Kevin Barrett Gets A Massive Story In The Capital Times - Pictures Inside

[Gold9472]

Kevin Barrett Gets A Massive Story In The Capital Times

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/barrett1.gif
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/barrett2.gif
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/barrett3.gif
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/barrett4.gif
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/barrett5.gif

[Gold9472]

Now ask me how I got a newspaper all the way from Wisconsin.

[Eckolaker]

Now ask me how I got a newspaper all the way from Wisconsin.

Why ask, when we already know?

My guess is Kevin personally sent you the paper.

am I right?

[Gold9472]

Why ask, when we already know?

My guess is Kevin personally sent you the paper.

am I right?

Nope. Actually, I have a neighbor who went to visit her brother in Madison, and she saw the paper, and thought I'd want it... BOY DID I!!!

[Gold9472]

I've asked Kevin to stop by.

[Eckolaker]

I've asked Kevin to stop by.


I hope he does.

I sent him an email offering our support a week or so ago. I doubt he has seen it with the influx of emails he gets now.

He has brought so much exposier to our cause its not even funny. Probably as much as any one person involved with the truth movement.

[Gold9472]

I hope he does.

I sent him an email offering our support a week or so ago. I doubt he has seen it with the influx of emails he gets now.

He has brought so much exposier to our cause its not even funny. Probably as much as any one person involved with the truth movement.

It wasn't him dude. :) It was the Honorable Representative Nass. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.

[Chana3812]

I think it is SO COOL.

Kevin Barrett, who was this low-key kind of guy, just trying to get us to all get along with each other, gets this massive publicity and blows the 9/1 Truth to the mainstream press.

I couldn't be happier. MUJCA FOR 911 TRUTH - Way to Go, Kevin.

Nothing But Love for Ya,
Chana

[Eckolaker]

It wasn't him dude. :) It was the Honorable Representative Nass. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.


Okay, I will agree with Rep. nass being the catalyst here. However, In my opinion, Kevin being who he is was able to stand up to morons like Sean Hannity and the like. Not once have I seen him come off as a crazy conspiracy theorist, or someone looking to get his "15 minutes".

Again, and Im sure this statement is shared by all here, Im glad he is on our side and is as intelligent and well-spoken as he is.

[Gold9472]

Oh... I take NO-THING away from Kevin. He has been superb.

[Eckolaker]

So I did a google search today, only using the words "Steve Nass". The last search result on page 1 is a link to The YBBS.

Thanks Steve!

[dnepr]

Found this blog and thought I throw out a post. First, most might think of me as an ultra-conservative, but actually, I consider myself a strict Constitutionalist, and a strong believer in our once Constitutional Republics as opposed to the often tossed about incorrect term 'democracy'.

I've listened to Kevin a few times on TV, with the latest being on Fox News with Judge Nepolotano and Edie. I've seen him with Sean Hannity also.

While I don't propose to know the exact truth of 911, I don't think for a second it all happened like we are being told. However, it is my opinion that people like Kevin and most of you on this list are missing the much bigger point to learn and 'mix in' with our search for the truth.

We actually do live in a 'Matrix' type government. Most people chose sides and call themselves either liberal or conservative, and never stop to really study what this country was originally set up to be and what it was supposed to be. What is was and was intended - we LOST long ago, almost from the beginning (within the first 50 years), and the coup de gras was the Civil War. Its been downhill since, and the slope is increasing!

Our 'government' is nothing more now than a totalitarian corporation. I wouldn't trust a Republican any more than I'd trust a democrat (except for maybe Ron Paul from Texas).

Our 'government' forces us all into 'hidden' contracts from birth and we are all slaves actually. It is not much different than the feudal system in medieval England. Personal freedom and sovereignty no longer have any meaning, and we are rapidly approaching Orwell's 1984.

We don't own our cars or homes or property although we think we do. And I mean after they are paid off. We 'think' we have the Title to our autos when we only have a Certificate of Title which isn't the actual title. The government owns all this and puts all our property (yes, even our birth certificates) up for collateral. This country has been (and still is) since 1932 in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and all our 'income' taxes go to paying the interest on the national debt to the ultra rick foreign bankers aka the Federal Reserve. The IRS is simply the 'collection agent' for the Federal Reserve. Everything, even your and my future estimated productivity is 'mortgaged' (or put up for chattel) to the hilt!

The only difference now between the United States of America Incorporated and General Motors is that GM doesn't have an army and police force to keep the slaves in line.

The media's main job is to keep the liberals and the conservatives battling each other so they don't dare get together and realize they are both being duped.

Have you ever noticed that all talk show hosts - liberal or conservative - are like broken records? There are certain things they WILL NOT talk about. And I'm not talking about 911 conspiracies. I'm talking about 'normal' things like, for example, the corruptness of our family courts, the sham of the income tax sytem on private earnings, the sham of social security, the sham of US Citizenship, or why the 14th and 16th amendments were illegally ratified. They don't care or either the FCC would yank their license to broadcast!

We have no rights, and the president can rule almost dictatorially by misusing executive orders. Wake up people!

If you hear about Aaron Russo's new film 'America, Freedom to Fascism' by all means do whatever you have to do to get to see it. It will be releasing this fall in many theaters. The powers that be are scared to death over it and haven't figured out how to stop it yet.

I'm just as sick of Sean Hannity, Bill OReilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingram as I am of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. They are all taking us on the same path (except I believe the liberals want us to get there faster). I really don't think they know the truth, and I think they are pretty good people, but they still believe in July 4th parades and apple pie. Those days are long gone.

Michael Savage comes the closest to telling it like it is, but even he will not touch some subjects, and you have to listen to internet radio to get the truth and even there you will find 'nut cases'.

So, yes, I believe Barrett is on to something simply by the way he is discredited by smirks and laughs and insults before he can even talk. They DON"T WANT TO LET HIM TALK! It is the CORPORATION at work.

Signed Dnepr

[PhilosophyGenius]

Hey Dnepr! Nice article. Keep posting.

[casseia]

I was thinking "right on, man" until I got to the part about Michael Savage. None of the political/historical stuff you mentioned in any way explains why he is such a hate-filled asshole.

[dnepr]

Our illustrious government tells us all the time they are 'worried' and 'concerned' about the family unit, right? Many of them want to 'protect marriage' with a 'marriage amendment'. Bull---p!

They LOVE divorces and broken homes and families! Don't you know why?

MONEY FOR THEIR LITTLE EMPIRES.

FACT: In 2004 the state of Ohio collected over 2.1 BILLION dollars of child support payments (this number is on their website if you look for it). Now, like in most states (except for Indiana and maybe a couple of others), each person (man or woman) paying child support must pay an additional 2% on top of what their obligation is. This money goes to the state and is disbursed amoung the countys. What is 2% of 2.1 BILLION? It is over 40 MILLION dollars! And this is just the state of Ohio. Other states have similar numbers depending on population.

This amounts to a 2% tax on the backs of the poor souls who have the misfortune of their families breaking up (usually men)!

Did you know that now, 67% of all divorces are requested by women? Well, how many dads, if they knew they could leave their wives for a new girlfriend, take the kids, and have their ex-wife pay them for many years wouldn't do the same thing?

But Oh, our government (who passes these corrupt laws that encourage divorce) are worried about marriage being between a man and a woman! Hell, they are upset that if gays can get married, there won't be any children to charge child support for and therefore they won't get the 2%!

Next post - OUR CORRUPT and FAKE MONEY SYSTEM! Stay tuned

[dnepr]

Before I turn in, I must throw this out.

Did anyone see the photo at the beginning of the week that they were showing often on Fox News? It was an olive drab truck with an AA gun mounted on the flat bed rear.

It was touted as showing Hezbollah mixing with civilians because it showed some HZ fighters mixed in with what appeared to be 'normal' civilians who weren't carrying weapons. There was one guy in a blue shirt hanging on the open drivers side door of the truck.

I say this photo 4 or 5 times late Sunday night on Fox.

THEN, Monday morning I wake up and turn on the TV to get the news, and about 5 minutes later (this was on Fox and Friends) they SAME photo of the SAME truck gets shown for about a second or two again. EXCEPT, this time there is a BIG difference. There are only about 3 or 4 HZ fighters on the truck and absolutely NO civilians around it. The drivers side door is swung open, but no guy in blue shirt leaning on it!

I wouldn't have believed it had I not seen it with my own eyes!

I wrote Fox to ask 'what gives here', but of course, no answer.

Which photo was fake or touched up? The one with, or the one without the civilians standing around????? And they want to poke fun at Kevin Barrett?? Give me a break! And WHO YA GONNA CALL? Huh?

[dnepr]

Go to www.freedomdomain.com and listen to some of the transcripts by Roger Elvick. Start waking yourselves up and ask yourself how much do you really KNOW other than how to spell 'dude' and 'asshole'? Such intelligence is mind-boggling!

[casseia]

How much do you think states pay in terms of services for children who are not being supported by one of the two parents who are responsible for them? How much do you think they spend to enforce child support laws? Debt collection, via garnishment of wages, etc, costs money.

In Oregon, the state is not involved in collection of child support payments at ALL (and makes no money on it) unless one party does not comply with the agreement as spelled out in the divorce or another claim for support of a minor child.

Gay people, especially lesbians, but gay men as well, have kids all the time -- through insemination, adoption, or (as Susie Bright once put it) "just partying."

I think this whole train of thought is a dead end. Focus on the Federal Reserve, why doncha.

And BTW, if a man asks for a divorce, he may in fact qualify for spousal support, if his wife earns more and he needs it, to go back to school or whatever.

I just think you're barking up the wrong tree here, buddy.

[dnepr]

And how much money do you think states get in matching dollars from the Federal government. And I'd love to see a gay man be arificially inseminated, and I'd venture to say that the percentage is lesbian couples who have children as you've described is a drop in the bucket.

And how in the world did children survive before big government was there to take care of them? I'm surprised this countries population even grew at all according to what I read between your lines!

It all comes down to this (whether one is talking about family court laws or Federal Reserve or whatever) how much freedom are YOU willing to give up so you can get a 'benefit' from the all powerful central federal corporation? Is there a limit beyond which you won't go? (by you I'm speaking to everyone)

And no, I'm not barking up the wrong tree, but there are other more important issues to discuss, granted.

But to fuel the fire, can you tell me why there should even be anything such as 'spousal support' in this modern liberated day in time? I can understand its need in Victorian times.

Then, if a man played around on his wife and left her he had to pay her because women didn't work and this was fair. BUT, if the man (or woman as the case may be) could prove adultery, then all bets were off as far as spousal support.

Today, we have carried forward half of the tradition and left he 'inconvenient' other half in the past.

Two people were taking care of themselves before they met and married, and should continue to do so, each according to his or her own ability, following divorce.

The state (which wants the 2%) has just twisted the system so they can make money, that's all.

[dnepr]

I'll bet most of you think you elect state legislators to pass legislation don't you?

Well, that isn't exactly true.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that if you really investigated the way your legislature works (no matter what state you are in), you would discover that NO BILL (Megan's law was one exception) gets out of committee and to the floor for a vote without the blessings from your state's Bar association and your state's Judicial Conference (or some similar name).

So who is really the gatekeepers of what legislation even gets up for a vote?

[casseia]

I will say it again, MANY MANY gay people have children. This includes many, many lesbians, and a smaller number of gay men (who tend, when they employ artificial insemination, to use it on women who agree to be surrogates, rather than on themselves.) Grow an imagination, why doncha, while you're in the process of "enlightening" the "intellectually disadvantaged" posters at this BB.

Here's the deal. I'm a small-l libertarian. I'm likely to agree with you about a lot of issues related to government. But I will ride you mercilessly if you do not figure out on your own how to separate those issues from racism, misogyny, and homophobia because that is my mission in life.

And as for your casting aspersions on my intelligence, you're just making me laugh. You have no idea who you're talking to, and when you ASSUME, you make an ass of -- well, not so much you and me, as YOU.

[casseia]

The main reason "spousal support" exists, is that when two people decide to form a "marital corporation" they are very likely to enter into agreements in which payment in kind (such as the LABOR of child-rearing) is exchanged within the relationship for a stake in monetary payment that another member of the family earns from labor outside the household. Often, one partner is accepting certain losses in his or her own "proper" financial wellbeing --such as payment into the social security system or a retirement plan or income with which to invest -- in exchange for part-ownership of the family's collective assets. Spousal support is one way that one partner can "buy out" the other at the point the corporation dissolves. That is why it still exists.

[AuGmENTor]

Where did you come from? I could care less what the critics (numbering ONE so far), have to say, you are right on the money. When my second wife and I divorced, she got everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING. This was like seven years ago. The state paid for her to go to college (nursing) and she got her associates. That was three years ago. I have paid a HUGE amount of support from the begining, and I don't have a problem with that. During my last family court appearance, I had a statement prepared that I read before the examiner. The gist of it was how is it possible that I have to come in here quarterly to make sure there isn't some more money I should have to pay, when you people have paid to educate this person so she can make enough to support herself and the kids. Keep in mind she graduated three years ago. And works at fucking blockbuster? At what point does she become culpable for anything at all? It's OK that she is a welfare collecting leech who makes 7$ an hour, and she can do that forever, cause I'll always have to pay the slack. I believe people should have to pay for their kids, but at what point does it become a balanced equation? I guess the answer to that is never. They sure had no answer for me. I guess I should thank them. They pushed me from making 30K a year, to almost 100K, just so I could afford my own existence. I have mentioned this before, and I will again: I refuse to pay income taxes. I cannot afford the court ordered money I have to pay, if right off the top the government gets 50%. I have told the IRS (they'd really like their money) to come and get me. So far they have not. I think they know they still get money in the form of other taxes from my income. Moreso than they would if they locked me up, had to pay for everything for me, and in addition had to pay fullblown welfare on the six OTHER people I support.

[dnepr]

Dear Casseia,

Shall we agree that NEITHER of us knows who we are talking to?

To respond...I don't care how long a string of politically incorrect names you try to attach to me, one thing I can do, and that is cut through all the 'sensitivity training' and see a problem brewing.

You little diatribe about why spousal support is warranted is a very 'canned' response. However, it is very outdated.

Let me be direct and to the point. Here is an example, and you tell me if you think anyone should pay spousal support, okay?

Marriage of 9 years. One child from the marriage, 7 years old at time of divorce. Both parents are college degreed and both are professionally employed. Mother always worked before and during the marriage. There are unequal incomes due to difference in career fields and time in that field and husband is 12 years older. Wife earning 42K and husband 100K. Husband is ordered to pay $900 month child support (court wouldn't hear of him having equal custody and visitation).

Now, do you think that father should or should not have to pay spousal support?

In short, while I agree that when either parent (yes, usually the mother) has sacrificed a career to stay at home and raise children there should be some help from the husband (or other way around if roles switched). But not LIFETIME. I would also make allowances for children with special needs that precludes one parent from working full time. But, the proper term for this is spousal maintenance, not spousal support.

Now, maybe you are a true libertarian (you don't sound like a true one though), and maybe we would agree on many things (probably not), but one thing I would argue with my last breath (and which I do not intend to do here), is that EVERY civilization in recorded history has fallen when it embraced fully and openly homosexuality and moral debauchery. And while I doubt your statistics about gay and lesbian adoptions and such, I guess it makes sense that they would want to have children that they could indoctrinate into their way of thinking.

However, I openly admit that I am a Christian and believe strongly that this country's (and the world's for that matter) remaining days or low in number.

But you remind me of a cartoon I saw the other day. It showed the devil welcoming new arrivals in hell and showing them around. He said 'Now remember, there are no right and wrongs here - just whatever works for you'.

[Gold9472]

What the HELL does this conversation have to do with Kevin Barrett getting a massive story on the front page of the Capital Times?

[dnepr]

Besides getting tangled up in this discussion about child support and alimony (which I'm disengaging from), my original point was try to explain why Kevin is only seeing part of the picture. Government controls and manipulates every single aspect of our lives, and corruptly so. By seeing THE BIG PICTURE, we can better understand why the possibility of the government manipulating us and blowing up the towers and #7 isn't so shocking and far fetched.

For example, if we look deeply into our Federal Reserve system and how we are all being duped there (to our ruin), then it isn't so surprising that the government would also stoop to other low levels to 'brainwash' all of us. You have to look at everything. Why do you think people like Kevin are being brushed aside as 'nuts' by the mainstream media? They are in on the con-job also.

[Gold9472]

You think that's something this site doesn't already know?

[dnepr]

Could it be true that most readers here think that when they go and sign their name on a promissory note to purchase a house that the bank, in effect, goes to its vault and gets out a big sum of its money and loans it to you?

If you do, then you are sorely mistaken. They don't loan you a dime of their money. I'll explain in more detail later.

Has anyone here read 'Modern Money Mechanics' published by the Fed Reserve, or 'The Creature from Jekyll Island'? If not, you might want to do so.

[Gold9472]

Well do me a favor. Treat everyone here as you would expect to be treated. I don't need anyone putting well placed insults in extremely long winded posts.

[dnepr]

You think that's something this site doesn't already know?

Well, I don't know whether they know it or not. Do you presume to know what everyone reading this list knows or doesn't know? I was just putting it out for those who don't know. I've only scratched the surface.Could it be that you presume they know everything except what you post about?

I don't know who I've insulted. I made one post and was jumped on by one person, and I came back with my defense. If everyone could only post things that were guaranteed not to insult anyone, where would we be? I can go away just as easily as I appeared if what I have to say offends everyone (or someone).

[dnepr]

Let me be direct and to the point. Here is an example, and you tell me if you think anyone should pay spousal support, okay?

Marriage of 9 years. One child from the marriage, 7 years old at time of divorce. Both parents are college degreed and both are professionally employed. Mother always worked before and during the marriage. There are unequal incomes due to difference in career fields and time in that field and husband is 12 years older. Wife earning 42K and husband 100K. Husband is ordered to pay $900 month child support (court wouldn't hear of him having equal custody and visitation).

Now, do you think that father should or should not have to pay spousal support?



Can you express your opinion of the above scenario please? I'm anxious to hear your opinion.

[casseia]

I'm not going to discuss it in this thread, as the site owner has pointed out that it is off topic. Why don't you start a thread with a topic of your choosing?

[PhilosophyGenius]

Regarding Mr. Barrett: I know I'm pointing out the obvious but thank God for him being a university proffesor because of all the people on all sides calling for his resignation since he's seen a "conspiricy theorist wacho indoctrinating our young people". Hell, former govnt officials talking about 9/11 cant even get on a major newspaper.

Regarding the side topic: Start a new thread in the debate chamber, I'd love to join that discussion.

[dnepr]

I'm not going to discuss it in this thread, as the site owner has pointed out that it is off topic. Why don't you start a thread with a topic of your choosing?

Bull! What a cheap way to get out of answering a question. I'm outta here. You guys enjoy this mess.

[casseia]

I'm looking for your new thread, but I can't find it.

Oh, you're leaving?

Buh-bye.

:coffee:

[AuGmENTor]

Well now I gotta change my initial opinion. See man, you were lightly chided for bein off thread topic, and were invited by the person you were debating to start a NEW thread, where it would be appropriate to argue it. You chose to get all self righteous and say, "have fun with this mess". That's the bitches way out. Why not go have it out. You really DID have a point. Like PG I would've LOVED to go in there and tear soem hole in the common beliefs in that topic, as I've been gettin screwed by that system for almost 20 years now. (You might wanna look at havin like five feet taken off your horses legs)

[dnepr]

Personally, my time it to valuable to debate with this person over obvious rights and wrongs. And I didn't hear a single peep from hardly anyone until after I left. Self-righteous? No, don't think so. My father just taught me one thing really well - 'if you play with SH_T, you are bound to get some on you'. I felt 'dirty' just talking with this person. And she had the gaul to call herself a libertarian. That was really humorous. I might start a thread over there when I have time. And, you don't really thing she would have answered the question I put to her even if I had taken the bait and started a new thread over there do you? She wasn't going to answer the question, no matter where it was posed because she couldn't.

[AuGmENTor]

She wasn't going to answer the question, no matter where it was posed because she couldn't.
It didn't seem like she could answer it. All the more reason why we should've gone and handled it. I was in your corner (and posting to show it). At least if we had gone that route we could have shown others what was what. Just like the whole 911 thing. ANti-logic is one of the main tools these people use to cloud the real issue. But it's done now, no point sweating it. You might have done the right thing by NOT engaging for all I know.

[AuGmENTor]

For the record, I realize this last should have been a PM. I didn't think of it until too late. I am also disengaging from this topic while in this thread.

[casseia]

FWIW, I would have not have backed down from answering him, although I guess that would have made him feel "dirty." To me, as a libertarian, this is about business. It's about the freedom to enter into what are essentially business arrangements (marriage as the process of forming a two-person corporation) and the responsibility to exit that corporation in a manner that is fair to both parties.

If you have a problem with this, you should not get married.