This video contains footage depicting the moment of death for seven American civilians on board a 747 cargo plane, at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The crash occurred April 29, 2013.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Bagram Airfield Crash (VIDEO)
((( VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED )))
This video contains footage depicting the moment of death for seven American civilians on board a 747 cargo plane, at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The crash occurred April 29, 2013.
This video contains footage depicting the moment of death for seven American civilians on board a 747 cargo plane, at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The crash occurred April 29, 2013.
Boston Bombing Witness Says FBI Deleted His Crime Scene Photos
Why would the FBI destroy evidence before they had even named a suspect?
“A day and a half later an FBI guy comes over and says “Give me your camera”. I says I got 2000 family photos on here. “Give me your camera” and I said OK. And he went through it, he went to the pictures I had just took (sic) of the crime scene which was right outside the hotel where the bomb, bomb one and bomb two (refers to the map he drew) went off, and he went and deleted everyone of them. He said “You can have all the rest”. I got pictures of 25 ambulances lined up all ready to go. Guardsman, policemen, police cruisers all over the place.”You might also enjoy come commentary at: American Everyman
Boston Bombers May Not Be Guilty of Shooting Transit Cop
As the story against the brothers accused of the Boston Bombing continues to disintegrate, we learn that the officer they are accused of seriously wounding may have actually been hit by friendly-fire. Of course, officials are still laying the ultimate blame on the suspects, claiming that they were shooting at police, but this actually has not been proven. Keep in mind that police opened fire on suspect #2 while he was in the boat, even though he was unarmed.
Authorities are investigating whether an MBTA Transit Police officer wounded during the shoot-out with the Boston Marathon bombing suspects was hit by friendly fire, State Police spokesman David Procopio confirmed Thursday.
Richard Donohue Jr., 33, was struck in the leg by a bullet, which authorities said remained embedded there. He was listed in serious but stable condition Thursday night at Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge.
Read more at: Boston Globe
Firing With Intent: Are American Cops Out of Control?
The fact that Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not armed when police opened fire on him is yet another disturbing revelation in how that case has been handled. Not that anyone is going to have much sympathy for an alleged terrorist of course, but that is still not the way these things are supposed to be done in a civilized society. Not to mention the fact that he needed to be taken alive, at all cost, to be interrogated. At the time, no one knew if there was a larger plot, more bombs ready to go off, etc.
Boston Bombing Suspect Was Not Armed
For some perspective here, let's think about a few other modern countries. In Britain, police don't even carry guns. Or what about Germany? A country that has, historically, not been averse to violence or authoritarianism. Like just about any modern nation, Germany also has plenty of violent crime on their streets as well. But as you watch the following clip, keep an interesting little fact in mind. In 2011, across the entire country of Germany, police only fired a total of 85 bullets.
While some might argue that police don't have to be as aggressive in places like England, because of severe restrictions on gun ownership, keep in mind, again, that the suspect here was not armed. Also keep in mind that in places like Switzerland, crime is extremely low even when compared to other European nations, yet they have the third highest per-capita gun ownership in the world.
While some have argued that what we saw happen out in Boston was not proof that we live in a police-state, because it "doesn't happen every day" those people are making several critical flaws in their thinking.
First, when we see police going door to door storming houses without warrants and ripping people from their homes, it really doesn't make any difference at all how often it happens. It never should have happened at all. That fact that it has happened once, means that it can happen again at any time. We have crossed that line now, into an era where the Constitution is no longer the law of the land, but rather an arbitrary guideline which can be violated for whatever reason the government chooses. This is the very thing our forefathers warned us about, and precisely what the Constitution was put in place to prevent.
Families Ripped From Homes By Police In Watertown
Over the course of this one terror event alone, we have seen police completely toss aside the 4th Amendment with a warrantless search and seizure of the homes of an entire community in the name of "public safety." Yet police had no regard for public safety, or justice and due process for that matter, when they tried to kill an unarmed teenager. If he is in fact guilty of any involvement at all, he may have had information critical to public safety, such as the locations of undetonated bombs, details of a larger plot, names of unidentified accomplices planning further attacks, and so forth.
Police Have No Duty to Protect You
To those of us with an understanding of the Constitution, of history, and a deep appreciation for liberty it is outright sickening that the public discourse is focused on when and where the abridgements of liberty should be allowed, rather than holding the police accountable for these depraved violations. Held accountable in the same manner perhaps, and to the same standard that our Founding Fathers held against British tyrants. All the King's men, those agents of tyranny, were shot and driven into the sea. Every American soldier who has ever fought and shed blood in the name of the United States since then, has done so to ensure that we would never again see tyranny in these lands. They fought and died to protect, to guarantee that we, the people would never again be subject to the very crimes being perpetrated against the people today by our own government.
But what we saw in Boston is not isolated incident either. Which brings us to our second flaw in the reasoning of those who might say that this event was unprecedented, and therefore somehow excusable. Those who might say "it doesn't happen every day" are either open apologists for tyranny, or plainly ignorant of the ongoing abuses of public trust by authorities in this country.
Folks in poor inner-city communities will tell you that this sort of thing can happen whenever a cop is killed. That police will swarm in, put a neighborhood on lock-down, and go door-to-door searching homes without a warrant. These sorts of details never make it to the mainstream media though, mostly because no one really cares what happens to poor people and no one really believes what they have to say. It's only shocking today because such action happened in a quiet suburb. News of a cop being killed doesn't garner the same intense national media coverage as a terrorist bombing either.
It doesn't just take a cop getting killed though, for the police to practice 4th Amendment violations. This video shows that it is not only a daily occurrence on the streets of New York (and almost certainly most US cities) but that these violations are policy.
Also see: Police State of Mind
America has even gone so far to establish an entire agency specifically dedicated to violating the 4th Amendment. The TSA are mostly known for their oppressive airport security measures, but have also been deployed at bus stations, on trains, and we should expect to see their influence grow in the coming years.
Strip-Searching and Terrorizing Children
Submit to Sexual Degradation at the Hands of Overlords
TSA Memo is Bombshell Invalidation of Airport Security
From this information we see that violating the Constitution is everyday business for authorities, but that still doesn't quite evoke the same Orwellian imagery as we saw with armored vehicles, paramilitary troops swarming over Watertown, MA. But again, this too is actually an everyday occurence, even if it is not concentrated in a single neighborhood.
Disturbing Results of SWAT Transparency Bill
In that link you will see that the police have been drastically militarized in the past few decades. In Maryland alone, military-grade force was deployed 4.5 time per day in 2009. The majority of these instances where state-sanctioned paramilitary violence was brought to bear, non-violent citizens were the target, many of them simply accused of misdemeanor offenses.
Here are just a few more examples among the thousands of cases, where SWAT raids went disastrously wrong:
SWAT Get Medals After Shooting At Innocent Family in Botched Raid
Man Shot Dead By Home Invaders
SWAT Kill Marine Veteran In Front of His Family
The only way to prevent these tragedies, the only way to preserve liberty and justice, is to hold the police accountable when things go wrong, intentionally or not. The agents of law-enforcement must be held accountable when they stray from the law, to a higher standard even than a common citizen would be, not to the lesser standard practiced today. Indeed as we have just seen, the police are even given medals for shooting at innocent families instead of being held accountable. Yet if you were to make similar mistake, it is a near certainty that you would be shown no leniency by any court.
Take the case of Tracy Ingle for example. This man was shot five times by police, in the middle of the night, in his own bed, after they raided his home with a no-knock warrant. Not realizing that the intruders were police, he made the tragic mistake of pointing a non-functioning firearm at them in an attempt to scare off what he thought were robbers. He was lucky to survive, and yet he has been sent to prison for 18 years, for simply pointing a broken gun at police.
Tracy Ingle - 18 Years In Prison
In this case, police refused to identify themselves while pounding at the wrong door, but when an innocent man answered with a legally owned gun in his hand, he was shot dead in front of his girlfriend.
Cops Deny Negligence After Killing Innocent Man in His Home
The public is told time and time again that these terrible events are "isolated" incidents, even regrettable tragedies, but that overall the police are still there to protect and serve the community.
Police Misconduct Daily Report
We are also promised that if we happen to be intentionally victimized by one of these "bad apples" who "sometimes" make it into the police ranks, that the law will stand behind us, and that abuse of the public trust will not be tolerated. Yet the reality is quite the opposite of what the propaganda leads the majority of blissfully unaware Americans to believe.
Most Americans believe that it they could never be the victim of police violence. That so long as they don't do anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
Police In Florida Torture Tourist To Death, No One Held Accountable
And again, they have misplaced faith that justice would be served if they did happen to be victimized by a bad cop. So let's take a look at that notion now. What happens if you try to file a complaint against a police officer?
Also see: D.A.'s Office Complicit In Brutality Coverup
What happens if we try to take allegations of police corruption to our elected representatives?
Police-state dictatorship apparent as arrest is made in violation of Mayor's orders and First Amendment
What happens when we try to use freedom of speech, freedom of the press to bring the news of police abuse directly to the people?
Freedom of Press Now a Felony In America
Finally, if by some long-shot chance a police officer is finally made to be held accountable in a court of law, can we expect real accountability for betrayal of public trust and openly criminal acts?
In this case, a police officer faced a 35-count indictment alleging that he used cocaine, protected drug dealers, revealed details of undercover operations, and even threatened to murder a suspect being held in the department's jail in order to protect his cocaine suppliers. During the investigation the officer was suspended, but then reinstated to work another 4 months before he finally resigned, a move which guaranteed his full pension.
Cocaine Cop Gets 3 1/2 Years
In this case, a State Police Captain admitted in open court that he began sexually molesting his step-daughter when she was just six years old. As part of a plea arrangement, he did not have to admit relations with two other daughters. Even with that agreement he faced 20 years in prison, but the judge suspended the sentence and ordered 2 years of supervised probation.
Child Molester Cop Gets No Prison Time
And finally, we can leave off here with an ironic, yet all too realistic example of the nature of police in America today.
Cop Made Chief After Negligent Homicide Conviction
For more information on police abuse of authority, please visit the Police-State tab at Station.6.Underground, and CopBlock.org
This composition created in cooperation with November-Yankee and Station.6.Underground
Boston Bombing Suspect Was Not Armed
For some perspective here, let's think about a few other modern countries. In Britain, police don't even carry guns. Or what about Germany? A country that has, historically, not been averse to violence or authoritarianism. Like just about any modern nation, Germany also has plenty of violent crime on their streets as well. But as you watch the following clip, keep an interesting little fact in mind. In 2011, across the entire country of Germany, police only fired a total of 85 bullets.
While some might argue that police don't have to be as aggressive in places like England, because of severe restrictions on gun ownership, keep in mind, again, that the suspect here was not armed. Also keep in mind that in places like Switzerland, crime is extremely low even when compared to other European nations, yet they have the third highest per-capita gun ownership in the world.
While some have argued that what we saw happen out in Boston was not proof that we live in a police-state, because it "doesn't happen every day" those people are making several critical flaws in their thinking.
First, when we see police going door to door storming houses without warrants and ripping people from their homes, it really doesn't make any difference at all how often it happens. It never should have happened at all. That fact that it has happened once, means that it can happen again at any time. We have crossed that line now, into an era where the Constitution is no longer the law of the land, but rather an arbitrary guideline which can be violated for whatever reason the government chooses. This is the very thing our forefathers warned us about, and precisely what the Constitution was put in place to prevent.
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks." -Samuel Adams
Families Ripped From Homes By Police In Watertown
Over the course of this one terror event alone, we have seen police completely toss aside the 4th Amendment with a warrantless search and seizure of the homes of an entire community in the name of "public safety." Yet police had no regard for public safety, or justice and due process for that matter, when they tried to kill an unarmed teenager. If he is in fact guilty of any involvement at all, he may have had information critical to public safety, such as the locations of undetonated bombs, details of a larger plot, names of unidentified accomplices planning further attacks, and so forth.
Police Have No Duty to Protect You
To those of us with an understanding of the Constitution, of history, and a deep appreciation for liberty it is outright sickening that the public discourse is focused on when and where the abridgements of liberty should be allowed, rather than holding the police accountable for these depraved violations. Held accountable in the same manner perhaps, and to the same standard that our Founding Fathers held against British tyrants. All the King's men, those agents of tyranny, were shot and driven into the sea. Every American soldier who has ever fought and shed blood in the name of the United States since then, has done so to ensure that we would never again see tyranny in these lands. They fought and died to protect, to guarantee that we, the people would never again be subject to the very crimes being perpetrated against the people today by our own government.
But what we saw in Boston is not isolated incident either. Which brings us to our second flaw in the reasoning of those who might say that this event was unprecedented, and therefore somehow excusable. Those who might say "it doesn't happen every day" are either open apologists for tyranny, or plainly ignorant of the ongoing abuses of public trust by authorities in this country.
Folks in poor inner-city communities will tell you that this sort of thing can happen whenever a cop is killed. That police will swarm in, put a neighborhood on lock-down, and go door-to-door searching homes without a warrant. These sorts of details never make it to the mainstream media though, mostly because no one really cares what happens to poor people and no one really believes what they have to say. It's only shocking today because such action happened in a quiet suburb. News of a cop being killed doesn't garner the same intense national media coverage as a terrorist bombing either.
It doesn't just take a cop getting killed though, for the police to practice 4th Amendment violations. This video shows that it is not only a daily occurrence on the streets of New York (and almost certainly most US cities) but that these violations are policy.
Also see: Police State of Mind
America has even gone so far to establish an entire agency specifically dedicated to violating the 4th Amendment. The TSA are mostly known for their oppressive airport security measures, but have also been deployed at bus stations, on trains, and we should expect to see their influence grow in the coming years.Strip-Searching and Terrorizing Children
Submit to Sexual Degradation at the Hands of Overlords
TSA Memo is Bombshell Invalidation of Airport Security
From this information we see that violating the Constitution is everyday business for authorities, but that still doesn't quite evoke the same Orwellian imagery as we saw with armored vehicles, paramilitary troops swarming over Watertown, MA. But again, this too is actually an everyday occurence, even if it is not concentrated in a single neighborhood.
Disturbing Results of SWAT Transparency Bill
In that link you will see that the police have been drastically militarized in the past few decades. In Maryland alone, military-grade force was deployed 4.5 time per day in 2009. The majority of these instances where state-sanctioned paramilitary violence was brought to bear, non-violent citizens were the target, many of them simply accused of misdemeanor offenses.
Here are just a few more examples among the thousands of cases, where SWAT raids went disastrously wrong:
SWAT Get Medals After Shooting At Innocent Family in Botched Raid
Man Shot Dead By Home Invaders
SWAT Kill Marine Veteran In Front of His Family
The only way to prevent these tragedies, the only way to preserve liberty and justice, is to hold the police accountable when things go wrong, intentionally or not. The agents of law-enforcement must be held accountable when they stray from the law, to a higher standard even than a common citizen would be, not to the lesser standard practiced today. Indeed as we have just seen, the police are even given medals for shooting at innocent families instead of being held accountable. Yet if you were to make similar mistake, it is a near certainty that you would be shown no leniency by any court.
Take the case of Tracy Ingle for example. This man was shot five times by police, in the middle of the night, in his own bed, after they raided his home with a no-knock warrant. Not realizing that the intruders were police, he made the tragic mistake of pointing a non-functioning firearm at them in an attempt to scare off what he thought were robbers. He was lucky to survive, and yet he has been sent to prison for 18 years, for simply pointing a broken gun at police.
Tracy Ingle - 18 Years In Prison
In this case, police refused to identify themselves while pounding at the wrong door, but when an innocent man answered with a legally owned gun in his hand, he was shot dead in front of his girlfriend.
Cops Deny Negligence After Killing Innocent Man in His Home
The public is told time and time again that these terrible events are "isolated" incidents, even regrettable tragedies, but that overall the police are still there to protect and serve the community.
Police Misconduct Daily Report
We are also promised that if we happen to be intentionally victimized by one of these "bad apples" who "sometimes" make it into the police ranks, that the law will stand behind us, and that abuse of the public trust will not be tolerated. Yet the reality is quite the opposite of what the propaganda leads the majority of blissfully unaware Americans to believe.
Most Americans believe that it they could never be the victim of police violence. That so long as they don't do anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
Police In Florida Torture Tourist To Death, No One Held Accountable
And again, they have misplaced faith that justice would be served if they did happen to be victimized by a bad cop. So let's take a look at that notion now. What happens if you try to file a complaint against a police officer?
Also see: D.A.'s Office Complicit In Brutality Coverup
What happens if we try to take allegations of police corruption to our elected representatives?
Police-state dictatorship apparent as arrest is made in violation of Mayor's orders and First Amendment
What happens when we try to use freedom of speech, freedom of the press to bring the news of police abuse directly to the people?
Freedom of Press Now a Felony In America
Finally, if by some long-shot chance a police officer is finally made to be held accountable in a court of law, can we expect real accountability for betrayal of public trust and openly criminal acts?
In this case, a police officer faced a 35-count indictment alleging that he used cocaine, protected drug dealers, revealed details of undercover operations, and even threatened to murder a suspect being held in the department's jail in order to protect his cocaine suppliers. During the investigation the officer was suspended, but then reinstated to work another 4 months before he finally resigned, a move which guaranteed his full pension.
Cocaine Cop Gets 3 1/2 Years
In this case, a State Police Captain admitted in open court that he began sexually molesting his step-daughter when she was just six years old. As part of a plea arrangement, he did not have to admit relations with two other daughters. Even with that agreement he faced 20 years in prison, but the judge suspended the sentence and ordered 2 years of supervised probation.
Child Molester Cop Gets No Prison Time
And finally, we can leave off here with an ironic, yet all too realistic example of the nature of police in America today.
Cop Made Chief After Negligent Homicide Conviction
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience” -Albert Camus
For more information on police abuse of authority, please visit the Police-State tab at Station.6.Underground, and CopBlock.org
This composition created in cooperation with November-Yankee and Station.6.Underground
Disturbing Results of SWAT Transparency Bill
4.5 SWAT Raids Per Day
Maryland's SWAT transparency bill produces its first disturbing results
As a result of this colossal yet not-unprecedented screw-up, plus Calvo's notoriety and persistence, last year Maryland became the first state in the country to make every one of its police departments issue a report on how often and for what purpose they use their SWAT teams. The first reports from the legislation are in, and the results are disturbing.
Over the last six months of 2009, SWAT teams were deployed 804 times in the state of Maryland, or about 4.5 times per day. In Prince George's County alone, with its 850,000 residents, a SWAT team was deployed about once per day. According to a Baltimore Sun analysis, 94 percent of the state's SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended.
Worse even than those dreary numbers is the fact that more than half of the county’s SWAT deployments were for misdemeanors and nonserious felonies. That means more than 100 times last year Prince George’s County brought state-sanctioned violence to confront people suspected of nonviolent crimes. And that's just one county in Maryland. These outrageous numbers should provide a long-overdue wake-up call to public officials about how far the pendulum has swung toward institutionalized police brutality against its citizenry, usually in the name of the drug war.
But that’s unlikely to happen, at least in Prince George's County. To this day, Sheriff Michael Jackson insists his officers did nothing wrong in the Calvo raid—not the killing of the dogs, not neglecting to conduct any corroborating investigation to be sure they had the correct house, not failing to notify the Berwyn Heights police chief of the raid, not the repeated and documented instances of Jackson’s deputies playing fast and loose with the truth.
Jackson, who's now running for county executive, is incapable of shame. He has tried to block Calvo's efforts to access information about the raid at every turn. Last week, Prince George's County Circuit Judge Arthur M. Ahalt ruled that Calvo's civil rights suit against the county can go forward. But Jackson has been fighting to delay the discovery process in that suit until federal authorities complete their own investigation into the raid. That would likely (and conveniently) prevent Prince George's County voters from learning any embarrassing details about the raid until after the election.
But there is some good news to report here, too. The Maryland state law, as noted, is the first of its kind in the country, and will hopefully serve as a model for other states in adding some much-needed transparency to the widespread use and abuse of SWAT teams. And some Maryland legislators want to go even further. State Sen. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George's), for example, wants to require a judge's signature before police can deploy a SWAT team. Muse has sponsored another bill that would ban the use of SWAT teams for misdemeanor offenses. The latter seems like a no-brainer, but it's already facing strong opposition from law enforcement interests. Police groups opposed the transparency bill, too.
Beyond policy changes, the Calvo raid also seems to have also sparked media and public interest in how SWAT teams are deployed in Maryland. The use of these paramilitary police units has increased dramatically over the last 30 years, by 1,000 percent or more, resulting in the drastic militarization of police. It's a trend that seems to have escaped much media and public notice, let alone informed debate about policies and oversight procedures. But since the Calvo raid in 2008, Maryland newspapers, TV news crews, activists, and bloggers have been documenting mistaken, botched, or disproportionately aggressive raids across the state.
Lawmakers tend to be wary of questioning law enforcement officials, particularly when it comes to policing tactics. They shouldn't be. If anything, the public employees who are entrusted with the power to use force, including lethal force, deserve the most scrutiny. It's unfortunate that it took a violent raid on a fellow public official for Maryland's policymakers to finally take notice of tactics that have been used on Maryland citizens for decades now. But at least these issues are finally on the table.
Lawmakers in other states should take notice. It's time to have a national discussion on the wisdom of sending phalanxes of cops dressed like soldiers into private homes in search of nonviolent and consensual crimes.
BONUS VIDEO:
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Homeland Security Spending Set to Double Roosevelt's 'New Deal'
Here is another example of the great American hypocrisy.
Right-wing Conservatives will often speak with great disdain toward the "socialist" New Deal policies of the FDR administration, while pretending to be the champions of smaller government and spending cuts. In reality though, the political right are every much as guilty, if not more so, of expanding government and government spending.
Left-wing spending usually consists of programs targeted to benefit society in general, to benefit the people. The "three R's" of the New Deal were relief, reform, and recovery. Today we would see that as relief, or welfare assistance, for the the poor and the unemployed who are paying the most difficult price for the mismanagement of our economy. Reform would mean government intrusion into the market place, with regulations meant to protect the public from scheming privateers and greedy corporations, ostensibly in order to make sure that the economy won't falter again in the future. Recovery could mean a massive public works program, that might put huge numbers of Americans back to work, while at the same time restoring and upgrading our crumbling, outdated infrastructure.
The caveat to left-wing ideology is that it creates a reliance on government. Too much reliance on government then translates to too much government control over our lives, and the potential for infringements against liberty. A person who relies on the government for a job, or for the most basic necessities is less likely to challenge the government when it comes to bad policies, assaults on liberty, or even outright atrocities. So left-wing politics could be seen as the passive route to totalitarianism, or total government control of our lives.
On the other hand, the political right have taken a much more direct route, particularly in the post 9/11 era. There is far less subtlety in their approach to controlling the population. Even in the years before 9/11 we saw a huge expansion of our prison system, and of course the police forces to fill those prisons. Today, America keeps more people in prison than Communist China, and they have nearly five-times the population. Americans make up 5% of the world population, but a full 25% of the people who are in prison on this planet, are in an American prison. Since 9/11, we have seen an aggressive curtailment of Constitutional liberty and the outright militarization of the police. And of course, we have seen the creation of a new armed force, the paramilitary Department of Homeland Security.
Generally speaking it is the political right who support a "get tough on crime" approach, and thereby essentially write the police a blank check to do as they please. It was also the political right who established the agencies and the laws that would become an unprecedented move to "secure" our nation. It was President George HW Bush that signed the Constitution-shredding Patriot Act and who established the Department of Homeland Security.
So while FDR's New Deal was meant to put people to work building needed roads, bridges and dams, the right-wing utopia has turned out to be a total police-state where the government spies on it's own citizens without so much as a warrant and rolls through the streets as an occupying army. Rather than investing in economic recovery, the taxpayers are now funding their own imprisonment, sometimes literally in their own homes. This was never clearer than what we have just seen take place in Boston, where in the guise of public safety, quasi-police forces put entire neighborhoods on lockdown before sending heavily armed government agents on a door-to-door warrantless home-invasion rampage ripping families out of their houses with no place to go but the streets. This is not smaller government at all, this is how to turn a nation into a prison. This is a darker, more sinister expanded government than the New Deal could have ever turned out to be, and will soon cost the taxpayers twice as much in adjusted dollars.
Right-wing Conservatives will often speak with great disdain toward the "socialist" New Deal policies of the FDR administration, while pretending to be the champions of smaller government and spending cuts. In reality though, the political right are every much as guilty, if not more so, of expanding government and government spending.
Left-wing spending usually consists of programs targeted to benefit society in general, to benefit the people. The "three R's" of the New Deal were relief, reform, and recovery. Today we would see that as relief, or welfare assistance, for the the poor and the unemployed who are paying the most difficult price for the mismanagement of our economy. Reform would mean government intrusion into the market place, with regulations meant to protect the public from scheming privateers and greedy corporations, ostensibly in order to make sure that the economy won't falter again in the future. Recovery could mean a massive public works program, that might put huge numbers of Americans back to work, while at the same time restoring and upgrading our crumbling, outdated infrastructure.
The caveat to left-wing ideology is that it creates a reliance on government. Too much reliance on government then translates to too much government control over our lives, and the potential for infringements against liberty. A person who relies on the government for a job, or for the most basic necessities is less likely to challenge the government when it comes to bad policies, assaults on liberty, or even outright atrocities. So left-wing politics could be seen as the passive route to totalitarianism, or total government control of our lives.
On the other hand, the political right have taken a much more direct route, particularly in the post 9/11 era. There is far less subtlety in their approach to controlling the population. Even in the years before 9/11 we saw a huge expansion of our prison system, and of course the police forces to fill those prisons. Today, America keeps more people in prison than Communist China, and they have nearly five-times the population. Americans make up 5% of the world population, but a full 25% of the people who are in prison on this planet, are in an American prison. Since 9/11, we have seen an aggressive curtailment of Constitutional liberty and the outright militarization of the police. And of course, we have seen the creation of a new armed force, the paramilitary Department of Homeland Security.
Generally speaking it is the political right who support a "get tough on crime" approach, and thereby essentially write the police a blank check to do as they please. It was also the political right who established the agencies and the laws that would become an unprecedented move to "secure" our nation. It was President George HW Bush that signed the Constitution-shredding Patriot Act and who established the Department of Homeland Security.
So while FDR's New Deal was meant to put people to work building needed roads, bridges and dams, the right-wing utopia has turned out to be a total police-state where the government spies on it's own citizens without so much as a warrant and rolls through the streets as an occupying army. Rather than investing in economic recovery, the taxpayers are now funding their own imprisonment, sometimes literally in their own homes. This was never clearer than what we have just seen take place in Boston, where in the guise of public safety, quasi-police forces put entire neighborhoods on lockdown before sending heavily armed government agents on a door-to-door warrantless home-invasion rampage ripping families out of their houses with no place to go but the streets. This is not smaller government at all, this is how to turn a nation into a prison. This is a darker, more sinister expanded government than the New Deal could have ever turned out to be, and will soon cost the taxpayers twice as much in adjusted dollars.
"Homeland Security"
The trillion dollar concept that no one can define
Imagine a labyrinthine government department so bloated that few have any clear idea of just what its countless pieces do. Imagine that tens of billions of tax dollars are disappearing into it annually, black hole-style, since it can’t pass a congressionally mandated audit.
Now, imagine that there are two such departments, both gigantic, and you’re beginning to grasp the new, twenty-first century American security paradigm.
For decades, the Department of Defense has met this definition to a T. Since 2003, however, it hasn’t been alone. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which celebrates its 10th birthday this March, has grown into a miniature Pentagon. It’s supposed to be the actual “defense” department -- since the Pentagon is essentially a Department of Offense -- and it’s rife with all the same issues and defects that critics of the military-industrial complex have decried for decades. In other words, “homeland security” has become another obese boondoggle.
But here’s the strange thing: unlike the Pentagon, this monstrosity draws no attention whatsoever -- even though, by our calculations, this country has spent a jaw-dropping $791 billion on “homeland security” since 9/11. To give you a sense of just how big that is, Washington spent an inflation-adjusted $500 billion on the entire New Deal.
Despite sucking up a sum of money that could have rebuilt crumbling infrastructure from coast to coast, this new agency and the very concept of “homeland security” have largely flown beneath the media radar -- with disastrous results.
Read more at: TomDispatch
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Disinformation
The 25 Tactics of Truth-Suppression and Disinformation have been circling the web since the 1990's under various titles. I have no idea how to properly attribute an original author since it has been duplicated so many times, but it is a fantastic list to keep handy when you are trying to pull truth from spin. Whether you are arguing in a chat forum, or watching a freshly aired news report on television, this list makes the lies much easier to spot.
Many times, folks will apply these tactics inadvertently, having themselves been caught up in the propaganda. I think from time to time that anyone might accidentally make a flawed argument when they are arguing passionately about something. We are emotional beings after all, complete with our own subconscious biases and world view. That does not make us disingenuous. What must be despised though, is these tactics being applied in a manner that is clearly deliberate, and used repeatedly. There are some folks out there that are very adept at applying these tactics with such skill that it is quite difficult to discern at first, even after you have been made aware of the ways in which lies are spun into "truth," and truth is made to be something dis-believed. Many of these people are trained professionally and are well paid by campaign bosses, corporations, intelligence agencies, and so forth. But even more sinister, is that you will see these tactics being employed and endorsed by your favorite, most trusted news sources. In the land of "free speech" it has become all too easy to assume that what you are being told is the truth. After all, if one news channel told a lie, another news channel would simply report the truth, right? Not really, not anymore...
As you can see that chart is a little dated now, but I'm sure you see the point there anyhow. Your ability to get unbiased news is at an all-time low. Since 2004, the odds have not improved. Now to put that in some perspective here, look at what we were falling for back in the 90's, when there was still some real competition left and a standard to be upheld...
Here is another example of media manipulation.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Many times, folks will apply these tactics inadvertently, having themselves been caught up in the propaganda. I think from time to time that anyone might accidentally make a flawed argument when they are arguing passionately about something. We are emotional beings after all, complete with our own subconscious biases and world view. That does not make us disingenuous. What must be despised though, is these tactics being applied in a manner that is clearly deliberate, and used repeatedly. There are some folks out there that are very adept at applying these tactics with such skill that it is quite difficult to discern at first, even after you have been made aware of the ways in which lies are spun into "truth," and truth is made to be something dis-believed. Many of these people are trained professionally and are well paid by campaign bosses, corporations, intelligence agencies, and so forth. But even more sinister, is that you will see these tactics being employed and endorsed by your favorite, most trusted news sources. In the land of "free speech" it has become all too easy to assume that what you are being told is the truth. After all, if one news channel told a lie, another news channel would simply report the truth, right? Not really, not anymore...
As you can see that chart is a little dated now, but I'm sure you see the point there anyhow. Your ability to get unbiased news is at an all-time low. Since 2004, the odds have not improved. Now to put that in some perspective here, look at what we were falling for back in the 90's, when there was still some real competition left and a standard to be upheld...
Here is another example of media manipulation.
"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think".~Adolf Hitler
25 Tactics of Truth Suppression and Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
~ ~ ~
Friday, April 26, 2013
SCOTUS Rules Cops Need Warrant For DUI Test
US Supreme Court rules against use of forced blood draws in all DUI cases.
Justice Sonia SotomayorAmerica's top court does not want cops forcibly extracting blood from motorists without a warrant. The Supreme Court on Wednesday found Tyler McNeely's constitutional rights were violated when he was taken to a hospital for a blood draw after a Missouri state patrolman accused him of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in October 2010.
The state trooper says McNeely was speeding and weaving across the centerline at around 2:08am on that fateful day. McNeely's speech was slurred, he smelled of alcohol and he failed the standard field sobriety tests. The officer wanted a breath test, but McNeely declined. At a hospital, McNeely also refused a blood tests. The blood was taken anyway and his blood alcohol content (BAC) was measured at 0.15. The officer never sought a warrant.
Read more at: theNewspaper.com
PDF file for the 48-page decision: CLICK HERE
In this day and age it certainly seems rare when the Supreme Court rules against an expansion of police powers. This decision however, seems to be in keeping with the true spirit of the Constitution and the 4th Amendment which states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
This decision by the US Supreme Court upholds that standard.
This decision might also be seen as a precedent for drug/alcohol testing in general, and the testing of welfare recipients in particular. This idea of drug testing people who partake of government services, particularly the poor and destitute, has grown in popularity in recent years, especially among those with a right-wing/conservative political bend. Ironically enough it is usually the political-right who will obstinately defend the strictest interpretations of the Constitution in most instances, but do an about-face when it comes to protecting the liberty of folks whom they view with disdain.
2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and the Freedom of Hypocrisy
The conservative will often say that "welfare is not a right" or that is not in the Constitution. This may be true, but driving is not a right either, according to the laws in most states, and what is in the Constitution is the right to be free from invasive searches without a warrant. There is no asterisk there to make exception for welfare recipients, anyone partaking of any government service, or someone driving down a taxpayer funded public highway.
We see in this Supreme Court ruling that even when a police officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that a person is under the influence of a controlled substance, they must still have a warrant before conducting a substance screening on the suspect. Again, this is despite the fact that the officer believes a crime has occurred, this is despite the fact that the person is in a public area and potential threat to public safety. And even though a person holding a driver license has essentially already consented when they made a contractual agreement with the state in order to hold that license, that person may still refuse the search by a police officer. Again, the person may be held accountable for breaching that contract with the DMV by refusing the test, but cannot be held criminally accountable for exercising their 4th Amendment rights.
It seems inconceivable then, that a person on welfare could be held to a far less rigorous standard without the practice being considered highly biased and prejudicial. After all, a person on welfare is not even accused of any crime at all, nor is there any reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual receiving a government benefit is under the influence of a controlled substance.
Essentially, drug testing a welfare applicant would be the same as drug testing anyone who applies for a driver license, or even a permit to carry a concealed pistol as another example. Drug testing the welfare recipient monthly would be like requiring the same from any other person who has a government-issued permit. Allowing for random screenings would be the no more justified than randomly stopping and testing anyone who uses any government service even, like public transportation, walking down a public street, or getting the Federally protected mail from your mailbox.
So far, the Supreme Court has ruled that drug testing of welfare recipients is indeed a violation of the 4th Amendment. With this ruling pertaining to suspected drunk drivers, it seems as though that standard is still being held, at lest for the time-being.
For more reasons other than the 4th Amendment of why drug testing should not be allowed, read:
Why Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients Is a Bad Idea
Google and Censorship
Google shows requests for censorship have reached new highs
Google on Thursday released data showing that requests by governments to censor the Internet giant’s content have hit new heights, with Brazil and the United States leading the way.
Google received 2,285 government requests to remove content from it properties, including YouTube and search pages, in the second half of last year as compared to 1,811 requests in the first six months, according to its latest Transparency Report.
The requests related to 24,179 pieces of content, up from 18,070 items, the California-based Internet giant said.
Read more at: Raw Story
It is also being reported this morning that several alternative media websites and conspiracy forums have been slammed by Google-based advertisers who are threatening nonpayment over certain subject-matter and even the use of the word "fuck." While we here at November Yankee would normally refrain from using expletives openly, we felt it an appropriate expression of our sentiment toward forced and/or coerced censorship of the internet.
Google on Thursday released data showing that requests by governments to censor the Internet giant’s content have hit new heights, with Brazil and the United States leading the way.
Google received 2,285 government requests to remove content from it properties, including YouTube and search pages, in the second half of last year as compared to 1,811 requests in the first six months, according to its latest Transparency Report.
The requests related to 24,179 pieces of content, up from 18,070 items, the California-based Internet giant said.
Read more at: Raw Story
It is also being reported this morning that several alternative media websites and conspiracy forums have been slammed by Google-based advertisers who are threatening nonpayment over certain subject-matter and even the use of the word "fuck." While we here at November Yankee would normally refrain from using expletives openly, we felt it an appropriate expression of our sentiment toward forced and/or coerced censorship of the internet.
Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
The Illuminati were amateurs. The second huge financial scandal of the year reveals the real international conspiracy: There's no price the big banks can't fixConspiracy theorists of the world, believers in the hidden hands of the Rothschilds and the Masons and the Illuminati, we skeptics owe you an apology. You were right. The players may be a little different, but your basic premise is correct: The world is a rigged game. We found this out in recent months, when a series of related corruption stories spilled out of the financial sector, suggesting the world's largest banks may be fixing the prices of, well, just about everything.
Read more at: Rolling Stone
Also see:
Who Owns the Money
Money as Debt (VIDEO)
The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation (VIDEO)
Central Banks Are Target Theme for Western Armed Forces
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Giant Head Found Floating In Hudson River
Marist College rowing crew members made a bizarre find in the chilly Spring waters of the Hudson River. A giant fiberglass and styrofoam head. It was floating near the Poughkeepsie college, but closer to the Highland shore of the river.
Read more at: Poughkeepsie Journal
Read more at: Poughkeepsie Journal
Who Was the Naked Suspect?
Police state that they got into a shootout with Boston bombing suspects Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, just after a MIT campus police officer was shot and killed while sitting in his patrol car, again, allegedly by the two brothers. There are also reports that bombs were thrown during the confrontation, and later that undetonated bombs littered the streets.
At some point during this confrontation, police took a man into custody who had been stripped naked. This suspect has not been publicly identified.
Police maintain that there were only two shooters, so it is not clear how a third suspect would have been drawn into the situation. Police state that the man taken into custody was actually not involved and was soon released. Why he was arrested and marched naked down the street to a waiting police cruiser has not been explained.
An aunt of the two alleged bombers claims that the man seen in the video there was actually her older nephew, Tamerlan. If this is true, that would mean so-called Suspect #1 was taken into police custody uninjured, but showed up at the hospital a short time later critically injured.
Huffington Post
Boston Herald
Corpse Photo of Tamerlan Dzhokhar aka Suspect #1
It is quite possible that this "third suspect" was indeed an innocent bystander inadvertently caught up in the incident. It is not unreasonable to believe that the situation was confusing, and certainly very dangerous. Nevertheless, we must also consider the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps the naked suspect was in fact Tamerlan. If this is true, it would be compelling evidence that he was not killed during the shootout, but rather murdered while in police custody.
That may sound far-fetched, even offensive to even consider that possibility, but given so many irregularities in the case, it must be considered. Especially too, when we see that police tried to kill Suspect #2, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
Bombing Suspect Was Not Armed
The following clip is a bit of a talk from Alex Jones, but at about the 6:45 mark you can hear the suspects aunt adamantly state that the naked suspect taken into custody was her nephew, Tamerlan.
At some point during this confrontation, police took a man into custody who had been stripped naked. This suspect has not been publicly identified.
Police maintain that there were only two shooters, so it is not clear how a third suspect would have been drawn into the situation. Police state that the man taken into custody was actually not involved and was soon released. Why he was arrested and marched naked down the street to a waiting police cruiser has not been explained.
An aunt of the two alleged bombers claims that the man seen in the video there was actually her older nephew, Tamerlan. If this is true, that would mean so-called Suspect #1 was taken into police custody uninjured, but showed up at the hospital a short time later critically injured.
"From head to toe, every region of his body had injuries." -Dr. David Schoenfeld
Huffington Post
Boston Herald
Corpse Photo of Tamerlan Dzhokhar aka Suspect #1
It is quite possible that this "third suspect" was indeed an innocent bystander inadvertently caught up in the incident. It is not unreasonable to believe that the situation was confusing, and certainly very dangerous. Nevertheless, we must also consider the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps the naked suspect was in fact Tamerlan. If this is true, it would be compelling evidence that he was not killed during the shootout, but rather murdered while in police custody.
That may sound far-fetched, even offensive to even consider that possibility, but given so many irregularities in the case, it must be considered. Especially too, when we see that police tried to kill Suspect #2, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
Bombing Suspect Was Not Armed
The following clip is a bit of a talk from Alex Jones, but at about the 6:45 mark you can hear the suspects aunt adamantly state that the naked suspect taken into custody was her nephew, Tamerlan.
Bombing Suspect Was Not Armed
It is being reported that Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not armed when he was taken into police custody.
USA Today
Huffington Post
This news disproves earlier reports that the suspect may have tried to commit suicide by shooting himself. There were no guns found in the boat where he had been hiding, and he was not carrying any firearms when taken into custody.
The latest reports suggest his wounds may have been inflicted during the initial confrontation with police many hours earlier, but this seems unlikely given the seriousness of those injuries. In this first image we can see that the suspect was able to climb out of the boat where he was hiding, unassisted and without obvious signs of serious injury.
Nevertheless, within moments of surrendering, he was on the ground, possibly unconscious, and being given a tracheotomy.
We do know that police opened fire on the unarmed suspect, but no legitimate explanation for that has been given. Aside from the obvious reasons why police are not allowed to shoot or try to kill an unarmed suspect, in this case there was a very clear need to take the suspect alive for questioning. With his alleged accomplice to the bombings killed in the initial confrontation with police, this left the younger brother the only person who could possibly shed any light on the bombings. It was imperative that he be taken alive to be sure there were no other devices still left to go off, to name any other possible co-conspirators, and so forth. Of course, that is assuming that the suspect is indeed one of the actual bombers, as authorities claim.
Both the father and mother of the suspected bombers claim that their sons are innocent. In what is believed to be his last Facebook message, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev tells his father that he was set up and did not do what he is being accused of.
Of course, it is not unusual for a suspect to claim they are innocent, nor is it unusual for a suspect's parents to defend them. But there have been numerous irregularities in this case from the start, and it seems possible that the brothers may have indeed been set up as patsies. Such a claim sounds like lunatic-fringe conspiracy-theory perhaps, but this possibility has even led a New Hampshire state legislator to make the provocative claim that the Federal government is responsible for the bombings.
It is not known what evidence the government has to show that the brothers were responsible for the bombings. There have been no images or video released of them actually planting the bombs. It is also not known what led to their initial confrontation with police, or what evidence there is that they killed the MIT officer. It doesn't seem likely that a pair of terrorists on the run would be hanging around a college campus causing a disturbance or trying to attract attention to themselves.
Why Were Bombers At MIT?
It was initially reported that they had tried to rob a 7-11 store, but that was not true, so we still don't know what the nature of the disturbance actually was that might have led them to kill a police officer. We also don't know what ever became of a third suspect, or why this man was arrested and then stripped naked before being paraded in front of cameras and loaded into a police car.
Whether or not the brothers actually committed the double-bombing, or whether they killed the MIT police officer is probably something that will be debated for many years to come. If there was indeed a conspiracy, and a plot by factions within our own government, then there would be a clear motivation to kill the patsies who were set up to take the blame for the terrorism.
If they were truly guilty, then as we already mentioned, there was a very real need to take the suspect alive for questioning. It hardly seems reasonable for the police to risk killing the suspect, who as we see now was not even armed. Even if he had been armed, the police should have made every effort, even at the risk of their own lives, to take the suspect alive to glean intelligence necessary for the greater public safety concerns. That is of course, unless the FBI already knew all the answers, which would then lead us back to the notion that they were at least fully aware of the plot, if not directly involved. .
Of course, there is a third line of reasoning which could also be applied here. Plain old-fashioned revenge. It is not at all unreasonable to suspect that the police might have been willing to commit murder themselves in order to get revenge not only on a terrorist, but against a young man who they believed had just killed one of their own. This sort of "cowboy" mentality is all to prevalent among police today, and it might have even been something counted on by inside conspirators, if it was indeed a government plot as some claim. In this manner, the police could be made to do the bidding of the plotters but in total ignorance. This scenario is an excellent example of why police must be held to the highest ethical standards, rather than routinely excused for criminal behavior.
Knowing now that the suspect was not armed it is almost inexcusable that the police opened fire on him both from a moral standpoint, and of course because killing him might have actually put the public in greater danger. Again, it doesn't seem likely that his wounds were from the initial confrontation with police in which his brother was killed. It also does not appear that the suspect was wounded inside the boat. We might tend to make excuses for jittery police who were, perhaps, assuming that the suspect was armed. But this reasoning collapses when we look at the photographic evidence. Frighteningly, that evidence appears to show that the suspect was shot after he climbed out of the boat and surrendered.
This first image shows Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the hospital. You will notice what appears to be powder burns on his face, which would be consistent with being shot at very close range. Much like if he had put a gun in his mouth, and fired, trying to kill himself. This would also be consistent with reports that he has a bullet wound exiting out the back of his neck. This is impossible though, since he was not armed.
So we know that his wounds were certainly inflicted by police. If those wounds came during the initial confrontation when his brother was killed, if they were in fact exchanging gunfire with police as was reported, then the police were certainly justified to return fire. As we already pointed out though, it's unlikely that he survived the 20 or so hours without medical care for those very serious wounds. So now the question is when, exactly, did police shoot him?
As you can see in this photo, there was no blood visible at the scene when the suspect was still inside of the boat.
In this photo however, blood is clearly visible on the wheel shroud of the trailer. This means that the blood is not from an earlier wound that might have leaked when the suspect first climbed into the boat to hide. This means that it could only have been left there after the suspect climbed out of the boat. Why would police shoot him after he had surrendered?
We can see that there is no blood inside of the boat, which would indicate earlier wounds or that he was shot before he surrendered. Looking more closely at the blood that does appear in the image, the observation becomes even more chilling. There is a distinct spray pattern further supporting that the wound was inflicted there. We also see that the blood is sprayed across the top of the wheel shroud, but not the side, except for where it dribbled over a little bit from pooling on top. This means that he was, more than likely, up against that wheel shroud when he was shot. Going by the height of the investigator in the image, the pattern of the blood, the wound to the suspect, a very disturbing image now appears. It looks as if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev may have been on his knees, with his back against the wheels, that someone put a gun in his mouth and shot him, execution style.
Also see:
Who Was the Naked Suspect?
USA Today
Huffington Post
This news disproves earlier reports that the suspect may have tried to commit suicide by shooting himself. There were no guns found in the boat where he had been hiding, and he was not carrying any firearms when taken into custody.
The latest reports suggest his wounds may have been inflicted during the initial confrontation with police many hours earlier, but this seems unlikely given the seriousness of those injuries. In this first image we can see that the suspect was able to climb out of the boat where he was hiding, unassisted and without obvious signs of serious injury.
Nevertheless, within moments of surrendering, he was on the ground, possibly unconscious, and being given a tracheotomy.
We do know that police opened fire on the unarmed suspect, but no legitimate explanation for that has been given. Aside from the obvious reasons why police are not allowed to shoot or try to kill an unarmed suspect, in this case there was a very clear need to take the suspect alive for questioning. With his alleged accomplice to the bombings killed in the initial confrontation with police, this left the younger brother the only person who could possibly shed any light on the bombings. It was imperative that he be taken alive to be sure there were no other devices still left to go off, to name any other possible co-conspirators, and so forth. Of course, that is assuming that the suspect is indeed one of the actual bombers, as authorities claim.
Both the father and mother of the suspected bombers claim that their sons are innocent. In what is believed to be his last Facebook message, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev tells his father that he was set up and did not do what he is being accused of.
Of course, it is not unusual for a suspect to claim they are innocent, nor is it unusual for a suspect's parents to defend them. But there have been numerous irregularities in this case from the start, and it seems possible that the brothers may have indeed been set up as patsies. Such a claim sounds like lunatic-fringe conspiracy-theory perhaps, but this possibility has even led a New Hampshire state legislator to make the provocative claim that the Federal government is responsible for the bombings.
It is not known what evidence the government has to show that the brothers were responsible for the bombings. There have been no images or video released of them actually planting the bombs. It is also not known what led to their initial confrontation with police, or what evidence there is that they killed the MIT officer. It doesn't seem likely that a pair of terrorists on the run would be hanging around a college campus causing a disturbance or trying to attract attention to themselves.
Why Were Bombers At MIT?
It was initially reported that they had tried to rob a 7-11 store, but that was not true, so we still don't know what the nature of the disturbance actually was that might have led them to kill a police officer. We also don't know what ever became of a third suspect, or why this man was arrested and then stripped naked before being paraded in front of cameras and loaded into a police car.
Whether or not the brothers actually committed the double-bombing, or whether they killed the MIT police officer is probably something that will be debated for many years to come. If there was indeed a conspiracy, and a plot by factions within our own government, then there would be a clear motivation to kill the patsies who were set up to take the blame for the terrorism.
If they were truly guilty, then as we already mentioned, there was a very real need to take the suspect alive for questioning. It hardly seems reasonable for the police to risk killing the suspect, who as we see now was not even armed. Even if he had been armed, the police should have made every effort, even at the risk of their own lives, to take the suspect alive to glean intelligence necessary for the greater public safety concerns. That is of course, unless the FBI already knew all the answers, which would then lead us back to the notion that they were at least fully aware of the plot, if not directly involved. .
Of course, there is a third line of reasoning which could also be applied here. Plain old-fashioned revenge. It is not at all unreasonable to suspect that the police might have been willing to commit murder themselves in order to get revenge not only on a terrorist, but against a young man who they believed had just killed one of their own. This sort of "cowboy" mentality is all to prevalent among police today, and it might have even been something counted on by inside conspirators, if it was indeed a government plot as some claim. In this manner, the police could be made to do the bidding of the plotters but in total ignorance. This scenario is an excellent example of why police must be held to the highest ethical standards, rather than routinely excused for criminal behavior.
Knowing now that the suspect was not armed it is almost inexcusable that the police opened fire on him both from a moral standpoint, and of course because killing him might have actually put the public in greater danger. Again, it doesn't seem likely that his wounds were from the initial confrontation with police in which his brother was killed. It also does not appear that the suspect was wounded inside the boat. We might tend to make excuses for jittery police who were, perhaps, assuming that the suspect was armed. But this reasoning collapses when we look at the photographic evidence. Frighteningly, that evidence appears to show that the suspect was shot after he climbed out of the boat and surrendered.
This first image shows Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the hospital. You will notice what appears to be powder burns on his face, which would be consistent with being shot at very close range. Much like if he had put a gun in his mouth, and fired, trying to kill himself. This would also be consistent with reports that he has a bullet wound exiting out the back of his neck. This is impossible though, since he was not armed.
So we know that his wounds were certainly inflicted by police. If those wounds came during the initial confrontation when his brother was killed, if they were in fact exchanging gunfire with police as was reported, then the police were certainly justified to return fire. As we already pointed out though, it's unlikely that he survived the 20 or so hours without medical care for those very serious wounds. So now the question is when, exactly, did police shoot him?
As you can see in this photo, there was no blood visible at the scene when the suspect was still inside of the boat.
In this photo however, blood is clearly visible on the wheel shroud of the trailer. This means that the blood is not from an earlier wound that might have leaked when the suspect first climbed into the boat to hide. This means that it could only have been left there after the suspect climbed out of the boat. Why would police shoot him after he had surrendered?
We can see that there is no blood inside of the boat, which would indicate earlier wounds or that he was shot before he surrendered. Looking more closely at the blood that does appear in the image, the observation becomes even more chilling. There is a distinct spray pattern further supporting that the wound was inflicted there. We also see that the blood is sprayed across the top of the wheel shroud, but not the side, except for where it dribbled over a little bit from pooling on top. This means that he was, more than likely, up against that wheel shroud when he was shot. Going by the height of the investigator in the image, the pattern of the blood, the wound to the suspect, a very disturbing image now appears. It looks as if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev may have been on his knees, with his back against the wheels, that someone put a gun in his mouth and shot him, execution style.
Also see:
Who Was the Naked Suspect?
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Taxes
This has been circulated around the internet for years, so I can't be sure who to attribute it to, but it's worth sharing.
At first I thought this was funny... then I realized the awful truth of it.
Be sure to read all the way to the end!
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his a**
Tax all he has
Then let him know;
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin ,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.
Put these words
upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to
raise the kids.
What happened? Can you spell 'politicians!'
(And I still have to 'press 1' for English.)
At first I thought this was funny... then I realized the awful truth of it.
Be sure to read all the way to the end!
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his a**
Tax all he has
Then let him know;
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin ,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.
Put these words
upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to
raise the kids.
What happened? Can you spell 'politicians!'
(And I still have to 'press 1' for English.)
State Legislator Blames Gov't for Boston Bombing
Stella Tremblay, New Hampshire Legislator, Says U.S. Government Planned Boston Bombing
A Republican state legislator in New Hampshire is claiming that the United States government is responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing.
State Rep. Stella Tremblay (R-Auburn) posted on conservative talk show host Glenn Beck's Facebook page Friday that the attack and the subsequent search for suspects was playing out how Beck had suggested. She said the bombings were a plot by the federal government, and included a link to a video from another conservative talk show host Alex Jones, in which Jones also claims the federal government planned the bombing. Tremblay's message to Beck was posted Friday morning, before suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was arrested.
Read more: HuffPo Politics
I like a lot of stuff that Alex Jones puts out there, but I never thought of him as a Conservative, lol. He is the king of conspiracy theorists, and usually slammed by mainstream media from left to right. More from the Right actually. Beck himself has gone out of his way to slam Jones over the years, and O'Reilly too. To see him labeled as mainstream is kind of refreshing though, the sheeple are waking up. -JMV
Constitution Interpretation 'Will Have to Change' NYC Mayor Says
Bloomberg says interpretation of Constitution will 'have to change' after Boston bombing
In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country's interpretation of the Constitution will "have to change" to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.
"The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry," Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. "But we live in a complex word where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."
Mr. Bloomberg, who has come under fire for the N.Y.P.D.'s monitoring of Muslim communities and other aggressive tactics, said the rest of the country needs to learn from the attacks.
"Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11," he said.
Read more: sott.net
Take notice, the people trying to take away our freedom is our own government, not the terrorists. And even if we blame the terrorists, people like Mayor Bloomberg are handing them the win, each and every time they use an act of terror as the reason to take away our freedom.
Monday, April 22, 2013
America is #1
America: #1 In Fear, Stress, Anger, Divorce, Obesity, Anti-Depressants, Etc.
The United States is a deeply unhappy place. We are a nation that is absolutely consumed by fear, stress, anger and depression. It isn’t just our economy that is falling apart – the very fabric of society is starting to come apart at the seams and it is because of what is happening to us on the inside. The facts and statistics that I am going to share with you in this article are quite startling. They are clear evidence that America is a nation that is an advanced state of decline. We are overwhelmed by fear, stress and anxiety, and much of the time the ways that we choose to deal with those emotions lead to some very self-destructive behaviors. Americans have experienced a standard of living far beyond the wildest dreams of most societies throughout human history, and yet we are an absolutely miserable people. Why is this? Why is America #1 in so many negative categories? Why are we constantly looking for ways to escape the pain of our own lives? Why are our families falling apart? There is vast material wealth all around us. So why can’t we be happy?
Just look around you. Are most of the people around you teeming with happiness and joy? Sadly, the truth is that most Americans are terribly stressed out. Yeah, many of them may be able to manage to come up with a smile when they greet you, but most of the time they are consumed by internal struggles that are eating away at them like cancer.
So why is this happening? Is modern life structured in a way that is fundamentally unhealthy?
Read more at: InvestmentWatch
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Families Ripped From Homes By Police In Watertown (VIDEO)
This is an absolutely sickening display of police force, violation of the Constitution, and clearly shows that America is now dead. Welcome to the Fourth Reich.
Notice how the homeowner is pulled from the house and does not give permission for the police to enter. Notice too how the militant SWAT officer screams at the boy "hands up!" as if he is about to shoot the resident.
It was just a few years ago when I presented the following video on another website. People rolled their eyes and the majority of the comments were along the lines of "that will never happen here." The frog is boiled now my friends.
Also see the video at the following link, which shows that the home-invasions and violations of liberty were not exclusive to that one street shown in the video above:
Boston Gestapo Victims Speak Out
Notice how the homeowner is pulled from the house and does not give permission for the police to enter. Notice too how the militant SWAT officer screams at the boy "hands up!" as if he is about to shoot the resident.
WATERTOWN, MA -- On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people's homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.
https://www.facebook.com/PoliceStateUSA
This was part of a larger operation that involved total lockdown of the suburban neighbor to Boston. Roads were barricaded and vehicle traffic was prohibited. A No-Fly Zone was declared over the town. People were "ordered" to stay indoors. Businesses were told not to open. National Guard soldiers helped with the lockdown, and were photographed checking IDs of pedestrians on the streets. All the while, police were performing these disgusting house-to-house searches.
It was just a few years ago when I presented the following video on another website. People rolled their eyes and the majority of the comments were along the lines of "that will never happen here." The frog is boiled now my friends.
Also see the video at the following link, which shows that the home-invasions and violations of liberty were not exclusive to that one street shown in the video above:
Boston Gestapo Victims Speak Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)