Michael Reagan Calls For Those Who Question 9/11 To Be Murdered

June 19, 2008

Listen to Michael Reagan’s comments.

Listen to Mark Dice on Fox News days prior to Reagan’s comments.

Listen to Michael Reagan’s past inflamatory comments.

Talk show host Michael Reagan files copyright infringement claim to prevent audio clip of him calling for the murder of anti-war activist from circulating the Internet

(San Diego, CA) Last week, radio talk show host Michael Reagan called for his listeners to track down and murder anti-war activist, Mark Dice. After Dice downloaded the show’s free podcast and posted the 3 minute and 21 second clip on YouTube, Reagan filed a copyright infringement claim to remove the clip in an attempt to prevent it from circulating.
Friday June 13th Dice received a call from Reagan’s producer demanding the clip be removed, claiming they hold the copyright, and Dice explained that it falls under fair use laws, and the clip is evidence of a crime.

The clip was available at the following URL, until Wednesday June 18th at 3:43pm Pacific Time.  http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=WdJO-kUINMs

Reagan also removed the entire hour of his show from his podcast directory so others can’t download that part of his show and hear his statements.
Hour number two of the June 10th show is now missing from the directory, located at http://www. radioamerica. org/POD_mrp. htm

Audio clips of Reagan’s statements may still be available on other YouTube accounts if someone searches for it. Dice has a copy of the podcast, and will make it available to reporters upon request.

Reagan’s statements were made after he heard that Dice and others were sending letters and DVDs to troops stationed in Iraq which support the idea that U.S. officials allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen on purpose and aided in their execution for political leverage. According to a 2006 Scripts Howard News Service poll, 36% of Americans believe this.

Transcript of Reagan’s statements:

“Excuse me folks, I’m going to say this. We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets.
Reagan continued, “How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.”

The statements were made June 10th and came to Dice’s attention a few days later. Dice immediately filed a report with the FBI, the FCC, and is considering legal action against Reagan.

He is demanding that Reagan be fired immediately. “Calling for the murder of someone because you disagree with their political stance is absolutely unacceptable, un-American, and illegal,” says Dice.

Radio America, which syndicates Reagan’s show, told Dice that no disciplinary action will be taken.

Reagan called Dice and apologized but Dice says, “The Pandora’s box that Reagan has opened can never be closed. The ramifications of his threats and suggestions are enormous and frightening. In an age where a few clicks of a keyboard can result in anyone’s home address being found, his comments open the door for stalking, vandalism, and worse.
“What kind of a country have we become when a radio host with millions of listeners can call for the murder of someone, and not lose their job?” Dice asks. “He didn’t say that he hoped I am killed, or that he thought I should be killed, he specifically said I should be found and shot, and that he would pay for the bullets. This is a violation of California’s penal code 422.”
Dice’s entire YouTube account, over 60 of his videos have been deleted.
His channel was www. YouTube. com/TheResistance
and had thousands of subscribers and his videos had been viewed over a million times.

Dice is the author of a book titled, The Resistance Manifesto, which details how people involved in secret societies hold tremendous power in American politics. He has been featured in major media outlets around the world for various issues ranging from political activism to boycotts and pop culture criticism.

# # #
Mark Dice
Mark(at)TheResistanceManifesto. com
www. MarkDice. com

Radio America, Reagan’s Syndication Company
www. RadioAmerica. org


BBC Responds to Building 7 Conspiracy

February 27, 2007

As of right now, yesterday’s story has nearly 1400 Diggs and 800 comments.  Even though those are insane numbers, the story failed to ever hit Digg’s front page.  Instead, the front page was full of useless distractions to real news, such as Obama and Clinton stories, with around 400 Diggs each as of last night.  This, along with the fact that Google deleted hundreds of uploads of the BBC video yesterday prove that what was uncovered yesterday is important, and is (was) being censored by the mainstream media. 

The clip was on Google Video (now back again here), but was removed within hours of the story breaking. However, hundreds of people had already managed to download the clip and it has gone viral on the Internet and the censors won’t be able to shut the lid this time. A You Tube upload is available here but we fully expect this to be removed soon. You can watch it for the time being at this link and also here. A WMV link is here and a Quicktime here. Bit torrent versions of the file can be found here. An avi version can be found here.

Here is today’s story, which is once again making its way up Digg.com.

The BBC has been forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of “clairvoyance” in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Here is the BBC’s response to the questions about the footage that was unearthed yesterday, with my comments after each statement.

1. We’re not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn’t receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

“We didn’t get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.” If this is true, then how on earth did the BBC report the collapse of Building 7 before it happened? Psychic clairvoyance? Of course they were told that WTC 7 was coming down, just like the firefighters, police, first responders and CNN were told it was coming down. They had to have had a source for making such a claim. The BBC is acting like the naughty little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. No one here is claiming the BBC are “part of the conspiracy,” but their hideous penchant to just repeat what authorities tell them without even a cursory investigation (and with the Building they are telling us has collapsed mockingly filling the background shot of the report), is a damning indictment of their yellow journalism when it comes to 9/11.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I’m quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate – but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did – sourced our reports, used qualifying words like “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

How do “chaos and confusion” explain how the BBC reported on the collapse of a building, a collapse that happened “unexpectedly” according to their Conspiracy Files hit piece documentary, before it happened? In one breath the BBC is claiming they were not told of the impending collapse of the Building and in the next they are telling us that all their information is sourced. Which is it to be? Did the BBC have a source telling them the building was about to collapse or not? If not, how on earth could they pre-empt its fall? Do BBC reporters have access to a time machine? What was the source of this information?

3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember minute-by-minute what she said or did – like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

Trying to make sense of what she was being told? She obviously didn’t make much sense of the fact that the Building she was reporting had collapsed was prominently standing behind her! Unfortunately, for a news organization that prides itself on accuracy and credibility, “she doesn’t remember” just doesn’t cut it as an excuse.

BBC included a screenshot of yesterday’s Prison Planet article in their brief response.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.

We are asked to believe that the world’s premiere news organization has somehow lost all its tapes of perhaps the biggest news event of the past 60 years. This is a copout. Whether they have lost the tapes or not, the BBC simply doesn’t want to verify one hundred per cent their monumental foul-up, because they know it would only increase the exposure of this issue and lead to further questions. What is there to clear up? The reporter is standing in front of the building while saying it has already collapsed! This is a blatant effort to try and placate people making complaints while refusing to admit a monumental faux pas that further undermines the BBC’s credibility in the aftermath of the Conspiracy Files debacle.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error – no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today “so the guy in the studio didn’t quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy… “

So now the BBC are so devoid of answers, they have to enlist the help of some moronic comment on a You Tube blog? Instead of issuing official statements and seeking the advice of legal professionals they produce a cobbled together five paragraph blog and include the testimony of some moron on a You Tube comment board. Pathetic! Answer the question BBC – what was your source for reporting on multiple occasions that Building 7 had collapsed before it had collapsed, and identify the source that enabled the anchorman to comment that the building had collapsed due to it being weakened, an explanation still unanswered by NIST five and a half years later.

If you had reported the collapse of the twin towers before it happened would that have been just an error too? This “error” translated as $800 million plus in insurance bounty for Larry Silverstein – I’m sure Industrial Risk Insurers would be interested to know the source of your “error.” In addition, two separate sources reported that Secret Service Agent Craig Miller died as a result of the collapse of Building 7. Do you think he would have been interested in the “error” that led to your correspondent reporting the building’s downfall in advance?

More WTC7 Controversy

February 26, 2007

You can Digg this story here.

(Click to watch)

An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

This amazing clip is currently carried on Google Video and you can watch it above but many expect it to be removed shortly (it already has been once today). We are attempting to download an original copy from the source.

The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse came as a result of fire damage weakening the building’s structure.

Click here to watch the video.

As have been documented before, firefighters, police and first responders were all told to get back from the building because it was about to be brought down.

More WTC7 Video and Information:

Video broadcast by CBS – 1.4MB – mpeg
This 36 second video shows Building 7 from an elevated vantage point to the distant northeast.

Video from an NBC news camera – 1.5MB – mpeg
This 9 second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point about mile to the northeast on West Broadway.

Video broadcast on CBS – 1.7MB – mpeg
This 9.6 second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point only about 1000 feet to the north.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the Twin Towers & #7 was interviewed on a special that aired on PBS, and within it, he says that just before the collapse he gave the order to, “pull it”. Since this, Silverstein has said he meant to pull the firefighters, but no firefighters were in or near the building. Everyone had been evacuated several hours before the collapse, and no firefighters were engaged on fighting the internal fires.

“Pull it” was used as a demolition term by the teams at Ground Zero however when they actually did a controlled demolition to building #6. Here’s some video and links on this for more details:

Building #7’s tenants included the Department of Defense, IRS, CIA, Securities and Exchange Commission (which investigate things like insider trading, which were at massive levels just days before 9/11), and more. WTC7 was possibly the place the detonators within the Twin Towers were set off from, and the detonation of the building #7 got rid of all that evidence forever, not to mention all the insider trading that had been done on the airline stocks just a day or two before 9/11. Like the Twin Towers, most of the debris from the crime scene that was Ground Zero was shipped to China and India and melted down.

After looking at this summary of what happened to that building, do you still believe it suddenly crumbled to the ground in a nice pile due to some fires from debris? If you do, think about this, have you ever seen the collapse of #7 on the news? Whenever any news channel talks about 9/11, they mostly focus on the Twin Towers, with some mention of the Pentagon. Not only are the images of the Twin Towers coming down a lot more powerful that anything else, they are the least obvious flaws in the official 9/11 story at first glance. Once again I ask, have you ever seen footage of WTC#7 on TV since the day it initially fell? I would bet you haven’t, and there is a very good reason you haven’t, it’s an obvious controlled demolition.

Bush Refuses To Outlaw Enforced Disappearances

February 8, 2007

New York IFP – 2.7.07

US will not sign a global treaty that outlaws enforced disappearances and allows victims’ families the right to learn the truth about what happened after the pact, after Bush administration rejected the UN sponsored treaty as the authorities would have to account for thousands of detainees who were abducted, detained and forcibly disappeared by the CIA.

The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances contains an absolute prohibition on the practice and calls on all States Parties to ensure that it is an offence under their domestic laws.

Significantly, it deems any widespread or systematic practice of enforced disappearances to be a crime against humanity.

The advocacy group American Civil Liberties Union expressed disappointment and urged Congress to examine the government’s policies and practices that would have conflicted with the agreement and to shut down permanently all secret detention programs and facilities and end the practice of illegal kidnapping.

“Our government’s practice of kidnapping people off the streets and sending them to secret detention cells violates due process and core American values,” Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, said. “This is the behavior we expect of repressive regimes and not from our government. The accord sought to bring an end to forced disappearances, used by dictatorships to secretly detain, arrest or kidnap individuals and then deny it occurred.”

In a speech to today’s ceremony in Paris marking the opening for formal signatures, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said the task now is to make sure the treaty is implemented as soon as possible.

“Far from being a tragic relic of past ‘dirty wars,’ this shameful practice still persists in all continents,” Ms. Arbour said. “This treaty closes a glaring gap in international human rights law by making explicit the prohibition on disappearances.”

The treaty was adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December, and sixty countries have so far signed it.

The convention affirms the right of victims – including families of those abducted – to know the truth about the circumstances of an enforced disappearance and the fate of the disappeared person and to claim reparation for the harm inflicted to them.

The treaty’s monitoring body will be entitled to receive requests for urgent action on individual cases, to conduct visits with the agreement of States parties concerned, and, in the situation of suspected widespread or systematic cases being practised in the territory under the jurisdiction of a State party, to urgently bring the matter before the General Assembly.

“We urge Congress to shine a bright light on our government’s use secret detention and rendition,” Fredrickson said. “The Bush administration should stop stonewalling congressional efforts to examine these abuses of basic due process and human rights. Congress must permanently shut down these secret programs and facilities.”

You can “Digg” this story here

Bush Speech Terror Claim Debunked A Year Ago

January 24, 2007

Bush Speech Terror Claim Debunked A Year Ago
Just one of many State of the Union lies, following in the tradition of the 2003 yellowcake fraud, Bush commits an impeachable offense by knowingly lying to the American people

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, January 24, 2007

A claim made by President Bush in his State of the Union speech last night, that an attack on an L.A. skyscraper had been averted, was universally debunked as a hoax by Mayors, CIA, FBI and NSA personnel and counter-terror experts nearly a year ago when it first surfaced. By regurgitating this fraud, Bush has committed an impeachable offense by knowingly lying to the American people.

Bush’s address was punctuated with deception, horse hockey and propagandistic drivel throughout, again reinforcing a characteristic that was born in 2003 when Bush told the nation that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Niger, a claim the CIA had informed the administration was based on falsified documents ten months before it was included in the speech.

Amidst the cacophony of bullshit came this belter.

“We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast.”

According to numerous public officials, terror experts and intelligence personnel, this is simply not true.

Bush’s is referring to an announcement made on February 9th last year in which he made the claim that an Al-Qaeda plan to fly a plane into the LA Library Tower was thwarted in 2002. The release of the news that the plot had been prevented by means of tapping terrorist suspect’s phones was politically timed to coincide with the start of legal hearings on the Bush administration’s domestic eavesdropping program.

Fox “News,” the White House’s PR mouthpiece, immediately began showing footage from the movie Independence Day, in which the famous tower is destroyed.

Hours after the announcement, the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, went public with comments of his absolute bewilderment concerning the alleged plot.

“I’m amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels,” the mayor said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I don’t expect a call from the president — but somebody.”

The day after the announcement, twenty three separate intelligence experts, all with either CIA, FBI, NSA or military credentials, both in and out of service, angrily disputed Bush’s remarks about the alleged L.A. plot, with one going as far as saying that the President was “full of shit.”

Another described the claims as “worthless intel that was discarded long ago.”

A New York Times story cited “several counter-terrorism officials” as saying that “the plot never progressed past the planning stages…. ‘To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,’ said one senior FBI official.”

The New York Daily News cited another senior counterterrorism official who said: “There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage.”

The Washington Post also dismissed the alleged plot as nothing more than talk, noting that no actual attack plan had been thwarted.

The LA attack plot arose from the same discredited informant who said that Washington and New York financial institutions were being targeted, which led the White House to raise the terror alert right as the 2004 election campaign was beginning.

“The President has cheapened the entire intelligence community by dragging us into his fantasy world,” said a veteran field operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. “He is basing this absurd claim on the same discredited informant who told us Al Qaeda would attack selected financial institutions in New York and Washington.”

In June 2004 John Pistole, the FBI’s counterterrorism director, said he was “not sure what [the CIA] was referring to,” after a CIA counterterrorism official who testified under the alias “Ted Davis” said that the US had prevented aviation attacks against the east and west coast.

Questions were raised at the White House press briefing as to the noticeably convenient announcement of a four year old alleged foiled plot in relation to the furore about domestic spying.

“But is it just a coincidence? You had February 6th circled on the calendar for the hearings, the NSA hearings. Is it just a pure coincidence that this comes out today?” asked one journalist.

“Scott, I wanted to just ask a follow-up about the LA plot. Is there something missing from this story, a practical application, a few facts? Because if you want to commandeer a plane and fly it into a tower, if you used shoe bombs, wouldn’t you blow off the cockpit? Or is there something missing from this story?” asked another.

There was indeed a great deal missing from this story in that it was nothing more than hot air manufactured by the Bush administration at the most politically expedient time, a psychological fraud unleashed on the public in order to silence critics of the illegal NSA surveillance spying program.

Bush has again committed the impeachable offense of knowingly lying to the American people in regurgitating the debunked plot in last night’s State of the Union address.

You’ve Got Mail!

January 8, 2007

First wiretapping, now letter-opening?

Can the feds read your mail without a warrant? You wouldn’t think so, but that’s not how the president sees it.

Los Angeles Times – January 8, 2007

The Bush administration seems determined to raise the specter of surveillance over every means of communication within the United States. Not content to monitor selected phone calls and e-mails in secret, it recently hinted that letters and packages may be opened without a search warrant too.

The disclosure came in yet another presidential “signing statement,” in which President Bush gives his opinion about the legislation on his desk. This one accompanied the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act — a bill to modernize how the Postal Service sets rates, promotes competition with private carriers and shores up funding for its employee retirement benefits.

In his statement, Bush seemed to assert a broader right to do warrantless mail searches than postal regulations allow. The executive branch, he said, would interpret the section on mail privacy “in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances … and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.”

Befuddled, some privacy advocates started asking why the White House felt compelled to assert these surveillance powers when the issue wasn’t even on the table. Was Bush trying to provide cover for another secret monitoring program? Was he laying the groundwork for a new one? Was he prodding balky government agents into being more aggressive on mail searches?

Suspicions have undoubtedly been heightened because of the administration’s aggressive use of signing statements to defend executive-branch prerogatives, even when they’re not at issue. By late July, Bush had used them to challenge more than 800 provisions of bills he signed into law. All of his predecessors combined had challenged fewer than 600 provisions in that manner.

The White House tried to allay fears last week about mail snooping. “There is nothing new here,” said spokesman Tony Snow. The statement, he said, is “merely a statement of present law and present authorities granted to the president.”

On the surface, he’s right. The courts have allowed searches without a warrant under “exigent circumstances,” and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits them in emergencies when the targets are foreign agents or terrorists.

Still, it’s hard not to be suspicious of the president’s position on mail privacy, given the administration’s record on the issue of domestic surveillance. In the name of the “war on terror,” it has taken an unusually expansive view of government power and a correspondingly restrictive view of individual privacy rights. It also has sought to redefine what constitutes a “reasonable” search, and has often done so unilaterally and in secret.

The administration may indeed be up to nothing new when it comes to mail — and that’s not the least bit comforting.

It’s nice to think about how far we’ve gone in just the past couple years.  Back in 2005, they claimed they weren’t listening in on anyone’s call…then they admitted they were, but just people who were having conversations with people from “Al-Qaeda”.  Then it was revealed by the telecoms that Homeland Security have actually taken over entire floors within the companies in order to listen in on every phone call made in the USA.  Now it’s just everything and everybody. 

At least they have finally admitted it after being caught in every lie they have told.  That is the first step in stopping an eventual police state, exposing the current and past lies of a Government.

Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein

January 4, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor – January 3rd) – Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.

The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein’s regime was launched in March 2003. At least 3,000 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 22,500 troops have been wounded in action.

There has been no official inquiry on the actual number of Iraqi casualties. A volunteer group of British and U.S. academics and researchers—known as Iraq Body Count (IBC)—estimates that more than 52,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the military intervention. (Here’s a CNN International report, however, that talks about how 650,000+ have been killed).

In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.

The survey was conducted in November 2006, before the publication of the Iraq Study Group’s findings in the United States, and Hussein’s execution for crimes against humanity. Late last month, Al-Maliki called on the “followers of the ousted regime” to “reconsider their stance as the door is still open to anyone who has no innocent blood on his hands to help in rebuilding Iraq.”

Polling Data

Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?

Better today


Better before


Not sure


Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center
Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.