim conspiracy. I think it’s an American conspiracy tooverthrow the government of the United States and install what is becoming a police state, and also to advance the imperial ambitions of the United States, to swindle the Middle East out of their energy resources.”

Ross explained that American journalists are no longer free to expose even the most outrageous officialfalsehoods and fabrications:

“You don’t see any serious questioning by the mainstream media. I thought one of the tip-offs that it was a put-up job was when a cameraman from a little weekly in Pennsylvania went to the site where this airliner had supposedly crashed (on 9/11). And he said, ‘I didn’t see any airliner. I saw a hole in theground. I didn’t see any bodies. I didn’t see any luggage.’ All right, maybe that guy just made this up. But I don’t think so. I think he was just doing his job. And then at the Pentagon, you had the claim that airliner hit it. But again, there was no wreckage. Reporters who worked in the Press Room at the Pentagon went out there on the lawn, and they couldn’t see any airliner. So, over and over again, you have manufactured lies that the press largely is not reporting.”

I asked Ross whether he is allowed to express such views in his articles for the Miami Herald, the Chicago Daily News, or the wire services. He answered:

“Absolutely not. When I used to write for Reuters, covering workplace issues, for ten years, my columns were picked up from the New York Times to the L.A. Times. But if you write about ‘why did 7 World Trade Center collapse when it wasn’t hit by an airplane,’ nobody will pick it up. So, now my columns are used on the Internet by bloggers, and they’re used by Middle East wire services. I get phone calls from Press TV, and you can read my interviews there. But you won’t see me quoted by the Associated Press.”

Another leading American journalist, Paul Craig Roberts, has also been banned from US mainstream media for telling the truth about 9/11. Dr. Roberts served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, won the French Legion of Honor and other awards for his contributions to economics, and has been a regular columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and other mainstream publications. But since he spoke out about the controlled demolitions of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11, Paul Craig Roberts has been put on the mainstream media’s no-publish list.

In a recent interview on my radio show, Dr. Roberts explained why the US mainstream media, as Seymour Hersh said, lies about everything:

“One of the worst things that ever happened (to America) was when President Clinton allowed five

companies to concentrate theAmerican media. That destroyed itsindependence. And ever sinceClinton permitted that, which wastotally against all American tradition,and totally against the antitrust law… but in the United States, as we’veseen, law doesn’t mean anythinganymore. The minute these fiveconglomerates concentrated themedia, the independence of themedia disappeared. It’s no longer runby journalists, it’s run by corporateadvertising executives. The value ofthese media conglomerates resides intheir federal broadcast licenses. Andso they can’t dare offend thegovernment. Their licenses may notget renewed, and the entire multi-billion-dollar value of the companieswould disappear. So, the so-called mainstream media is no longer the media. It doesn’t tell you anything. It’s a propaganda ministry – the Ministry of Propaganda. Gerald Celente calls them ‘presstitutes.’”

Rather than writing for the mainstream media, Paul Craig Roberts is now exposing the fake killing of Osama Bin Laden and deconstructing the 9/11 false-flag operation for an independent outlet called the Institute for Political Economy. In a recent article published on the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks,Dr. Roberts wrote:

“The neoconservatives who advocate America’s hegemony over the world called for ‘a new Pearl Harbor’ that would allow them to launch wars of conquest … No evidence exists that supports the government’s 9/11 story … On this 12th anniversary of a false-flag event, it is unnecessary for me to report the voluminous evidence that conclusively proves that the official story is a lie. You can read it for yourself. It is available online. You can read what the architects and engineers (for 9/11 truth) have to say. You can read the scientists’ reports. You can hear from the first responders who were in the WTC towers. You can read the pilots who say that the maneuvers associated with the airliner that allegedly hit the Pentagon are beyond their skills and most certainly were not performed by inexperienced pilots. You can read David Griffin’s many books. You can watch the film produced by Richard Gage and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth. You can read the 9/11 Toronto Report, International Hearings on 9/11.”

But don’t bother reading the mainstream media. As Seymour Hersh, Sherwood Ross, Paul Craig Roberts, and a rapidly growing number of ordinary Americans realize, the mainstream media’s motto isnow: “We lie about everything. Lying has become the staple.”

The government’s not demanding an investigation into an event that is the greatest embarrassment to a “superpower” in world history is a complete give-away that 9/11 was a false-flag event.

RELATED: Seymour Hersh: Bin Laden Raid “One Big Lie”

911 Loose Change VIDEO BELOW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

Trust in Government Nears Record Low

Pew ResearchOctober 20, 2013

Public trust in the government, already quite low,has edged even lower in a survey conducted justbefore the Oct. 16 agreement to end thegovernment shutdown and raise the debt ceiling.

Just 19% say that they trust the government inWashington to do what is right just about always ormost of the time, down seven points since January.The current measure matches the level reached in August 2011, following the last battle over the debtceiling. Explore a Pew Research interactive on PublicTrust in Government: 1958-2013.

The share of the public saying they are angry at thefederal government, which equaled an all-time high inlate September (26%), has ticked up to 30%. Another55% say they are frustrated with the government. Just12% say they are basically content with the federalgovernment.

Despite highly negative views of the federalgovernment overall, the public has favorable views ofmany of its agencies and departments, which wereclosed by the shutdown. Majorities have favorableopinions of 12 of 13 agencies tested – with the IRS thelone exception (44% favorable).

Federal workers, hundreds of thousands of whom were furloughed during the shutdown, also are viewed positively: By about two-to-one (62% to 29%), more have a favorable than unfavorable opinion of federal government workers.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Oct. 9-13 among 1, 504 adults, finds that just 23% have a favorable opinion of Congress, while 73% have an unfavorable view. Dissatisfaction with Congress also is seen in record anti-incumbent sentiment.

In general, the public continues to blame lawmakers themselves – rather than the political system more generally – for the problems in Congress. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) say “the political system can work fine, it’s the members of Congress that are the problem.” Just 32% say “most members of Congress have good intentions, it’s the political system that is broken.”

Since 2010, more have consistently placed more blame on members of Congress than the political system. Notably, majorities of Democrats (64%), Republicans (57%) and independents (55%) say it is members of Congress, rather than the political system, that are more to blame.

Broad Distrust of Federal Government

While distrust in the federal governmentis widespread, there are differences inthese opinions. About three-in-tenDemocrats (28%) say they can trust thegovernment just about always or most ofthe time, compared with 10% ofRepublicans.

Among Republicans and Republicanleaners who agree with the Tea Party,just 3% trust the federal governmentalways or most of the time, 76% saythey can trust it only some of the time,while 20% volunteer that they can nevertrust the government.

Young people remain more positive inviews about the government than olderpeople: 29% of those younger than 30say they trust the government always ormost of the time, nearly double thepercentage among older age groups(16%).

Though there is little difference betweenwhites, blacks and Hispanics overall,there is some variance among whites.Among whites, more female collegegraduates (26%) express trust ingovernment than male college graduates(15%). Among those who have notcompleted college, women and menexpress similarly low levels of trust(15% and 14%, respectively).

As trust in the federal government has declined since the start of the year, anger has risen. Currently, 30% say they are angry at the government, up 11 points since January. The share saying they are basically content with government has fallen by eight points, while frustration has held about steady.

Anger at the federal government is most pronounced among Tea Party Republicans. Fully 55% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party say they are angry with the federal government – about double the percentage among non-Tea Party Republicans (27%) and Democrats and Democratic leaners (25%).

Views of Federal Agencies

Nine of the 13 federal agencies and institutions included in the survey are viewed favorably by 60% or more of the public. The agencies with the strongest ratings include: The Centers for Disease Control or CDC (75% favorable), NASA (73%), the Defense Department (72%), the Veterans Administration (68%) and the Department of Homeland Security (66%).

About six-in-ten (61%) have a favorable view of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is responsible for implementing the 2010 Affordable Care Act. And 54% have a favorable opinion of the National Security Agency (NSA). Earlier this year, the NSA was embroiled in controversy when leaked classified documents exposed the agency’s phone and internet surveillance programs. In June, public opinion was evenly divided over these programs. As many said they approved (48%) as disapproved (47%) of the NSA collecting phone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts.

The IRS is rated less favorably than any of the other agencies and departments tested; 44% have a favorable opinion of the tax agency while 51% view it unfavorably.

Republicans have less positive views than Democrats of several of the agencies and departments included in the survey. The biggest difference is in opinions of the IRS: 65% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of the IRS compared with 40% of independents and just 23% of Republicans.

Republicans also are far less likely than Democrats to have favorable opinions of HHS (by 33 points), the EPA (30 points) and the Department of Education (28 points).

And federal government workers are viewed far more favorably among Democrats (79% favorable) and independents (60%) than among Republicans (46%).

Still, large majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents view several agencies favorably, including the Defense Department, NASA, the FDA, the Veteran’s Administration, the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security.

Tea Party Republicans Highly Critical of the IRS

Republicans and Democrats once held similar views of the IRS, but opinions of the agency now divide sharply along partisan lines.

Currently, about two-thirds (65%) of Democrats have a favorable view of the Internal Revenue Service,31% have an unfavorable view. Among Republicans, 74% view the IRS unfavorably, 23% favorably.

In 2010, about half of both Democrats (52%) and Republicans (47%) held positive views of the IRS. In1997, when overall views of the IRS were more negative, there also were only slight partisan differences in opinions of the agency: 61% of Republicans had an unfavorable opinion, as did 57% of Democrats.

In the current survey, large majorities of both Tea Party Republicans (82%) and non-Tea Party Republicans (65%) have unfavorable opinions of the IRS. About four-in-ten Tea Party Republicans (42%) have a very unfavorable view of the tax agency, compared with 23% of Republicans and leaners who do not agree with the Tea Party.

In May, the IRS faced controversy over reports that the agency targeted some conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status. At that time, just 12% of Republicans thought that the decision to target conservative groups was made by employees of the IRS, while 69% said the Obama administration was also involved. About half of Democrats (54%) said that IRS employees made the decision to target conservative groups.

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted October 9-13, 2013 among a national sample of 1,504 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (752 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 752 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 407 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by Abt SRBI. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by

randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cellsample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older. For detailed information about our survey methodology, see http://people-press.org/methodology/

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic origin and nativity and region to parameters from the 2011 Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and population density to parameters from the Decennial Census. The sample also is weighted to match current patterns of telephone status and relative usage of landline and cell phones (for those with both), based on extrapolations from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined sample and adjusts for household size among respondents with a landline phone. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting. The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request.

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Survey Trust in US government hits new low of 19 percent VIDEO BELOW

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

Tough Questions For FBI Over Marathon Bombing ResponseMike BeaudetMy Fox BostonOctober 19, 2013

A top U.S. Senator is demanding answers from the FBI about what they knew about the Tsarnaevbrothers and when they knew it, asking if agents had recruited either suspected Marathon bomber as informants and if the bureau had the pair under surveillance before releasing their images to the public.

The FBI issued a strongly worded denial that the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which they lead, knew theidentities of the Tsarnaevs before the shootout in Watertown that ended one of their lives or that they were ever sources for the FBI.

But in a letter to the head of FBI, which was obtained exclusively by FOX Undercover, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley is asking the questions that have been on the minds of many in state and local law enforcement. Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with broad oversight over the Department of Justice and the FBI.

Grassley's questions get to a nagging doubt in many minds: if the FBI had the Tsarnaev brothers on its radar before publicly identifying them, could the death of MIT Police Officer Sean Collier have been prevented along with the firefight in Watertown that nearly took the life of MBTA Transit Officer Richard Donohue.

"Did the FBI have the suspects under physical surveillance at any time prior to releasing the photos to the public?" Grassley wrote in his letter to FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr. The FBI aired the photos of the then-unnamed suspects during a 5 p.m. press conference on the Thursday after the bombing, about five hours before Collier was shot and killed.

Grassley also writes that his office has learned through sources that, "In the hours leading up to the shooting of Collier and the death of the older suspect involved in the bombing, sources revealed that

uniformed Cambridge Police Department officers encountered multiple teams of FBI employees conducting surveillance in the area of Central Square in Cambridge. It is unclear who the FBI was watching, but these sources allege the Cambridge Police Department, including its representation at the(Joint Terrorism Task Force), was not previously made aware of the FBI's activity in Cambridge."

Grassley asks if the surveillance was being conducted in Cambridge, and if so, were the Tsarnaevs or their associates being watched.

The Cambridge surveillance drew such pointed questions from Grassley not only because it goes to the explosive question of whether the Tsarnaevs slipped through FBI surveillance and went on their path ofdestruction, but also because the information about surveillance, regardless of who was the target, wasn't shared with local police.

"Continued reluctance on the part of the FBI to share information with local law enforcement, especially in the wake of the Whitey Bulger saga and your ongoing Mark Rossetti investigation, would be extremely troubling," Grassley writes. Rossetti is a made captain in the Boston mafia, a suspected murderer, who was also revealed to be a long-time FBI informant, an issue that previously drew the scrutiny of Grassley as well as U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-South Boston.

FOX Undercover has learned one explanation why there were at least some FBI surveillance teams in Cambridge: several MIT students were being looked at as suspects.

Referring back to the FBI's review of Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011, prompted by a tip from the Russian government, Grassley asks if the FBI tried to recruit him as a source, and if not, why not.

In a statement, the special agent in charge of the Boston office, Vincent Lisi, said the Tsarnaev brothers were never sources for the FBI and denied knowing any link between the Tsarnaevs and the bombing until after the Watertown shootout.

""Members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force did not know their identities until shortly after Tamerlan Tsarnaev's death. Nor did the Joint Terrorism Task Force have the Tsarnaevs under surveillance at any time after the assessment of Tamerlan Tsarnaev was closed in 2011," Lisi said.

That was echoed by RickDesLauriers, the special agent incharge during the MarathonBombing, who said in an interviewwith FOX Undercover reporterMike Beaudet that his office onlylearned their identities afterfingerprinting Tamerlan's bodyafter he was killed in theWatertown shootout. DesLauriersalso called any suggestion that theFBI is somehow to blame forCollier's death, "irresponsible".Joint Release from MassachusettsLaw Enforcement Agencies:

Boston, MA – In response to mediainquiries about recent newsreports relating to the marathon bombings, Special Agent in Charge of the Boston Division, Vincent Lisi, Colonel Timothy Alben of the Massachusetts State Police and Commissioner Edward Davis of the Boston Police released the following statement: Previously, members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force have responded to similar questions relating to whether or not the FBI, Boston Police, Massachusetts State Police or other members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force knew the identities of the bombers before the shootout. Members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force did not know their identities until shortly after Tamerlan Tsarnaev's death when they fingerprinted his corpse. Nor did the Joint Terrorism Task Force have the Tsarnaevs under surveillance at any time after the Assessment of Tamerlan Tsarnaev was closed in 2011. The Joint Terrorism Task Force was at M.I.T., located in Cambridge, MA, on April 18, 2013, on a matter unrelated to the Tsarnaev brothers. Additionally, the Tsarnaev brothers were never sources for the FBI nor did the FBI attempt to recruit them as sources. There has been recent reporting relating to whether or not the FBI, Boston Police, Massachusetts StatePolice or other members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force knew the identities of the bombers before the shootout with the alleged marathon bombing suspects, and were conducting physical surveillance of them on April 18, 2013. These claims have been repeatedly refuted by the FBI, Boston Police, and Massachusetts State Police. To be absolutely clear: No one was surveilling the Tsarnaevs and they were not identified until after the shootout. Any claims to the contrary are false.

Tough questions for FBI over Marathon Bombing response VIDEO BELOWhttp://www.infowars.com/tough-questions-for-fbi-over-marathon-bombing-response/

INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND