This blog is the continuation of The Stark Raving Viking blog. The author of all the posts here is Steven G. Erickson a.k.a blogger Vikingas. Keywords: Human Rights Watch China USA World Civil Judicial prosecutorial attorney Judge misconduct brutality police action Connecticut Politics State Martial Law US Constitution
It's hard to imagine, just talking with certain groups of people, breaking no laws, going to a political party meeting, exercising US Constitutional rights, and getting years in prison, unable to earn a living for life. To understand current blacklisting going on now in the US, you have to understand a little of its history.
Text with below video: During the week of March 15 through March 19, Reason.tv debuted the six-part, hour-long documentary series Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew Carey: How to Fix The Mistake on the Lake And Other Once-Great American Cities.
Each episode analyzes and suggests a solution (or solutions) for pressing urban problems ranging from education to depopulation to right-sizing government to creating a better climate for business.
Should teens who send nude and semi-nude pictures to each other be charged with the same laws used to target pedophiles and sex offenders?
Rep. Rebimbas supports "sexting" legislation
Text with video: Rep. Rosa C. Rebimbas (official webpage) testifies in front of the (Connecticut) Judiciary Committee in favor of proposed "sexting" legislation.
Sexting, defined as transmission and dissemination of nude or semi-nude images via phone or e-mail, has become more prevalent in recent years with the explosion of cell phone cameras and digital cameras.
House Bill 5533, An Act Concerning Sexting creates a lesser category for punishment for minors who are thirteen years of age or older but under eighteen years of age, who may knowingly possess and transmit any visual depiction of child pornography by means of an electronic communication device. State law currently treats possession of such images as child pornography. Possession of child pornography is a felony and those convicted are forced to register as a sexual offender. This bill would make it a class A misdemeanor instead.
Representatives Rosa Rebimbas and Arthur O'Neill on "Sexting" Legislation (Feb. 2010 upload)
* * * * * * * *
Teen Sexting and US Children 4 Sale (Smoking Gun tidbits offered to international media)
Part 1 of 4, Alex Jones interviews Georgia Republican State Senator Nancy Schaefer about the official kidnapping of kids by Department of Children and Families CPS, corrupt courts, and police misconduct. Nancy was murdered March 26, 2010. What she exposed, and then was killed for makes the below even more alarming. I recommend you watch the below video:
* * * * * * * * There is a bigger issue than teens sending sexually charged text messages to each other. What about domestic spying on citizens? What about police retaliation against citizens who blog and write in newspapers about police misconduct, brutality, and public corruption?
In the State of Connecticut a citizen can end up railroaded to prison and then kicked out of Connecticut upon release for testing the 1st Amendment in Connecticut. State Police allegedly finger fucked a woman I was dating, violating her twice on her way home, pulling her over twice, finding she wasn't where underwear. She was threatened with arrest for dating me, or for lodging a sexual assault charge against police. I never saw her again.
http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/2006/11/attn-fbi-and-ct-state-senator-tony.html I owned houses in Connecticut, had built a business over 2 decades, and was raising a daughter. I had no criminal record. At a time when prison space couldn't be found for rapists of children as young as 3 years old, I was sentenced to a year in prison, and sent to prison for resisting being mugged! Red flags should have been raised with elected officials, high ranking police, and especially a judge. I suffer everyday, worse than most rapists and sex offenders, and I have broken no laws and have no victims. I have a criminal record for life for resisting being beaten up and robbed coming home from work to my own dark driveway.
This blogger's email: firstname.lastname@example.org
To send this post to a friend, click on white envelope below.
NORTHAMPTON, Mass. — - Insults and threats followed 15-year-old Phoebe Prince almost from her first day at South Hadley High School, targeting the Irish immigrant until the day she took her life.
Phoebe, ostracized for having a brief relationship with a popular boy, reached her breaking point and hanged herself after one especially hellish day in January — a day that, according to officials, included being hounded with slurs and pelted with a beverage container as she walked home from school.
Now, nine teenagers face charges in what a prosecutor called "unrelenting" bullying, including two boys charged with statutory rape and a clique of girls charged with stalking, criminal harassment and violating Phoebe's civil rights.
School officials will not be charged, even though authorities said that they knew about the bullying and that Phoebe's mother raised her concerns with at least two of them.
Northwestern District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel, who announced the charges Monday, said the events before Phoebe's death on Jan. 14 were "the culmination of a nearly three-month campaign of verbally assaultive behavior and threats of physical harm" widely known among the student body.
"The investigation revealed relentless activity directed toward Phoebe, designed to humiliate her and to make it impossible for her to remain at school," Scheibel said. "The bullying, for her, became intolerable."
Scheibel said the case is still under investigation and that one other person could be charged.
Scheibel said the harassment began in September, occurring primarily in school and in person, although some of it surfaced on Facebook and in other electronic forms.
At least four students and two faculty members tried to stop it or report it to administrators, she said.
Schiebel refused to discuss the circumstances of the rape charges.
No school officials are being charged because they had "a lack of understanding of harassment associated with teen dating relationships," and the school's code of conduct was interpreted and enforced in an "inconsistent" way, Scheibel said.
"Nevertheless, the actions — or inactions — of some adults at the school are troublesome," she said.
A message seeking comment was left Monday for South Hadley Superintendent Gus A. Sayer.
Phoebe was born in Bedford, England, and moved to County Clare, Ireland, when she was 2. She moved last summer to South Hadley, home to Mount Holyoke College, because the family had relatives there.
Her family has since moved and could not be located for comment. Scheibel spoke for them at a news conference to announce the charges.
Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Will the US Government need to tax small business at 88% to survive? Will the poorest youngest members of society, pay out all their hours of work to support a richer, retired population? Can this super bad problem be taxed out of?
Stossel Show - Stealing from our Children! (Part 1/5)
Counterfactual A curious history of the C.I.A.’s secret interrogation program. by Jane Mayer March 29, 2010
Marc Thiessen was a speechwriter in the Bush Administration. Keywords “Courting Disaster” (Regnery; $29.95); Marc A. Thiessen; Terrorism, Terrorists; Al Qaeda; Torture; Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.); Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
On September 11, 2006, the fifth anniversary of Al Qaeda’s attacks on America, another devastating terrorist plot was meant to unfold. Radical Islamists had set in motion a conspiracy to hijack seven passenger planes departing from Heathrow Airport, in London, and blow them up in midair. “Courting Disaster” (Regnery; $29.95), by Marc A. Thiessen, a former speechwriter in the Bush Administration, begins by imagining the horror that would have resulted had the plot succeeded. He conjures fifteen hundred dead airline passengers, televised “images of debris floating in the ocean,” and gleeful jihadis issuing fresh threats: “We will rain upon you such terror and destruction that you will never know peace.”
The plot, of course, was thwarted—an outcome that has been credited to smart detective work. But Thiessen writes that there is a more important reason that his dreadful scenario never came to pass: the Central Intelligence Agency provided the United Kingdom with pivotal intelligence, using “enhanced interrogation techniques” approved by the Bush Administration. According to Thiessen, British authorities were given crucial assistance by a detainee at Guantánamo Bay who spoke of “plans for the use of liquid explosive,” which can easily be made with products bought at beauty shops. Thiessen also claims that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the primary architect of the 9/11 attacks, divulged key intelligence after being waterboarded by the C.I.A. a hundred and eighty-three times. Mohammed spoke about a 1995 plot, based in the Philippines, to blow up planes with liquid explosives. Thiessen writes that, in early 2006, “an observant C.I.A. officer” informed “skeptical” British authorities that radicals under surveillance in England appeared to be pursuing a similar scheme.
Thiessen’s book, whose subtitle is “How the C.I.A. Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack,” offers a relentless defense of the Bush Administration’s interrogation policies, which, according to many critics, sanctioned torture and yielded no appreciable intelligence benefit. In addition, Thiessen attacks the Obama Administration for having banned techniques such as waterboarding. “Americans could die as a result,” he writes.
Yet Thiessen is better at conveying fear than at relaying the facts. His account of the foiled Heathrow plot, for example, is “completely and utterly wrong,” according to Peter Clarke, who was the head of Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism branch in 2006. “The deduction that what was being planned was an attack against airliners was entirely based upon intelligence gathered in the U.K.,” Clarke said, adding that Thiessen’s “version of events is simply not recognized by those who were intimately involved in the airlines investigation in 2006.” Nor did Scotland Yard need to be told about the perils of terrorists using liquid explosives. The bombers who attacked London’s public-transportation system in 2005, Clarke pointed out, “used exactly the same materials.”
Thiessen’s claim about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed looks equally shaky. The Bush interrogation program hardly discovered the Philippine airlines plot: in 1995, police in Manila stopped it from proceeding and, later, confiscated a computer filled with incriminating details. By 2003, when Mohammed was detained, hundreds of news reports about the plot had been published. If Mohammed provided the C.I.A. with critical new clues—details unknown to the Philippine police, or anyone else—Thiessen doesn’t supply the evidence. from the issue cartoon bank e-mail this
Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert who is writing a history of the Bush Administration’s “war on terror,” told me that the Heathrow plot “was disrupted by a combination of British intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, and Scotland Yard.” He noted that authorities in London had “literally wired the suspects’ bomb factory for sound and video.” It was “a classic law-enforcement and intelligence success,” Bergen said, and “had nothing to do with waterboarding or with Guantánamo detainees.”
“ Courting Disaster” was published soon after a terrorism scare—the attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, an alleged affiliate of Al Qaeda, to blow up a Detroit-bound jet on Christmas Day—and the book has attracted a wide readership, becoming a Times best-seller. Recently, Thiessen was hired by the Washington Post as an online columnist. Neither a journalist nor a terrorism expert, he got his start as a publicist for conservative politicians, among them Jesse Helms, the late Republican senator from North Carolina. After Bush’s election in 2000, he began writing speeches for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and, eventually, became a speechwriter in the Bush White House.
In his book, Thiessen explains that he got a rare glimpse of the C.I.A.’s secret interrogation program when, in 2006, he helped write a speech for President George W. Bush that acknowledged the program’s existence and offered a spirited defense of it. “This program has given us information that has saved innocent lives,” Bush declared. (My own history of the Bush Administration’s interrogation policies, “The Dark Side,” mentions this speech, and says that it supplanted a different version, prepared by Administration officials who disapproved of the interrogation program; Thiessen, in his book, disputes my reporting, insisting that although “many edits” were suggested by critics of abusive tactics, there was “no rival draft.”) In an effort to bolster the President’s speech, the C.I.A. arranged for Thiessen to see classified documents, and invited him to meet agency interrogators. He says that he emerged convinced of the program’s merit. While researching his book, he was granted extensive interviews with several of the program’s key architects and implementers, including Vice-President Dick Cheney; Michael McConnell, the former director of national intelligence; and Michael V. Hayden, the former C.I.A. director. The book, whose cover features a blurb from Cheney, has become the unofficial Bible of torture apologists.
“Courting Disaster” has a scholarly feel, and hundreds of footnotes, but it is based on a series of slipshod premises. Thiessen, citing McConnell, claims that before the C.I.A. began interrogating detainees the U.S. knew “virtually nothing” about Al Qaeda. But McConnell was not in the government in the years immediately before 9/11. He retired as the director of the National Security Agency in 1996, and did not rejoin the government until 2007. Evidently, he missed a few developments during his time in the private sector, such as the C.I.A.’s founding, in 1996, of its bin Laden unit—the only unit devoted to a single figure. There was also bin Laden’s declaration of war on America, in 1996, and his 1998 indictment in New York, after Al Qaeda’s bombing of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. The subsequent federal trial of the bombing suspects, in New York, produced thousands of pages of documents exposing the internal workings of Al Qaeda. A state’s witness at the trial, a former Al Qaeda member named Jamal al-Fadl, supplied the F.B.I. with invaluable information about the group, including its attempts to obtain nuclear weapons. (Fadl did so without any coercion other than the hope of a future plea bargain. Indeed, the F.B.I., without using violence, has persuaded dozens of other suspected terrorists to coöperate, including, most recently, the Christmas Day bomber.)
In order to make the case that America was blind to the threat of Al Qaeda in the days before 9/11, Thiessen skips over the scandalous amount of intelligence that reached the Bush White House before the attacks. In February, 2001, the C.I.A.’s director, George Tenet, called Al Qaeda “the most immediate and serious threat” to the country. Richard Clarke, then the country’s counterterrorism chief, tried without success to get Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national-security adviser, to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on Al Qaeda. Thomas Pickard, then the F.B.I.’s acting director, has testified that Attorney General John Ashcroft told him that he wanted to hear no more about Al Qaeda. On August 6, 2001, Bush did nothing in response to a briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.” As Tenet later put it, “The system was blinking red.”
Thiessen presents the C.I.A. interrogation program as an unqualified success. “In the decade before the C.I.A. began interrogating captured terrorists, Al Qaeda launched repeated attacks against America,” he writes. “In the eight years since the C.I.A. began interrogating captured terrorists, Al Qaeda has not succeeded in launching one single attack on the homeland or American interests abroad.” This is not exactly a textbook demonstration of causality. Moreover, the claim that American interests have been invulnerable since the C.I.A. began waterboarding is manifestly untrue. Al Qaeda has launched numerous attacks against U.S. targets abroad since 9/11, including the 2004 attack on the Hilton Hotel in Taba, Egypt; the 2003 and 2009 attacks on hotels in Indonesia; four attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Karachi; and the assassination of Lawrence Foley, a U.S. diplomat, in Jordan. In 2007, Al Qaeda attacked Bagram Air Base, in Afghanistan, killing two Americans and twenty-one others, in a failed attempt to assassinate Cheney, who was visiting. Indeed, Al Qaeda’s relentless campaign in Afghanistan has helped bring about the near-collapse of U.S. policy there. In Iraq, the Al Qaeda faction led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers.
Terrorism experts have advanced many reasons that Al Qaeda has not managed a successful attack inside the U.S. since 9/11. For one thing, Peter Bergen suggests, America, in addition to improving its security procedures, “has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on improving intelligence.” This effort has involved better coördination between the C.I.A., the F.B.I., and the international community, as well as tightened surveillance.
Thiessen’s impulse, however, is to credit C.I.A. interrogators at every turn. He portrays the agency’s coercive handling, in 2002, of Abu Zubaydah—he was subjected to beatings, sexual humiliation, temperature extremes, and waterboarding, among other techniques—as another coup that saved American lives. Information given by Zubaydah, Thiessen writes, led to the arrest, two months later, in Chicago, of Jose Padilla, the American-born Al Qaeda recruit. But Ali Soufan, a former F.B.I. agent, has testified before Congress that he elicited Padilla’s identity from Zubaydah in April, 2002—months before the C.I.A. began using its most controversial methods. Soufan, speaking to Newsweek, said of Zubaydah’s treatment, “We didn’t have to do any of this.” Philip Zelikow, the former executive director of the 9/11 Commission, has described Soufan as “one of the most impressive intelligence agents—from any agency.” Thiessen dismisses Soufan’s firsthand account as “simply false,” on the ground that another F.B.I. agent involved in Zubaydah’s interrogation—whom Thiessen doesn’t identify—told the Justice Department’s inspector general that he didn’t recall Soufan’s getting the information.
Thiessen, citing the classified evidence that he was privileged to see, claims that opponents of brutal interrogations can’t appreciate their efficacy. “The assessment of virtually everyone who examined the classified evidence,” he writes, is that the C.I.A.’s methods were justified. In fact, many independent experts who have top security clearances, and who have had access to the C.I.A.’s records, have denounced the agency’s tactics. Among the critics are Robert Mueller, the director of the F.B.I., and four chairmen of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Last year, President Obama asked Michael Hayden, the C.I.A. director, to give a classified briefing on the program to three intelligence experts: Chuck Hagel, the former Republican senator from Nebraska; Jeffrey Smith, a former general counsel to the C.I.A.; and David Boren, the retired Democratic senator from Oklahoma. The three men were left unswayed. Boren has said that, after the briefing, he “wanted to take a bath.” In an e-mail to me, he wrote, “I left the briefing by General Hayden completely unconvinced that the use of torture is an effective means of interrogation. . . . Those who are being tortured will say anything.”
Tellingly, Thiessen does not address the many false confessions given by detainees under torturous pressure, some of which have led the U.S. tragically astray. Nowhere in this book, for instance, does the name Ibn Sheikh al-Libi appear. In 2002, the C.I.A., under an expanded policy of extraordinary rendition, turned Libi over to Egypt to be brutalized. Under duress, Libi falsely linked Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s alleged biochemical-weapons program, in Iraq. In February, 2003, former Secretary of State Colin Powell gave an influential speech in which he made the case for going to war against Iraq and prominently cited this evidence.
Thiessen never questions the wisdom of relying on C.I.A. officials to assess the legality and effectiveness of their own controversial program. Yet many people at the agency aren’t just worried about the judgment of history; they’re worried about facing prosecution. As a report by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility notes, the agency has a “demonstrated interest in shielding its interrogators from legal jeopardy.”
“Courting Disaster” downplays the C.I.A.’s brutality under the Bush Administration to the point of falsification. Thiessen argues that “the C.I.A. interrogation program did not inflict torture by any reasonable standard,” and that there was “only one single case” in which “inhumane” techniques were used. That case, he writes, involved the detainee Abd al-Rahim Nashiri, whom a C.I.A. interrogator threatened with a handgun to the head, and with an electric drill. He claims that no detainee “deaths in custody took place in the C.I.A. interrogation program,” failing to mention the case of a detainee who was left to freeze to death at a C.I.A.-run prison in Afghanistan. Referring to the Abu Ghraib scandal, Thiessen writes that “what happened in those photos had nothing to do with C.I.A. interrogations, military interrogations, or interrogations of any sort.” The statement is hard to square with the infamous photograph of Manadel al-Jamadi; his body was placed on ice after he died of asphyxiation during a C.I.A. interrogation at the prison. The homicide became so notorious that the C.I.A.’s inspector general, John Helgerson, forwarded the case to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution. Thiessen simply ignores the incident.
Thiessen also categorically states, “The well-documented fact is there was no torture at Guantánamo.” One person who would disagree with this remark is Susan Crawford, the conservative Republican jurist whom Bush appointed to serve as the top “convening authority” on military commissions at Guantánamo. Last year, she told Bob Woodward, of the Washington Post, that there was at least one Guantánamo detainee whose prosecution she couldn’t allow because his abuse “met the legal definition of torture.”
P erhaps the most outlandish falsehood in “Courting Disaster” is Thiessen’s portrayal of Obama and the Democrats as the sole opponents of brutal interrogation tactics. Thiessen presents the termination of the C.I.A. program as a renegade action by President Obama, who has “eliminated our nation’s most important tool to prevent terrorists from striking America.” Yet Thiessen knows that waterboarding and other human-rights abuses, such as dispatching prisoners into secret indefinite detention, were abandoned by the Bush Administration: he wrote the very speech announcing, in 2006, that the Administration was suspending their use.
In fact, the C.I.A.’s descent into torture was ended by an outpouring of opposition from critics inside and outside the Administration—including officials within the C.I.A., who registered their concerns with Helgerson. In 2004, Helgerson wrote a pointed confidential report questioning the legality, the medical safety, and the humaneness of the program, which spurred conservative, Bush-appointed lawyers in the Justice Department to withdraw arguments that had been made to justify the program. F.B.I. officials and military leaders, including the four-star General John Vessey, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, turned against the Bush Administration interrogation program. So did Senator John McCain; he later described waterboarding as torture. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that American officials had to treat Al Qaeda suspects humanely, or face charges of war crimes.
Thiessen’s effort to rewrite the history of the C.I.A.’s interrogation program comes not long after a Presidential race in which both the Republican and the Democratic nominees agreed that state-sponsored cruelty had damaged and dishonored America. The publication of “Courting Disaster” suggests that Obama’s avowed determination “to look forward, not back” has laid the recent past open to partisan reinterpretation. By holding no one accountable for past abuse, and by convening no commission on what did and didn’t protect the country, President Obama has left the telling of this dark chapter in American history to those who most want to whitewash it. ♦
* * * * * * * *
Why The Military KNOWS Israel did 911
Text with video: polkasw—March 28, 2010 — Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the U.S. Army War College, on audio. The video details evidence on why it is 100% certain that Israel did 9/11 and the official story is a pack of lies.
I've re-posted the below, to show the number of people I have contacted with the same message. If you allege public corruption, police misconduct or brutality, judicial misconduct, and complain felonies have been committed as I did about operatives in the State of Connecticut, if the information is inaccurate, or false, a citizen can expect to promptly be arrested and flogged in court. When officials do all they can to ignore complaints, such as the ones below, it is an admission of guilt.
By TRACY GORDON FOX | Courant Staff Writer July 18, 2007
State police have begun an internal affairs investigation into a racially offensive video and still photograph that were e-mailed several months ago among troopers assigned to the state police forensic laboratory, including to its commander.
One e-mail shows a still photograph of a black man lying on the street surrounded by watermelon rinds and chicken bones. The headline on the e-mail read "fatal overdose?" Another e-mail had a video attachment of a tow-headed white girl with a lisp, who sat at her kitchen table in a yellow shirt and spewed hateful racial slurs with the encouragement of two adults. The subject line simply says: "Little girl with a speech problem." [more]
* * * *
[click here] for my open letter to Connecticut State Police Commissioner John A. Danaher III
In this important interview attempting to link the Patriot movement and the Tea Parties with "violence", Alex Jones shows us what goes on behind the scenes of the CNN attack piece apparently set on demonizing tea parties and pro-Constitutional movements as "violent".
Alex instantly recognize the attempt to demonize him personally, as well as to discredit other grassroots political movements by the tone of the producers questions.
The interview, filmed on Friday, was set-up by Anderson Cooper's producers, but so far hasn't aired. Was Alex too controversial, or will excerpts of the footage be used in a future segment? We don't know for sure, but all that Anderson Cooper's program showed on Friday in connection with the alleged "violent" tendencies was Sarah Palin and John McCain.
Regardless of what CNN chooses to air in the future, or how they might distort Alex's responses, here is a record of what really happened. It was filmed on a pocket camera, and no audio of CNN's questions is available, but Alex Jones' responses are all here, as he denies their attempt to frame his influence over talk radio and in documentary films as connected with "violence" "anarchy" or other such demonized terms.
Alex calls out CNN for their complicity in "violence" through the promotion of the Iraq War-- which resulted in more than 1 million dead Iraqi civilians, including women and children. Alex dares CNN to mention over the airwaves the fact that Anderson Cooper was admittedly in the CIA and is part of the elite Astor family, or the fact that CNN reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 more than an hour ahead of attempt, likely in response to an early Reuters wire report. Yet, no retraction has been made.
Whether or not Alex's strong response to the attempts at painting political dissent as "violent" terrorism will ever be aired or not remains to be seen.
It's hard to imagine, just talking with certain groups of people, breaking no laws, going to a political party meeting, exercising US Constitutional rights, and getting years in prison, unable to earn a living for life. To understand current blacklisting going on now in the US, you have to understand a little of its history.
* * * * Listening to Alex Jones got me in this music mood:
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, looking to counter what it sees as a decline in local journalism and original reporting nationwide, said it is making funding available to set up seven regional reporting projects that will be collaborative efforts between public radio and TV stations.
The Local Journalism Centers, as they are being called, will each hire teams of reporters and editors, as well as community outreach managers, to report on an issue of regional relevance, including the reinvention of the industrial upper Midwest economy, efforts in upstate New York to attract innovative businesses, and agribusiness in the Plains.
The ideas for what to cover came from the stations themselves, said Patricia Harrison, the president and chief executive of the C.P.B. “These stations are looking at issues they think need a much deeper dive than they are getting now,” she said.
A total of about 50 jobs will be created. C.P.B., which administers federal funds for public broadcasting, will invest $7.5 million in the project over two years, with another $3 million coming from local stations.
Eventually the projects are meant to be self-sustaining and replicable elsewhere, Ms. Harrison said, calling the program “a huge investment at a time when resources are scarce.”
Posted by kenny's sideshow at 8:48 AM Mr. Steele seems to be the most commonsense, to the point, and no hype or bullshit approach to some pretty important subjects. It is refreshing. This blogger recommends that you take a look. The bottom video annoyed me as the set up of the talk is shown. So maybe the first minute and 45 seconds is a waste. I used the slide to start the below video in that position. I am currently watching number two in the series. Cheney is called a cross-dresser and Obama is called the "House Negro" ... I'm still laughing ... Enjoy!
Text that I plan to load on a liveleak video: Palin & Fed Hate Baiting
I really don’t know a heck of a whole lot about the Tea Party movement. I do know that many Republicans, Democrats, and Independents have some very core issues in common, including feeling like there is no representation for our taxation. There is probably no better person than Sarah Palin to label the whole movement as a “Wingnut Fringe”. If I were a Liberal Democrat anything goes espionage think tank operative, I’d pay Palin covertly pay her to do exactly what she is doing.
Palin has become the Jerry Springer stepchild of the Republicans. The Feds have paid hate mongers to polarize the public as much as is possible. Hal Turner is a good example. If you look into it, Palin is walking the edge of the cliff, pretty close to where Hal Turner left off, with much more sugar and stealth, avoiding using the word “Nigger” and “Spic” and other inflammatory labels of hate, Hal Turner is famous for.
The danger to the powers that be is for average people pissed off about the banksters on Wall St., scumbag politicians taking bribes from them like Connecticut US Senator Chris Dodd, and how elected officials do all they can to not serve the best interest of the public, is for people from all sides to have a real Tea Party. For real change, we all need to see there needs to be change. We need more referendums for direct votes of the people. Grand Juries need to be manned by average people for short terms as judges are phased out. Grand juries need to be replaced by corrupt judges who rule like monarchs. That would be the biggest first step to having representation for our taxation. Time to get busy offline.
Keywords: Nazi supremacy supremist skinhead Zionist Israel Afghanistan Iraq Iran War Protest criminal espionage
Defense attorneys say an alleged plot to bomb New York synagogues was hatched and directed by a federal informant. They said the informant badgered the defendants until they got involved in the plot and the 4 men are also saying the FBI tried to bully them into targeting planes.
Excerpt from 2002 official document pdf: TOMAS FORAL, age 26, of 15 Baldwin Street (West Hartford, Connecticut), had previously been charged in an Information with violating 18 U.S.C. §175(b), specifically with the unlawful possession of anthrax. FORAL is a graduate student at the University of Connecticut and a member of the University’s ROTC program.
John A. Danaher III's grandfather John A. Danaher [info]
* * * *
The Connecticut State Police Secret Enemies List, one example:
click image to make image larger
Ken Krayeske was the Green Party Campaign Manager for Connecticut Governor, rival for Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell's seat. Ken was placed on the "arrest on sight" list and arrested for standing on a public sidewalk taking digital pictures as a journalist. If this isn't a major Police State foul, I don't know what one is.
This video loaded on youtube, below, is about my concerns of the rigging of the law enforcement, the courts, oversight, and ethical checks and balances of the whole system of government in Connecticut. It has long been broken and the way judges are nominated is only making a monumentally big problem, worse. Connecticut and rogue states like it need to be investigated and cleaned up from the outside.
John A. Danaher III has had an interesting work history and comes from a line of powerful people. I believe that Danaher is a plant into the Connecticut Judicial System to corrupt the system for elected officials who have to worry about being investigated and prosecuted, and for fixing cases in favor of the Connecticut State Police, their operatives, and to keep the court systems from being exposed for the taxpayer bilking fraud that it is.
John A. Danaher III went from Connecticut US Attorney, to Connecticut State Police Commissioner, to be nominated by Republican Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell who has some serious election rigging allegations against her administration. Political rivals can be arrested on sight once put on the Connecticut State Police Enemies List. Just ask Ken Krayeske. There has also been a history of racism, sexism, and abuse of citizens. Retaliation of whistle blowers and big mouth citizens is unwritten policy. Danaher is allegedly responsible for covering up a perpetrator in possession of military grade Anthrax during the Anthrax scare of 2001. Check out the links with this video for the smoking gun racist emails and more.
Should an alleged corrupt, law breaking Governor nominate and alleged case and investigation rigging insider to the position of judge in Connecticut? No matter where you live, please look into this scandal and express outrage to the appropriate prominent citizens and investigating bodies. Thank you.
added December 27, 2010, proof that our worst fears have come true, Richard I. Fine talks on video after 18 months of being held as a political prisoner by Los Angeles, California, judges who want to continue to take bribes to cover up the embezzlement of child support funds, Eminent Domain abuse of citizens, and allowing the corporate/banksters to continue to loot America: http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/2010/12/richard-i-fine-wins-his-freedom.html
* * * * To share this post with others, click on white envelope below.
Note: If I post something, I sometimes neither agree, or disagree with the author or the POV of the shooter of the video, or with what is being said, I just find it interesting.
(May 2007 upload)Breaking The Spell: Modern Revolutionary Theory
Text with video: In representative democracy people abdicate their power to elected officials. The candidates' stated policies are limited to a few vague generalities, and once they are elected there is little control over their actual decisions on hundreds of issues - apart from the feeble threat of changing one's vote, a few years later, to some equally uncontrollable rival politician. Representatives are dependent on the wealthy for bribes and campaign contributions; they are subordinate to the owners of the mass media, who decide which issues get the publicity; and they are almost as ignorant and powerless as the general public regarding many important matters that are determined by unelected bureaucrats and independent agencies. Overt dictators may sometimes be overthrown, but the real rulers in "democratic" regimes, the tiny minority who own or control virtually everything, are never voted in and never voted out. Most people don't even know who they are.
In the name of realism, reformists limit themselves to pursuing "winnable" objectives, yet even when they win some little adjustment in the system it is usually offset by some other development at another level. This doesn't mean that reforms are irrelevant, merely that they are insufficient. We have to keep resisting particular evils, but we also have to recognize that the system will keep generating new ones until we put an end to it. To suppose that a series of reforms will eventually add up to a qualitative change is like thinking we can get across a ten-foot chasm by a series of one-foot hops.
We know that antiquated styles of protest-marches, hand held signs, and gatherings are now powerless to effect real change because they have become such a predictable part of the status quo. We know that post-Marxist jargon is off-putting because it really is a language of mere academic dispute, not a weapon capable of undermining systems of control. We know that all the infighting, splinter groups and endless quarrels over ephemeral theories can never effect any real change in the world we experience from day to day. We know that no matter who is in office, what laws are on the books, what "ism"s the intellectuals march under, the content of our lives will remain the same. And our boredom is proof that these "politics" are not the key to any real transformation of life.
However, in truth there is nothing more important than politics. NOT the politics of American "democracy" and law, of who is elected state legislator to sign the same bills and perpetuate the same system. Not the politics of the "I got involved with the radical left because I enjoy quibbling over trivial details and writing rhetorically about an unreachable utopia" anarchists. Not the politics of any leader or ideology that demands that we make sacrifices for "the cause." But the politics of our everyday lives. When we separate politics from the immediate, everyday experiences of individual men and women, it becomes completely irrelevant. Indeed, it becomes the private domain of wealthy, comfortable intellectuals, who can trouble themselves with such dreary, theoretical things. When we involve ourselves in politics out of a sense of obligation, and make political action into a dull responsibility rather than an exciting game that is worthwhile for its own sake, we scare away people whose lives are already far too dull for any more tedium. When we make politics into a lifeless thing, a joyless thing, a dreadful responsibility, it becomes just another weight upon people, rather than a means to lift weight from people. And thus we ruin the idea of politics for the people to whom it should be most important. For everyone has a stake in considering their lives, in asking themselves what they want out of life and how they can get it. But politics often look to us like a miserable, self-referential, pointless middle class/bohemian game, a game with no relevance to the real lives we are living out.
What should be political? Whether we enjoy what we do to get food and shelter. Whether we feel like our daily interactions with our friends, neighbors, and coworkers are fulfilling. Whether we have the opportunity to live each day the way we desire to. And "politics" should consist not of merely discussing these questions, but of acting directly to improve our lives in the immediate present. Acting in a way that is itself entertaining, exciting, joyous - because political action that is tedious, tiresome, and oppressive can only perpetuate tedium, fatigue, and oppression in our lives. No more time should be wasted debating over issues that will be irrelevant when we must go to work again the next day. No more predictable ritual protests that the authorities know all too well how to deal with; clearly, those won't get us anywhere. Never again shall we "sacrifice ourselves for the cause." For happiness in our own lives and the lives of our fellows, must be our cause!
POLICE STATE II: THE TAKEOVER - Seattle WTO Protest - Pt. 1/3
Text with video: "POLICE STATE II: THE TAKEOVER"
Delta Force sponsors black bloc anarchists at the WTO protests in Seattle, Washington; Nov. 30, 1999.