USMC Hacked by Pro-Syrians

via: ZeroHedge

Following President Obama's decision to pass the blame buck to Congress (and its oh-so-great track record of making decisions), the Syrian Electronic Army has struck again. This time right at the heart of the matter - defacing the "Marines.com" website. As The Independent reports, the US Marines received a message calling for support from their "brothers, the Syrian army soldiers" – in the form of a web attack changing the homepage of the official Marines recruitment site to a page entitled "“Hacked by SEA." The message also stated, "Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al-Qaida insurgents," which seems to fit with many of their perspectives as we have noted previously. Full text and screenshot below...

Full text:

"This is a message written by your brothers in the Syrian Army, who have been fighting al-Qaida for the last 3 years. We understand your patriotism and love for your country so please understand our love for ours. Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al- Qaida insurgents.

Marines, please take a look at what your comrades think about Obama's alliance with al-Qaida against Syria. Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you, fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy.

Refuse your orders and concentrate on the real reason every soldier joins their military, to defend their homeland. You're more than welcome to fight alongside our army rather than against it.

Your brothers, the Syrian army soldiers. A message delivered by the SEA"

This will not be the last of the SEA though, as the BBC interviewed the hackers (via email) and a spokesman said the SEA had "many surprises" to come. He added: "Military intervention in Syria has many consequences and will affect the whole world. Our main mission is to spread truth about Syria and what is really happening."

Kerry's Speech On Syria, War Appears Imminent

Commentary courtesy of J. Marselus VanWagner


It seems clear enough that if the missiles are not already in the air, a U.S. strike on Syria is imminent. The following is Secretary Kerry's full speech from today, with editorial commentary inserted among the full transcript. 

Well, for the last several days, President Obama and his entire national security team have been reviewing the situation in Syria. And today, I want to provide an update on our efforts as we consider our response to the use of chemical weapons. What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and — despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured — it is undeniable.

We were also told that proof of yellow-cake and an Iraqi nuclear program were "undeniable." We were led to believe that Colin Powell brought some special and secret evidence to the UN behind closed doors, which the American public was not privy to. That was all a lie.

In this instance, we already have reason to doubt the veracity of the claim that chemical weapons were used because in March we were told the same thing, that Syria had used chemicals on civilians. Yet those reports proved to be unfounded.

Alleged chemical attack kills 25 in northern Syria

Kerry also starts off his speech by trying to take the moral high-ground, speaking of killing innocent civilians, while Bradley Manning rots in prison for revealing America's own moral depravity.

Collateral Murder: A Wikileaks Video of An Iraq War Atrocity

Notice too, the strategic time frame of his conviction, and his credibility among the political right destroyed by his being outed as an alleged transsexual.

And while Kerry speaks of the evils of chemical weapons, let us also not ignore the effects of American weapons systems, particularly with our use of depleted uranium munitions. Besides, at the end of the day once can hardly discern the moral righteousness of killing innocents with one weapon over another, dead is dead, and suffering is suffering.

Syrian Troops Fire On Civilians (WARNING: Graphic Video)

Syrian Rebels Behead Catholic Priest (WARNING: Graphic Video)

So while Kerry tries to make the case for America taking some moral high ground here in choosing sides, in a conflict that has indeed brought so much suffering to the people of Syria, let's also keep in mind exactly who we are going to be supporting.

Syrian Rebel Cannibalizes Corpse of Government Soldier (WARNING: Graphic Video)

The meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict in Syria itself, and that conflict has already brought so much terrible suffering. This is about the large-scale, indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all, a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else.

There is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons. There is a reason the international community has set a clear standard and why many countries have taken major steps to eradicate these weapons. There is a reason why President Obama has made it such a priority to stop the proliferation of these weapons and lock them down where they do exist. There is a reason why President Obama has made clear to the Assad regime that this international norm cannot be violated without consequences.

And there is a reason why, no matter what you believe about Syria, all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons so that it never happens again.

If it happened, if chemicals weapons were actually used, then it certainly is cause for some concern. It is certainly possible, even likely that a chemical attack did take place.

But should it be of enough concern for the United States to act unilaterally against another sovereign state and embroil ourselves in yet another global conflict, acting as the world policeman, without even knowing which side is responsible? The consequences of US meddling are less justified than our other misadventures in the past, and the consequences are likely to be fare more severe this time around.

This time, Russia is unlikely to sit idly by and has made stern warnings to the US in recent days. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has warned that US intervention would have "extremely dangerous" consequences, and that unilateral military intervention without UN Security Council approval would be “a gross violation of international law.”

Russia has not even acknowledged that a chemical attack even took place. Russian President Putin told British Prime Minister Cameron  in a telephone call that there was no evidence a chemical attack took place, much less who might have been responsible if it did.

Russia is not the only concern though. Syria has warned that if they are attacked by the United States, they will respond with an attack on Israel, in a coalition along with Lebanon, Iran, and surprisingly enough, Iraq as well. Which is really the nail in the coffin for our utter failure in a nine year war in Iraq. Not to mention the explosive potential for the conflict to suddenly flashover into WWIII.

Last night, after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world about the gravity of this situation, I went back and I watched the videos, the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. It is really hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us.

As a father, I can’t get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing, while chaos swirled around him, the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound, bodies contorting in spasms, human suffering that we can never ignore or forget.

Sure, tugging at the heartstrings never hurts when spinning war propaganda. Dead babies and the obligations of the parent are always excellent tools to incite knee-jerk reaction. But no one seemed very concerned when we armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons.

CIA Docs Reveal US Aided Saddam’s Chemical Attacks

Anyone who could claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass. What is before us today is real, and it is compelling.

Again, Kerry tries to take the moral high road here while ignoring America's own history of atrocities and outright lies. He shames Americans into supporting a new war, without actually providing any proof, essentially telling us that seeking facts is morally bankrupt.

The videos he talks about above which he "can't get out of his head" are not proof of anything. If they were, we should have acted back in March. Either these videos were "fabricated" as he puts it, or perhaps it was the US backed opposition who were responsible then, as it is possible they are now.

Videos Show Aftermath of Possible Syrian Chemical Attack in March

So I also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscience, and guided by common sense. The reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground, like Doctors Without Borders and the Syria Human Rights Commission, these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real, that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Moreover, we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. And with our own eyes, we have all of us become witnesses.

This all may be true. It's quite possible that a chemical attack did take place. But just because Assad's government forces have the capacity to launch such an attack, it is hardly in their interests to do so. It is certainly not worth world condemnation and attack by the United States, simply to clear out a neighborhood in their own capital city. It also give the rebel an excuse to abandon calls for peace talks in Geneva.

But could the rebels launch a chemical attack?

It's quite possible. Most of the Syrian rebels are foreign-born fighters, not Syrians. So whoever has been funding and arming this invasion of mercenaries are the ones who are actually responsible for the entire civil war there. The rebel army is essentially an agent provocateur to begin with, and therefore certainly quite likely to use a false-flag attack to advance their mission.They are not freedom fighters, they are a proxy force being used to carry out a plan that has been in the works since 9/11, and even before.

General Wesley Clark Says 'War on Terror' Was Planned (VIDEO)

US-Created "Syrian Opposition" Led by Big Oil Rep

Most of the rebel Army have come from, or through Libya since our bombing campaign and proxy war there.

Ten Years After 9/11, US Supports Al-Qaeda in Libya

A U.S. weapons shipment bound for Syrian rebels was caught by officials in Lebanon back in February 2012. That might have been a major embarrassment if the news ever made it to prime time. But of course you will never see news like that on your mainstream news channel, who are more obsessed with pop culture than real news. And for those that did hear something about it, they have probably long since forgotten about it. You certainly won't hear John Kerry talking about how we have been arming this terrorist Army of Al-Qaeda affiliates and Muslim fanatics to topple the legitimate, sovereign, secular government of Syria.

It should also be mentioned here, that Americans have already been found embedded with and fighting alongside rebel forces in Syria. 

Americans Now Fighting Alongside Rebels in Syria (VIDEO)

With such support, it is certainly quite possible that the rebels got their hands on chemical weapons. Using them to attack Assad's forces directly would be a relatively ineffective "checkers" sort of move, while using such weapons in a false-flag attack would be a much more brilliant chess-move in order to draw the US into the war directly.

The attack on the CIA information station in Benghazi was likely a casualty of our proxy service in arming Syrian rebels, and perhaps even chemical weapons specifically. 

Back in January a hacker broke into the computer system of British defence contractor Britam. A document discovered in the hacked download revealed a US-plan, facilitated by Qatar to use Britam's mercenaries to carry out a false-flag chemical attack in Syria using Russian-made chemical weapons exported  from Libya. 

Now given all of this information, the possibility that opposition forces might also have chemical weapons, is very strong.

But perhaps the most compelling evidence comes from the UN. While some have questioned whether a chemical attack actually happened back in March, the UN has determined not only was the attack with sarin gas real, but that it was the rebels who carried out the attack. Not the Syrian government.

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

We have additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead. Our sense of basic humanity is offended not only by this cowardly crime, but also by the cynical attempt to cover it up.

Who is covering what up, we may never know, and most likely not in time to stop us from going to war. We have been promised "that information" many times before.

At every turn, the Syrian regime has failed to cooperate with the U.N. investigation, using it only to stall and to stymie the important effort to bring to light what happened in Damascus in the dead of night. And as Ban Ki-moon said last week, the U.N. investigation will not determine who used these chemical weapons, only whether such weapons were used, a judgment that is already clear to the world.

Wait, WHAT?!!!

So not only has Kerry and the Obama administration already rushed to judgement without so much as an investigation, but the investigation under way does not even try to figure out who is even actually responsible?!

No wonder Assad won't let inspectors in. What's the point? No matter what they find or don't find, the US (and mot likely Britain) are going to do as they please regardless. How is it in Assad's interest to allow inspections whether or not his government used chemicals, if the US is just going to say that he did use them? Even if chemical weapons were used by the rebels, any evidence of chemicals will only be used against the Syrian government. This is essentially like the US demanding that the UN be allowed in to put Assad's fingerprints on the murder weapon.

I spoke on Thursday with Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem, and I made it very clear to him that if the regime, as he argued, had nothing to hide, then their response should be immediate, immediate transparency, immediate access, not shelling. Their response needed to be unrestricted and immediate access. Failure to permit that, I told him, would tell its own story.

So John Kerry seriously expects to call a "time-out" in the middle of a fight to the death, as if this whole situation were child's play.

Instead, for five days, the Syrian regime refused to allow the U.N. investigators access to the site of the attack that would allegedly exonerate them. Instead, it attacked the area further, shelling it and systemically destroying evidence. That is not the behavior of a government that has nothing to hide. That is not the action of a regime eager to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons.

It is in their interest to hide evidence that could be used against them falsely, for one thing. But as we have already established, what difference does it make what the inspectors find if they can never determine who is responsible?

In fact, the regime’s belated decision to allow access is too late, and it’s too late to be credible. Today’s reports of an attack on the U.N. investigators — together with the continued shelling of these very neighborhoods — only further weakens the regime’s credibility.

And that my friends, means that the order has already been given. War is imminent and the strikes by US Naval and air-power will commence in days, if not hours.It makes no difference what the facts are or who actually responsible. It makes no difference that America failed to act when the rebels used chemical weapons.

At President Obama’s direction, I’ve spent many hours over the last few days on the phone with foreign ministers and other leaders. The administration is actively consulting with members of Congress, and we will continue to have these conversations in the days ahead. President Obama has also been in close touch with leaders of our key allies, and the president will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.

But make no mistake: President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny.

Thank you.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC.

Just one question please Secretary Kerry. Can you spell hypocrite?

Also see:

'Mail Online' False-Flag Chemicak Attack Article Vanishes

 

US Planned Initial Phase Strike Packages Against Syria

Was Cop Wrong to Hit 8-Year Old In Face?

There has been outrage over a YouTube video which surfaced recently, which appears to show a Eugene, Oregon police officer striking an 8-year old boy in the face.

While there is a wealth of videos out there showing very serious misconduct and unwarranted violence by these shielded government agents, this video does not seem to warrant the outrage being shown by the public. While it certainly does run contrary to our moral senses that a grown man, an armed man and a stranger should hit a child in the face, we should try to understand that the police do have a job to do that is often a difficult one. A job where sometimes what is necessary is not always what we would like to see, or admit that we might have to do the same if we were in their shoes.

In this instance, the officer claims the boy bit him. The video was filmed with a lagging digital camera in a cellphone, so it is difficult to catch the few moments in question, whether he did bite the officer, or to get a sense of how hard the officer actually hit him. Or even if he really did hit him for that matter, though it does appear so. What the video does show however is that the officer was being calm and professional, not in any rage of any sort, and even waved at the camera before the apparent bite and strike. This would seem to run in accordance with his claim. If the boy did bite him, then the officer was justified to respond.

The only other issue at hand might be whether the officer was justified in taking the boy in the first place. This is, of course, another very serious concern when we as a society have seen so many terrible examples of a child being taken away for very little cause and winding up abused, or even murdered while in state custody or in a foster home. So while the officer may have been justified to strike the child after being bitten, it would be far less justified if the officer was there acting on what amounts to a kidnapping order by a local CPS office. This does not appear to be the case either though.

Reports indicate that the boy was illiterate, did not attend school, and was living in a bus. Furthermore, he had been living with a woman for years despite a court order awarding custody to his father. So this was not so much the state taking custody, as enforcing the rights of the father, which is all too rare it seems these days.

All in all, it appears that this is actually an example of how public outcry against the police is not always justified. (Even as public outcry seems to be severely lacking in other instances where it should appear.)

Finally now, here is the video to judge for yourself:

Boston Bombing Script Rewritten Yet Again

In an exclusive report by the BBC, the prime suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing are now being painted as right-wing extremists and conspiracy theorists, rather then devout Muslims.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev had right-wing extremist literature

One of the brothers suspected of carrying out the Boston bombings was in possession of right-wing American literature in the run-up to the attack, BBC Panorama has learnt.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev subscribed to publications espousing white supremacy and government conspiracy theories.

He also had reading material on mass killings.

Until now the Tsarnaev brothers were widely perceived as just self-styled radical jihadists.

Panorama has spent months speaking exclusively with friends of the bombers to try to understand the roots of their radicalisation.

'Government conspiracies'

The programme discovered that Tamerlan Tsarnaev possessed articles which argued that both 9/11 and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing were government conspiracies.

Another in his possession was about "the rape of our gun rights".

Reading material he had about white supremacy commented that "Hitler had a point".

Tamerlan Tsarnaev also had literature which explored what motivated mass killings and noted how the perpetrators murdered and maimed calmly.

There was also material about US drones killing civilians, and about the plight of those still imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.

Read more from: BBC News

The article then goes on to label them as "Muslim by convenience" and essentially tries to justify the incongruous elements of this new version of the story with the one that has been spun thus far.

To anyone who has been paying attention to the facts, and lack thereof, this is a blatant piece of propaganda meant to vilify those who are not in-step with the official version of modern history. Truth-seeking conspiracy theorists and America-loving Constitutionalists are meant to be seen now as a threat, as terrorists, by those who only get their information from mainstream news sources and government handouts. 

CLICK HERE to read more about the unsettling facts surrounding the Boston Marathon Bombing. 

Activists Being Framed With Child Porn

A disturbing trend is unfolding where some entity is attempting to frame prominent anti-establishment activists and alternative media organizations with child pornography.

These activists are being sent emails with malicious attachments containing images of child porn in a seeming attempt to discredit them or set them up for arrest.

Read more and see vids at: Activist Post

REPEAL the BILL OF RIGHTS, A Petition to Support Obama and NWO

Pentagon Sanitizes Involvement In bin Laden Raid, Documents Purged From Computers

In an unprecedented move to insulate themselves from the facts of the so-called "Bin Laden Raid" the Pentagon has purged documents from their computer systems related to that raid.

Because the outright destruction of those documents would have been illegal, they were all packed up and shipped off to the CIA where they are protected against Freedom of Information requests and even court orders. The legality of the transfer at all is highly questionable and was never even examined before the transfer actually took place. It seems that everyone agrees the move is highly irregular, even if not an outright crime perpetrated on the orders of the Pentagon's top Special Operations Commander.

The sanitizing of Department of Defense computers would have remained secret has it not been for a watchdog group who noted one sentence, referring to the purge of Bin Laden raid documents, in an inspector general's report. There had been an inquiry about whether President Obama may have shared sensitive material with the creators of the movie "Zero Dark Thirty." But even that sentence was purged from the final report.

The Associated Press has raised the alarm on yet another example of the government secrecy shell game in the following artcle:

Bin Laden raid files reportedly purged from Pentagon computers, sent to CIA

Here is an excerpt from that report:

The AP asked the Defense Department and CIA separately for files that included copies of the death certificate and autopsy report for bin Laden as well as the results of tests to identify the body. While the Pentagon said it could not locate the files, the CIA, with its special power to prevent the release of records, has never responded.

This unprecedented level of secrecy, bordering on criminality, begs a single question. Why?

To protect the "dignity" of the world's most sought after terrorist? Refusing to show the pictures of his remains seems hardly reason enough. The Pentagon was clearly not worried about putting American lives in danger, even as we were actively fighting a standing army, when they published images of Saddam Hussein's dead sons. Not to mention the brutal video of the deposed leader's execution.

Besides, if the Pentagon was really that fearful of reprisals from publishing pictures of a dead Bin Laden, perhaps they should have thought about that before they decided to execute the man, rather than putting him on trial and debriefing the world's most wanted terrorist for vital intelligence. The fact that they elected to kill him at all is dubious.

Just as dubious as his burial at sea, that was witnessed by no one, did not conform with Islamic tradition, and served no real purpose at all except to maintain inordinate levels of secrecy. 

Some have excused secrecy surrounding the Bin Laden raid as being necessary to protect the identities of the military operators who reportedly carried out the raid. Yet some of those specialized personnel have gone on to write books and appear in "tell all" interviews. It was also reported that most of the commandos who were on the raid were part of US Navy SEAL Team 6, which was decimated in a helicopter crash in the mountains of Afghanistan a short time after the raid.

This of course, led to rampant conspiracy theories that perhaps our very own government was the real threat to those commandos, and that they were wiped out to protect the secrets of the Bin Laden raid.

But this leads us again back to the question, why? What secret is so powerful that the Pentagon would go to such great lengths to cover up not only all of their knowledge about the raid, but also to virtually disavow their involvement at all?

After years and years of the American government trumpeting how dangerous Osama Bin Laden was, and his al-Qaeda network, suddenly the Pentagon does an about face and threatens the American public to shut up about the Bin Laden raid.

So what are they really hiding? What is the truth about 9/11, al-Qaeda, the war on terror, and the death of Osama bin Laden?

Also see:

No closure for 9/11 victims' families and survivors

Citing security risks, Pentagon asks nation to 'move on' from bin Laden

Helicopter Crash in Afghanistan Allegedly Wipes Out Commando Team

No Sailors Witnessed Bin Laden Burial At Sea

11 Years Later, We Still Don't Know Who Did 9/11

NYC Draft Riots of 1863, Race and Finance

Have our times gotten better or worse?


 On July 13, 1863, as the second day of a new military draft lottery in New York City got underway, demonstrations broke out across the city in what began as an organized opposition to the first federally mandated conscription laws in the nation’s history, but soon morphed into a violent uprising against the city’s wealthy elite; its African-American residents; and the very idea of the Civil War itself. The New York City Draft Riots, which would wreak havoc on the city for four days and remain the largest civilian insurrection in American history, exposed the deep racial, economic and social divides that threatened to tear the nation’s largest city apart in the midst of the American Civil War.

Thanks to its status as the business capital of the United States, New York City was a deeply divided city at the start of the Civil War in April 1861. Its merchants and financial institutions were loath to lose their southern business and the city’s then-mayor, Fernando Wood, had called for the city to secede from the Union. Meanwhile, to the city’s poorer citizens, the war increasingly came to be seen as benefitting only the rich, as the coffers of the city’s elites filled with the financial spoils of battle and the conflict became known as a “rich man’s war, poor man’s battle.” The passage of the nation’s first military draft act, in March 1863, only worsened the situation. Not only did it allow men (presumably only the wealthy) to buy their way out of military service by paying a commutation fee of $300 (more than $5,500 in today’s money), it also exempted blacks from the draft, as they were not yet considered American citizens. Opposition to the draft was widespread across the North, and in New York, some of the loudest critics of the bill could be found in city government, as politicians (primarily Democratic) railed against the legality of the bill and its impact on the city’s working class poor.

Read more at: History.com



The following commentary courtesy of guest author J. Marselus VanWagner

That small brief from History.com gave some keen insight into social and economic dynamics which are still of great concern to us today, both for New York City and as American people overall.

In general, the average American vastly oversimplifies the American Civil War and ignorantly believe that it was a war to end slavery. This premise is almost entirely false, and has been brought about through revisionists of history, particularly in the public school system, where most of us have had our worldview fed to us from a tin can.

Many readers may be surprised to learn certain incongruous facts about the Civil War as it pertains to race. The fact that New York City almost seceded from the Union in 1863 is one such fact shown in the article above. Another fact is that New Jersey, a Union state, still had slaves at the end of the Civil War. It was not until January 1866 that they ratified the 13th Amendment freeing the last Negroes held in bondage there.

While President Abraham Lincoln seems morally opposed to the practice of slavery, some of his own words show that the issue did not carry the same weight as true racial equality, which only became a concern for Americans a century later. Moreover, his own words betray a glamorized notion that some of our revered national heroes, like Lincoln, were any better than the hypocrites who occupy the same office in the modern era.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - 4th Lincoln/Douglas Debate, 1858

Ol' "Honest Abe" was just another politician after all.

Ultimately, the issue of slavery has nothing to do with liberty for blacks, but simply an economic weapon to use against the Confederacy of southern states opposed to an imperial Federal government. 

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..." -Abraham Lincoln, publichsed response to Horace Greeley, 1862

The Civil War was as the Confederacy said all along, a war of independence, based on the same spirit as the American Revolution which freed the colonists from the oppression of a King who was beholden to elitist financiers. The bankers.

Read more on that subject in the following article:

U.S. Federal Authority Is Martial Law

Of course, this is not to say that racial tensions were not a very real dynamic then, even as they are today. This is also not meant to diminish the abhorrent practice of slavery either, and the horrors that both black and white folk were subjected to in the centuries before the Civil War, as victims of slavery. (Yes, white people were slaves too.)

On the one hand, we must consider that slaves were not universally beaten, raped, and abused as revisionist history would lead us to believe. After all, a slave was a very expensive piece of  "property." One might compare owning a slave in those times, to owning a luxury automobile in these times. One does not intentionally go out and beat on a brand new Mercedes or BMW simply because they can. Often a slave might be treated as a prized "possession." Doing harm to a slave made about as much sense as blowing the motor in your brand new BMW. Then again, ignorant asses will do that, and ultimately, we are still talking about treating a human being as a possession, no matter how well they were treated.

But we should also consider that all slaves were not Negroes imported from Africa. Granted, by the time of the Civil War, blacks were the vast majority of slave laborers in the Continental United States. Nonetheless, the practice of slavery still persisted as a legitimate economic structure, not necessarily based on race alone. New Orleans, for example, became a hub of Creole persons. In the Caribbean, Scots, Welsh, and Irish persons made up a large population of slaves and indentured servants. To a lesser extent, whites has also served as slaves even in New England states.

One might even see the first military draft in American history as a form a slavery, or indentured servitude, forcing free men into military service in which they might very well die, even if they were paid a pittance for their efforts. This notion certainly played an important part in the psychology behind the NYC draft riots. Not only were poor white men being drafted for a war that was not at all their own cause, but the wealthy were able to buy their way out.

Then, as now, war was a rich man's game paid in poor man's blood. 

Essentially, poor whites were being forced to fight and die for the right of poor blacks to compete with them for low-wage jobs. And because blacks were not citizens, they were legally exempt form the draft in a war that was ostensibly meant to be a fight for the liberty of their own race.

Of course, there was a bigger political and economic paradigm behind the Civil War, but for the Irishman on the street, who was seen as little more than a "white nigger" by the powers that be, abolition meant unemployment and starvation for them and their families as former slaves would flood the workforce and eviscerate labor bargaining for even menial labor. Not necessarily based on race even, but sheer numbers.

The same article referenced above tells us:

A labor demonstration earlier that year had turned violent, as had a protest by the city’s white, largely immigrant dockworkers, who refused to work alongside African-American workers. The two groups, on the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder, had long jostled for the city’s lowest paying jobs, and tensions had only increased as the war continued.

In other words, the elite financiers exploited racial tension to exempt themselves from paying a living wage to their laborers, and let them duke it out in the streets to fight for the scraps left over from their fortunes.

The same plan in various forms has been put into effect several times in the years since the Civil War, driving homemakers into the workforce, extending retirement age, and cultivating the influx of virtual slave labor today from Latin America. The net result has been devastating to the American labor force and leaving the minimum wage settled at a rate below the standard of the slave's living.

Oh, but you're not a slave, you get paid. Whereas in yesteryear, even a slave owner had to pay for your clothes, your housing, and even your medical care.

So what do we conclude here? What has history told us? That poor people will be divided and conquered by the power elite, along easily inflamed lines of inherent, perhaps instinctive bigotry and racism. Our instincts tell us that a man of a different color, a person of another gender, hell, a person who has a bad tattoo, is competition and therefore an enemy. All the while, we are blinded to the fact that the real enemy remains aloof, and untouchable. 

We can always find a reason why a person is "different" and therefore not as "worthy" as you. But the truth is, none of us, no matter our color or affliction is any better than another. And in our hearts, we know this.

And of the blacks in the NYC riots? They got their asses kicked that time. Poor folk. Poor folk vs poor folk in fact. What a shame. As before then, even in those racial times, NYC tried to be a bastion of racial equality, and failed under economic pressure by the same bastards that are doing it to us today.

Quote from article above:

Many of those who stayed relocated from their racially mixed neighborhoods to areas with an elevated police presence or to the relative safety of the outskirts of the city.

Also see:

John Decker

Top 5 Greatest Bar Brawls in American History

When gangs of thugs put out your fires

Syrian Catholic Priest Beheaded, Vatican Confirms (GRAPHIC VIDEO)

The Vatican has confirmed the death of Father François Murad. He was building a monastery in northern Syria when the site came under attack by radical Muslim militants who are opposed to the standing government in Syria. They claim the Catholic priest was an ally of President Assad and his forces. Murad became a Catholic martyr as he was beheaded, along with two other men, to cries of "Allahu Akbar" in a ritual fashion. The victims were unarmed, bound and hooded, but had the hoods removed just before the grisly executions were performed with a kitchen knife. Children were also present in the crowd, watching as the brutal killings took place. 

It should also be noted that the war criminals who committed this atrocity are the same people the United States has recently decided to arm with more powerful weapons, and to directly support militarily. 

((( WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC )))

This video contains extreme violence, gore, and actual human death. Many readers may prefer not to see such disturbing imagery.

US Army Cyber Command Blocks Access to NSA Spy Story

The United States Army is now blocking access to portions of the Guardian news website covering leaked information about the National Security Agency's domestic spying program.

The Guardian first broke the story of the NSA's pervasive program to monitor and record virtually all digital communications within the United States including emails and social media through networks like Google, Facebook, and Verizon. The alarming news of the government agency's blatant disregard for the Constitution and liberty was brought to their attention by whistleblower Michael Snowden, a former NSA contractor who has since been charged with espionage by the U.S. government and is on the run across the globe.

The Monterey Herald reports:

Gordon Van Vleet, an Arizona-based spokesman for the Army Network Enterprise Technology Command, or NETCOM, said in an email the Army is filtering "some access to press coverage and online content about the NSA leaks."

He wrote it is routine for the Department of Defense to take preventative "network hygiene" measures to mitigate unauthorized disclosures of classified information.

 NETCOM is a subordinate of the US Army Cyber Command

This measure could be termed as a psychological operation, designed to leave American troops less informed than the general public, and ignorant of the crimes perpetrated by the same government which these troops fight and die in the name of. This is not simply a question of troop morale though, and cuts right to the heart of the core virtues of serving the government in a military capacity and leaves these troops open to allegations of complicity in crimes perpetrated by the government.

The Army has elevated the game another level, by threatening troops who access the classified information made public by the Guardian. The Presidio in San Francisco, information assurance security officer Jose Campos dispatched an email to employees warning of consequences for the troops.

He wrote that an employee who downloads classified information could face disciplinary action if found to have knowingly downloaded the material on an unclassified computer.

In other words, any soldier who downloads the publicly available information could be viewed as a spy, and charged criminally. Not only is this a serious implication for servicemembers, but the public in general, that the government still views this material as classified.

Could any one of us also be charged with espionage, even treason, for downloading the information on the NSA's program to spy on citizens? Website operators operating withing the U.S. could be particularly vulnerable to charges of espionage if they were to upload mirror images of the information. 

In the worst of ranting conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, "There's a war on for your mind."

You can read the classified documents at the following link, if you dare.


THE NSA FILES

Whistleblower Snowden Target of Embarrassment Campaign by Media

The mainstream media, no doubt at the behest of the US intelligence services, have begun an embarrassment campaign against the whistleblower who exposed a program that spies on virtually every person in America.

This "embarrassing" image could be seen as a backfire though, no pun intended. Not only is the image not very embarrassing at all, simply showing that he is a typical human being and an average young person in the 2002 photo, but also highlights how dangerous is really is to have the government spying on us. Granted, this image happened to fall into the public domain, but imagine of this were an image of you, perhaps snapped while you were masturbating to internet porn through the camera you didn't realize the NSA was peering through. Or imagine that this was an image of you, in the nude, that you had sent to your husband in an email when he was away on a trip. Any number of examples could be made here, but this latest development only goes to prove that privacy is indeed a valid concern, even for people who are not terrorists.

Picture source: Yahoo via Reuters

Obama Administration Declares War on Syria, Officially

"The president has made a decision about providing more support to the opposition that will involve providing direct support to the [Supreme Military Council]. That includes military support," Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes told reporters.

Read more at: CBS News

This decision is apparently being reached after concluding that the Assad regime used chemical weapons against the terrorists, despite evidence which shows that it was the infiltrators and not the Syrian government who have actually used these weapons and are suspected of using biological weapons as well.

officially 

'Walking Dead' Actress Accused of Framing ex-Hubby For Ricin Letters to Obama and Bloomberg

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Notice the emphasis that at least THIRTEEN hundred rounds could have been fired.

Read more at: Raw Story and NBC

Bush's 13 Benghazi's

The following is a list of 13 diplomatic missions that came under violent attack while George W. Bush was in office.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had beenmarried for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Not any nor all of these were ever made a talking point of mainstream corporate news sources, and none of these attacks spurred calls for impeachment.

This list was original compiled as part of an article at: Refreshing News

Also see:

The Benghazi Scam

Teen Faces 20 Years For Facebook Rap Lyrics

This article originally presented by Station.6.Underground


18 year-old aspiring rapper Cameron D'Ambrosio, aka "Cammy Dee" is being held without bail on a felony charge of Communicating a Terrorist Threat. The charge could keep him in the slammer for the next 20 years.

According to Joe Solomon, local Chief of Police in the Boston suburb of Methuen, “He posted a threat in the form of rap where he mentioned the White House, the Boston Marathon bombing, and said ‘everybody you will see what I am going to do, kill people.”

What the teen actually said was, "Ya’ll want me to [expletive] kill somebody?” and “[expletive] a Boston bombing wait till you see the [expletive] I do. I’m a be famous rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me!" according to he Boston Globe

Asking a question is the opposite of making a statement. He never said he was going to kill people. He asked if  "y'all" wanted him to, he didn't say he would or planned to. He then warns "wait tll you see" what he is going to do, and suggests he is going to make an impression bigger than the Boston bombing, but in the very next sentence tell us he is going to "be famous rapping" along with beating some murder charges, like any rapper with so-called street-cred must do.

Art and lyrics can often be interpreted a number of ways, but rather than interpreting these lyrics as a threat of terrorism, they could actually be interpreted as just the opposite. "F*** a Boston bombing" sounds like a rejection of that sort of violence, and that he prefers to make his impression by being a famous rapper, even if he has to beat a few false charges of murder along the way.

However one chooses to interpret it though, it hardly seems reasonable to see these lyrics as anything more than teenage angst, metaphor, and more importantly, Constitutionally protected free speech. After all, the Chief of police even tells us himself...

“I do want to make clear he did not make a specific threat against the school or any particular individuals..."

...but then goes on to state his own opinion as fact, that the teen threatened "to kill a bunch of people" when he did not actually do so. Granted, it could be interpreted that way perhaps. Then again, this might be a little more direct...

How I Could Just Kill A Man - Cypress Hill

Okay, so Cammy Dee mentions the White House, and the Boston Bombing. He also says "F--- Obama and F--- the government," according to reports. The freedom of speech is there, if for no other reason, but to protect our right as citizens to express dissatisfaction with the government if they come to be servants of opression and tyranny, and to keep government acting honestly in the interest of the people who they are meant to represent.

"In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech... Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech." -Benjamin Franklin

Besides, it's hardly as if Cammy Dee is the first rapper to bash the government or a President. Check out this jam, also on YouTube:

Bin Laden Didn't Blow Up The Projects - Immortal Technique (feat. Mos Def)

Nevertheless, the mainstream media have jumped on this case to demonize the teen rapper for his free expression. One might expect that the press, even more than any group in America, would be keen to defend the freedom of speech. After all, this liberty is the very basis of their existence, in theory anyway. Corporate news sources and their subsidiaries have been quick to demonize this young man over his rap metaphors, while spinning propaganda to make freedom appear to be the work of villains.

Corporate media and propagandists have an arsenal of manipulation techniques to mold the thoughts of their viewers. The tricks are usually so subtle that the average person doesn't even notice, after all, that really is the point when it comes to brainwashing. Have a look at this one minor example.

The media printed: "(Expletive) a boston bominb wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I’ma be famous"

The actual line is: "(Expletive) a boston bominb wait till u see the (expletive) I do, I’ma be famous rapping"

One simple word changes the entire meaning of what you read in a headline. Another example of leaving things out to make you think a certain way, is when the media reported that many of the pictures Cammy Dee posted on Facebook were so terrible that they couldn't show them on TV. They did describe the pictures though, reporting that they included hings like a "wanted dead or alive" poster of himself, obscenity,  and satanic imagery.

Well, we are not afraid to show those pictures here. After all, this is why people choose underground media sources like this one. We the underfunded independent media broadcasting from basements, public libraries, and Barnes & Noble cafes are not afraid of controversy. We will go out on a limb here now, and show you this disturbing imagery.

"Outlaw"

And we will just pretend that media outlets like FOX didn't play images of gore, blood, mutilated and missing limbs, on a perpetual loop day after day without so much as a warning to keep children from seeing it. No warning even for adults to have a moment to prepare for what we were about to see. No, the shock value was a part of the media campaign, and within moments after the bombs went off in Boston, we were bombarded with these horrible images of the carnage. But they can't show you some kid on a photoshopped wanted poster, or a picture that looks like it was lifted from a crappy 80's heavy-metal album cover.

Another media source reported that the teen's Facebook page showed he has "unusual interest in gangs, violence and a criminal lifestyle."

"Satan Rulez"

Unusual? Maybe someone missed the last quarter-century or they just forgot that before Ice-T was a TV detective, he was the Original Gangster of free speech, that DMX got the white bitches sayin's it a black thang, and that Wu-Tang Clan Ain't Nuthin' Ta F Wit'. White kids from the suburbs have been emulating rap culture since Ice Cube was Jackin' For Beats and Cypress Hill effed up his good day.

It could be said that perhaps people should not be emulating rap-music culture. Some might argue that it has been morally destructive to the fabric of our society. But it is never popular ideas that need to be protected, and rap music has been there to remind us of that. Even if it serves no other purpose than to offend, it still cries out "we are free to say what we please."

Have we come to the point where morality can be put on trial? Let's not forget here too, that ideas like speaking against the King were once considered a crime, that it was once immoral for a black and whites to have physical relations, and that even elevator Jazz was once considered to be the devil's music.

It's also possible that this young guy might have been having a problem, and used his rap lyrics as a veiled cry for help, or at least an expression of a seething anger festering inside of him. It certainly appears as if he has reason to be angry, very angry. There are a lot of things going wrong in our society, a lot of things that are wrong with our government too. People should be angry. Angry at things like seeing a teenager facing more time in prison than he has spent on this Earth, for the "crime" of expressing himself. Rather than sending him to face a life-ruining felony, perhaps justice and morality would have been better served if a police officer put the young man in contact with a mental health counselor, rather than putting him through an ordeal like this. An ordeal that is sure to have a permanent impact on his life, and which is sure to have a strong influence in defining the old man this young man turns out to be.

This is also a defining point for America, for our society, for the liberty prescribed by the Founding Fathers of this nation. Or perhaps another defining point, would more accurately describe it, as the assaults against our Constitution seem relentless now, particularly against free speech.

Check out this article on internet censorship:

Book Burning In the Digital Age... and so it begins

And learn about a man who risked 21 years in prison to report the news:

Freedom of Speech Now A Felony In America
 
To show your support for Cameron D'Ambrosio visit:

Center for Rights

Gun Crime Down By 69%

3 reasons Americans think gun homicide is rising... when it isn't

Two new studies show a sharp drop in gun crime. Why is that hard for most of us to believe?


As the nation remains locked in a bitter debate over reducing gun violence, two new studies released Tuesday found that shooting deaths and other gun crimes have already plunged since peaking in the 1990s. There were 18,253 gun-related killings in 1993, and 11,101 in 2011, the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reported. With population growth, that meant that the rate of gun homicides dropped by nearly 50 percent — from seven per 100,000 people in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2010, Pew Research Center reported. And non-fatal gun crimes dropped even more sharply, by 69 percent.

Here's the twist: Only 12 percent of Americans said they thought there was less gun crime than two decades ago, according to a Pew survey. Twenty-six percent said the rate hadn't changed, and 56 percent said it had gone up. Women, people of color, and the elderly were particularly likely to believe gun crime was rising. "It's hard to know what's going on there," says D'Vera Cohn, senior writer at the Pew Research Center. Why the disconnect between perceptions of violence and reality? Three theories:

Read more at The Week on Yahoo

Also see related articles from:

US News & World Report

LA Times

Propaganda, Psychological Warfare, and The War For Your Mind In Wake of Boston Bombing

The following is presented by Station.6.Underground, used by permission


 I have recently had the privilege of having some of my material featured on CopBlock.org. It has been quite interesting, though also quite disheartening, to see the vicious attacks that have been made on me by visitors to the comments sections of various articles posted there. Not only attacks on my works which are, of course, always open to debate and discussion, but on myself personally. Now keep in mind, that my person is irrelevant to the issues at hand. I am a relatively anonymous internet persona, that has little bearing on the material I present. I am really just the messenger, so to speak. And I am not singing the blues over hurt feelings either. What actually disturbs me is the frequency in which ad hominem fallacy is applied in order to deflect from the real issues presented, simply in order to derail the discussion. Ad hominem is not the only tactic either though, used to distract the reader from the truth. It is disheartening to see who can be made to follow a red herring path of emotional appeal and rhetoric into the forest of lies, rather than simply seeing the truth for what it is. 

How does one discredit truth and fact? One uses logical fallacy, rhetoric, disinformation, and the tools of psychological warfare. As much as I might find myself annoyed by shills, liars and propagandists, this introduction is more of an invitation, for you the reader, to see if you can spot the characters and tactics that are being used to brainwash you. Have a look at the sorts of comments that get made there at CopBlock, which is a noble, even if controversial organization for truth. The shills that come crawling out of the woodwork to distract the readers from seeing the truth. And of course have a gander at the following piece, which clearly shows that there is a very real movement of ignorance in this country that is bent on destroying truth in the public eye. 

Have you broken free yet, can you break free, can you remain intellectually honest with yourself in the face of psychological warfare?

-Captain Six

Also see:

Media Manipulation, Propaganda, and the Rules of Disinformation

Ignorance Fuels Trust In Government, Study

Herd Mentality

* * *

Propaganda, Psychological Warfare, and The War For Your Mind In Wake of Boston Bombing

Just after the bombing occurred, alternate media source InfoWars.com dispatched a reporter to see what he could uncover, and to ask some tough questions. This is the sort of reporting and investigative journalism that we could never expect from mainstream corporate media sources today. To the contrary, regular news sources have already been caught in a number of lies, spreading untruths and disinformation, ignoring pertinent facts, and in general trying very hard to paint a particular picture about the terrible event. 

Of course, this is not a complete endorsement either, of Alex Jones, his InfoWars network, or any alternate media source in general. The idea here is for people to judge for themselves, to exercise critical thinking, and to have as many genuine facts at their disposal as possible. But to that end, it certainly appears that alternate media sources have become our only reliable source of open information.

Dan Bidonbi, reporting for Infowars, was there for the initial press conferences.

Inside Boston Marathon Bombing Press Conferences (VIDEO LINK)

Just looking at that video alone, it would be easy to write off the reporter as another one of those "wacko conspiracy nuts." Sadly though, his question was probably the single most important question asked during that press conference, and it went unanswered. It is not conspiracy theory that the police were conducting a so-called drill when these bombs went off. It is not conspiracy theory they were telling people before, and even after bombs had actually gone off, that it was just an exercise.

University of Mobile’s Cross Country Coach is just one of many witnesses who has come forward to corroborate this account. Before the bombs went off, he was concerned by bomb-sniffing dogs, rooftop snipers, and intense police activity.

“It seemed like there was some sort of threat, but they kept telling us it was just a drill... They kept making announcements on the loud speaker that it was just a drill and there was nothing to worry about.” -Coach Ali Stevenson (SOURCE)

Also see: Boston Bombing Witness Says FBI Deleted His Crime Scene Photos

Witnesses at the scene are not the only source of information though. While the mainstream media can be a very unreliable source of information, they also make mistakes by reporting actual facts from time to time. Inconvenient facts, that do not fit the ongoing "script" and will therefore never be reported on again, except in the underground media who happened to pick up that information before it got scrubbed entirely from the internet. 

Of course we must also understand that not all false reports by the media are necessarily deliberate. In any unfolding events there will be chaos, conflicting reports, and so forth. On the other hand, there are some things that would never be reported at all, unless there was a reason. Reporting that police were conducting a drill that involved a controlled explosion is one such example. Again, keep in mind, that this was reported before the bombs actually went off. So the Boston Globe cannot simply dismiss their reports as being an error because of confusion after the blasts went off.

Strong Evidence 'Drill' Was Cover For Actual Bombing In Boston

So we see from all of this that the questions posed by InfoWars reporter Dan Bidonbi were not at all the product of lunacy, or some hidden agenda to discredit authorities simply for the sake of discrediting authorities. The questions were completely legitimate, should have been answered, and yet still have not been answered.

Despite the most comprehensive, invasive, violent, and Constitutionally offensive manhunt ever conducted on American soil, police actually failed to find "Suspect #2" Dzhokar Tsarnaev after his alleged shootout with police some 20 hours earlier. Instead, he was found by a civilian homeowner who went out to check on his boat after the declaration of martial law had been lifted, and found the suspect laying inside. And despite the fact that the suspect was not armed, police opened fire on him with high power weapons.

Thanks to Dan Bidonbi reporting for InfoWars, we have learned now that even though police didn't bother to check the boat, they had ripped through the rest of the neighborhood with menacing threat of force, and even stormed through the house right across the street from where the suspect was eventually found. Be sure to check out those video interviews at the following link:

Boston Gestapo Victims Speak Out

So there we see that Mr. Bidonbi is conducting real interviews, with real people in that community who were directly affected by all that unfolded there. The interviews are rather lengthy, and not edited to cherry pick small soundbites to be broadcast for propaganda value. In fact, some of what was said there by the folks he interviewed does not fit in line with other InfoWars reports or the consensus of conspiracy theorists.

One such contradiction is that a person who is interviewed there by Bidonbi says that he saw Dzhokar run over his brother Tamerlan, who was laying in the street at police gunpoint. This actually conflicts with other witness statements who claim it was the police ran over the suspect in the street.But those statements also conflict with the assessment of a doctor, who says that the suspect was not run over at all.

But again, this is what the news is supposed to be. An open funnel of information, uncut and in the raw. From all of these reports then, we can assess for ourselves, and extrapolate whatever truth is there to be found.

But this sort of reporting is dangerous. Dangerous to the real conspirators and their hidden agendas, whatever those agendas might be, dangerous to mainstream media who are being undermined and made fools of by true journalism, but perhaps most of all, dangerous to people like Dan Bidonbi who have the courage to bring you this information.

Given all that is at stake here, the entire public perception of the Boston bombing, of the war on terror, of our own government, it is not surprising at all that certain powers-that-be would finally engage in direct psychological warfare. Alex Jones and his networks can no longer just be written off as lunacy. More and more people are taking these things seriously. More and more people are waking up that we, as a society, have been duped by our government, by the media. More and more people want answers, and accountability. More and more people are waking up to the fact that our once great nation have been stolen out from under us. More and more people want to take this country back.

But how do to the powers-that-be undermine the alternative media? How can the liars put the rustling sheep back to sleep, even with wolves scratching at the door? How can the liars discredit the seekers of truth? The answer is, to engage someone like Dan Bidonbi, directly. Make it appear as if the attack is spontaneous. Make it appear as though it is just an average person, a "one of us" sort of person, a "real patriot" who "loves" America who is utterly offended by the mere presence of someone like Dan Bidonbi in his midst. Better yet, shine the spotlight on a "true believer." Someone who has been utterly and completely brainwashed by media propaganda and government rhetoric. Someone who is utterly incapable of even considering inconvenient facts that run contrary to what is "allowed" to be entered into public consciousnesses. A shill, who doesn't even realize that he is a shill.

Enter, Roger Nicholson.

In this first video, we see the first attack. There shouldn't be any need here to explain that this is a free country, that Bidonbi has every right to be there. We will assume readers here have the intellectual wherewithal to be able to see for themselves just how misguided and disgusting this attack really is. Sadly though, there certainly are people out there who will be duped by the ignorant vitriol spewed by the likes of this Nicholson character.

VIDEO LINK

Indeed, the mainstream media is counting on the vast majority of Americans to be swayed by this vulgar level of propaganda. Here you see that MSNBC gives Roger Nicholson airtime simply to bash Alex Jones, and to attract national attention to Nicholson's petty little rant toward an alternate media reporter.

VIDEO LINK

But let's have a closer look now at Roger Nicholson. First, this video shows us that he is not quite just some random guy off the street. He has some connections to the media as well. Perhaps this was the channel through which he was recruited as a minion of the agenda. Bona fide shill or not though, this clip is quite revealing as to his true nature, and the sort of person who the powers-that-be expect us to be like, and to identify with.

VIDEO LINK

Finally, in this last video, Nicholson actually appears on InfoWars as a guest. His murderous, psychotic nature bubbles to the surface again, though not quite as boldly as in the video above. But here we get a deeper look at how contradictory, delusional, utterly and willfully ignorant he actually is.

VIDEO LINK