Monday, September 29, 2008

The Truth about the Wall Street Bailout

See Video: The Truth about the Wall Street Bailout: How "Free Market Capitalism" Really Works. Nader and Chomsky Explain the Game, a Nanny State to Take Care of the Rich

Presidential candidate Ralph Nader (subscribe to the Nader channel) has a good video about the wall street bailout, I'll play you a short clip and also a clip of Chomsky talking about capitalism in the real world .

Nade
r is right, the bailout is yet another example of socialism for the rich which has been the game that's always been played. ALSO SEE: We have State-Capitalism NOT Capitalism

I recommend this CD of Noam Chomsky talking at Harvard in 96: Free Market Fantasies, Capitalism in the Real World

Chomsky explains that the free market theory sold to the public is just a fantasy. He shows how in the real world, different rules apply to the rich. the rich make sure they have the nanny state to take care of themselves. We are being played for fools. Let's get the word out.
Send this link to others:
Tinyurl.com/BailoutTruth


★ ★ ★ Please Subscribe →↘↓↓↓
Also please Join e-mail list →↘↓↓↓

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Swedish Twin charged with murder, One of the Highway Crossing Swedes Charged

Swedish Twin charged with murder
Sabina Eriksson, one of the twins who ran across a British highway, was charged with stabbing to death 54 year old Glenn Hollinshead. Eriksson, a 40 year old Swede living in Ireland, had been previously charged will running onto the highway and had admitted assaulting a police officer.
Why would Fox News write an article about this story with the twins and make joke out of it? Why wrote this: Swedish Twins Get Hit Playing 'Frogger' on Freeway?

That is the headline Fox News used in their report of a story of the Swedish twin sisters who ran into the road and caused accidents. How old is the reporter who wrote this?: "in what could best be described as a real-life game of ‘Frogger,’ the object of which is to cross a busy freeway without becoming road kill."

The story was interesting so I looked into it, I contacted a Swedish journalist who had written a recent article about charges against one of the twins in order to verify it is the same woman. It is.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Ask Steve to Change the "You Choose '08" page. See Renetto's Interview with Nader

SEE VIDEO: Ask Steve to Change the "You Choose '08" page. See Renetto's Interview with Nader

Spread the word, send this link to others: Tinyurl.com/wechoose

Renetto makes some excellent points in the video description of his latest video:

"Following the example of the Commission on Presidential Debates, a corporation established by the Republican and Democratic parties, YouTube is presenting the two corporate nominees as the only candidates running for president on their You Choose '08 page. How can we allow private interests to limit what voters are exposed to on a supposedly user-driven site where the word "you" is right in the name?

The exclusion of candidates like Ralph Nader is tantamount to a political endorsement of the two corporate parties by YouTube. Please contact Steve Grove, director of the You Choose '08 platform, telling him politely that you'd like to see the You Choose page changed to have Ralph Nader and all other serious candidates running for president equally represented. YouTube users must make it clear that they are against the deceitful practices of placing certain candidates which do not adequately represent their interests at an advantage above those which do.

You can also pledge your support for the democratic values of the Nader/Gonzalez campaign by visiting ConstitutionPledge.com. Contribute to the restoration of your civil liberties and constitutional protections. The money drive ends on the 27th, so please act now."

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

9/11 and Wrong Policy, what the 9/11 Commission Report did to us.

Please discuss the fact that the 9/11 Commission did not do its job. This video shows exactly what I am talking about: 9/11 and Wrong Policy, what the 9/11 Commission Report did to us.
Pass this URL on to others:
http://tinyurl.com/911WrongPolicy
SEE VIDEO

In their book, "Without Precedent" top 9/11 Commission admit to the game the played. Commissioners REJECTED mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. And you can see this this video the testimony they excluded from the 9/11 Report.

Thank you James

Thank you James for all the work you do to get the truth out about the main motive for the 9/11 attacks.

You can see James at one of the 9/11 Public Discourse Project's hearings challenging Lee Hamilton, vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission about how they were avoiding talking about US support for Israel which was the main motive for the 9/11 attacks. SEE VIDEO HERE: http://tinyurl.com/5nlhs6

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Bryan,

You have repeated the usual misrepresentations, distortions and omissions which are common in the Zionist/pro-Israel narrative. http://tinyurl.com/6syrgj

First of all, only a small percentage, aprox. 5% to 7%, was purchased. And the point is that Zionists plotted ethnic cleansing from the beginning. Israel Zangwel argued that Zionists “must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population.” http://tinyurl.com/5svow9

Even before the 20th century, some Jews saw warning signs that the Jews moving into Palestine were not going to respect the non-Jewish inhabitants. Ahad Aham, a Jewish critic of Zionist supremacy, complained in 1891 that "they treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination."

This Yeshiva University Commentator admits the truth:
"One of the greatest Israeli myths is that most Arabs left their homes on orders from the Arab High Command. To support this myth, the oft-quoted scandalous canard "their leaders told them to leave" was concocted. Assiduous research has shown this to be fall. ... The myth of the radio broadcast was important to us because, if followed to its logical conclusion, it allowed all the blame to be placed on the refugees themselves."

And even thousands of Palestinians who didn't leave still had their property and land stolen: There were thousands of non-Jews who didn't leave yet still had their homes and land stolen! In the first 8 years, the Jewish State took away a staggering 50% of all the land owned by Palestinians remaining in Israel. The shocking fact is some 39,000 Palestinians who never left were robbed anyway! "Israel seized property and land from some 39,000 Palestinians who escaped expulsion and remained in Israel. It was never returned, and these individuals never received compensation although they are citizens of Israel." - See endnote 67 of The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg
http://tinyurl.com/5svow9

And

"The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State."
Plus, see how unjust the whole plan was:
http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html

Bryan, spreading your lies continues to put my life and the lives of my fellow Americans at risk. See this video:
http://tinyurl.com/5nlhs6

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

US Media FAILS to Inform the Public about Looming ILLEGAL Attack which Risks Starting WORLD WAR THREE.

US Media FAILS to Inform the Public about Looming ILLEGAL Attack which Risks Starting WORLD WAR THREE.
See Video:


Megawatts and Megatons: The Future of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons



Dutch withdraw spy from Iran because of 'impending US attack'

"The Dutch intelligence service has pulled an agent out of an "ultra-secret operation" spying on Iran's military industry because spymasters in Netherlands believe a United States air attack was imminent," Dutch withdraw spy from Iran because of impending US attack, Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom - Aug 31, 2008

"The largest newspaper in the Netherlands, De Telegraaf, reported this past weekend that its nation's intelligence agency has been working closely with the CIA to help prepare the U.S. in a planned air attack on Iran.

The front-page story in De Telegraaf, published Friday and headlined "Attack on Iran Imminent," claimed that U.S. military strikes on Iran's nuclear and weapons facilities would happen in weeks.

The paper indicated Holland's military intelligence service (Algemene Inlichtingen-en Veiligheidsdienst, or AIVD), has pulled back from its operations inside Iran helping the U.S. to identify targets." - Dutch Paper: U.S. Will Attack Iran in Weeks, NewsMax.com, FL - Sep 1, 2008

"The newspaper quoted a source as saying that the agent was recalled "because the U.S. was thought to be making a decision within weeks to attack Iran with unmanned aircraft."" - Dutch recall spy from Iran fearing U.S. attack, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY - Sep 1, 2008

"One of Iran's top military commanders warns any attack against Iran would start a new world war. Iranian state media reported the comments by Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri Saturday. General Jazayeri says unrestrained greed of the United States and Zionism are pushing the world to "the edge of a precipice." He warned, in the case of an attack, "fake and artificial regimes" would be the first to be eliminated. Iran and the United States have been at odds over Iran's nuclear program. Iran says its atomic program is for peaceful purposes but the U.S. and its allies accuse Iran of working to develop a nuclear weapon. " - Iran Top Military Commander Warns Attack Would Spark World War, Voice of America - Aug 30, 2008

US media is not making this clear:

"Tel Aviv has threatened to launch air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities under the pretext that Tehran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has plans to develop nuclear weapons.

This is while the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed that Iran enriches uranium-235 to a level of 3.7 percent - a rate consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear arms production requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent." - US to Attack Iran 'within weeks' According to Dutch Newspaper, by Jeremy R. Hammond, Tuesday, September 2, 2008

US media repeatedly ignores the distinction between a nuclear power plant and a nuclear weapon when discussing Iran and often leaves a misimpression in the minds of American viewers.

Look how US mainstream media is basically ignoring the news that the 15 British sailors detained by Iran last year were not in Iraqi waters

Media Blackout: The Armada in the Gulf by Gary North

Friday, August 29, 2008

Commentary from the comment sections of RepresentativePress's videos

accersitusmaximus writes, "Regarding the truth movement. It's actually mostly about questions. Questions like, why Osama Bin Laden is NOT wanted by the FBI. Questions like why the Bush administration opposed the investigation on 9/11 (441 days). Then you have historical records such as Tonkin lie and the declassified plans of Operation Northwoods. Not to mention "Project for the New American Century" and the oil factor. It's not OK to ask questions? How do you proceed to get some answers?"

My reply: "accersitusmaximus, there are such things as loaded questions. Misleading people is not OK. And bin Laden IS wanted by the FBI, so your "honest" question contained a falsehood."
posted to the video "9/11 Truth Movement" Suppresses Bush Contradiction with Intelligence Agencies: Bush Lies

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

NIST FAQ

NIST FAQ

NIST FAQ 8/30/06
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)

"NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower."

Monday, August 11, 2008

Damage to South Side of WTC7


















See video: Facts the "9/11 Skeptics" don't want you to see

What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers?

On 9/11, WTC1 Hit WTC7, Seriously Damaging the South Side

On 9/11, WTC1 Hit WTC7, Seriously Damaging the South Side

See Video:
"The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain. - FDNY Chief of Department Daniel Nigro, Report from the Chief of Department, Fire Engineering, 9/2002

Friday, August 01, 2008

There was an error processing your comment. Please try again.

I keep getting "There was an error processing your comment. Please try again." So I'll put the reply I have been trying for several times to post to the channel here:(this is to a YouTuber who calls himself "Israelfnp")

You dishonestly wrote, "What's wrong Reppress, you have time to answer everyone but me?" Israelfnp, must you continuously be dishonest? Anyone can search through the comments and see that I have responded to you and your falsehoods more than once. And anyone can see that I don't answer "everyone," the reason is simply time. Fact is, I have answered you more than once and I have not answered "everyone else." I may get to questions from you or others, it depends on time and resources. How about a donation to help me with my efforts if you are so eager to hear my opinion? I have already debunked a few of your falsehoods on the channel page and pointed you to my blog which debunks many more.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

The yellow cake was not discovered by US troops in 2003, the UN's IAEA already had it safeguarded

The yellow cake was not discovered by US troops in 2003, the UN's IAEA already had it safeguarded

Senior Defense Official: As you know, the United States government has invited the IAEA to conduct a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty safeguards inspection at the Baghdad yellow-cake storage facility at Tuwaitha, more commonly known as Location C. This inspection will be under the protection and auspices of coalition forces. The safeguard inspection will begin on or about June 7th. And I'm sure the next person will speak to the actual logistics, but for planning purposes, we and the IAEA expect that this process will likely take a couple weeks. The purpose of the inspection is to inventory and assess the condition of the material that is under IAEA safeguards at the Baghdad yellow-cake storage facility. The material at this facility includes approximately 500 metric tons of safeguarded uranium and several non-fissile radioisotope sources that are not under IAEA safeguards. The uranium is mostly in the form of yellow cake, an isotopically natural form that is an impure oxide. There is a small quantity of low-enriched and depleted uranium. Typically, the IAEA would conduct an NPT safeguards inspection at this location annually. The last inspection was conducted in December of 2002. Given the changed circumstances, the United States has determined it would be helpful to have the IAEA reinventory this location. "

Also see: "U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Is this happening to any other YouTube partner? Solidarity!

SEE VIDEO and pass it on. Show your solidarity with Representative Press:
Is this happening to any other YouTube partner? Solidarity!
I have a question for youtube partners, is there anyone not listed as a partner besides me? representativepress is not listed as a current content partner in Youtube's alphebetical listing of partners? ... (see video for more)

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Fair Use and YouTube

Fair Use and YouTube

YouTube has a Copyright Tips page where they talk about "using some copyrighted content in your videos."

"While videos that are direct copies of someone else's content are clear copyright violations, there are certain very limited circumstances in which the use of very short clips of a copyrighted video or song may be legal even without permission. This is known as the "fair use" principle of copyright law.

To determine whether a particular use of a short clip of a copyrighted video or song qualifies as a "fair use," you need to analyze and weigh four factors that are outlined in the U.S. copyright statute."

On YouTube's Copyright Tips page, they provide Fair Use Links on the Web:
Also see this post: Fair issue was clarified and the situation resolved with YouTube
See the video: In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA Pt. 2

Zizzle Zoundz! This is the toy at the heart of the biggest YouTube drama of all time!
also see In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA

and Lady, you've just been Zizzled! "Renetto's Toy" gets DMCA'd! See Video

See videos here:

Monday, July 14, 2008

A little entertainment, a little promotion

A little entertainment, a little promotion:
In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA (SEE VIDEO)
In this multi-part video series, we will examine a pillar of free speech rights, the right of "Fair Use." It's going to be a hell of a ride, make sure you are well rested and ready, and I mean good and ready for this. This is going to be quite possibly the most intense exploration of one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, YouTube dramas off all time. Get yourself well rested for it. Go to bed for a few hours and get some really good sleep. See you back here in a few hours for part 2 of "In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA"
Zizzle Zoundz! The toy in this YouTube drama and DMCA controversy!

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Will Congress listen? IMPEACH NOW! Bush is a Threat to Peace

Will Congress listen? IMPEACH NOW! Bush is a Threat to Peace, PROOF Bush Lied about excuse for Iraq War: 'Saddam didn't let UN weapons inspectors in' is a LIE! See Video

see video
Pass it on: http://Tinyurl.com/LiarsCriminals

"United Nations weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq today to re-launch the search for weapons of mass destruction. The findings of the inspectors, led by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed El Baradei, could determine whether or not Iraq will face the wrath of the US military in the coming months. The arrival of about 30 inspectors who flew into Baghdad from Cyprus marked the first visit by UN arms monitors to Iraq for four years." - November 18, 2002 UN weapons inspectors arrive in Iraq

"A team of 17 United Nations weapons inspectors has arrived in Iraq, supported by a sweeping mandate to search sites that were off limits during seven years of inspections in the 1990s." - November 25, 2002 UN inspectors arrive in Iraq

550 Metric Tons of Yellowcake, what about it?

550 Metric Tons of Yellowcake, what about it? (see video)

see video

"While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment."

"U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said." - AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq By BRIAN MURPHY Associated Press Writer

Friday, July 04, 2008

WTC7 & the BBC

Mike,

You have done good work against Israeli crimes but your 9/11 arguments hurt the cause. What you are saying about the BBC and WTC7 makes no sense AT ALL. The reason it was reported that the building collapsed is because the fact that it was expected to collapse had been communicated to many people because firemen were telling people that is exactly what they expected. Someone miscommunicated the "going to collapse" with "had collapsed." No mystery.
Foreknowledge indicates the structural integrity was failing well before the building collapsed. You can read the firemen's statements and see a firemen saying it was going to collapse, so what is the mystery?

You try so hard to dismiss the logical prediction of the collapse that you go to extremely illogical lengths. To argue that secret agents would think it necessary to tell media outlets that they should report that WTC7 had collapsed is so illogical - have you ever tried to think this through? Never in this reality would secret agents ever tell a media outlet that they should report "the building has collapsed." It is mind-numbingly illogical to even think that makes sense! You are suffering cognizant dissidence because you are confronted with the fact that firemen could see the condition of the building and were telling the media that the building was going to collapse and apparently you can't accept what that means. You have emotionally invested in a theory so you concoct an off the wall scenario to explain the fact that it was expected by people that it was going to collapse. You have latched onto something that could only exist in a poorly written comic book with no internal logic, NO ONE EVER would tell a media outlet "report that the building had collapsed." If you don't understand something about what I have written, please tell me what it is. Otherwise can we declare out independence from illogical theories which hurt the cause? Please, this needs to be resolved.

-Tom

Sign this Weekend, Stand for the Constitution, Impeach Bush

Sign this Weekend, Stand for the Constitution, Impeach Bush
See Video:
http://impeachment.kucinich.us/petition/

We Want Bush Impeached, We Support the Kucinich Resolution.

Also you can Write a letter to Congress A message from Ramsey Clark:
If we let Bush be the "decider," he'll decide on WAR!

Excerpts come from a June 11, 2008 Countdown with Keith Olbermann show

OLBERMANN: Time now to call in George Washington University law professor and constitutional law expert: Jonathan Turley.

Good evening, Jon.

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: I‘ve often argued here that even if you think the words aren‘t going to lead to any action, say the words anyway, simply to get them on the record for history, and simply because nothing has ever changed from bad to good in this country without somebody first saying—this is bad. Assess the importance of what Dennis Kucinich did last night.

TURLEY: You know, it is very important. The fact is that this is not supposed to happen the way it happened in the last seven years. The framers, I think, would have been astonished by the absolute passivity if not collusion of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment. I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof and God knows we put that to a test in the past years.

But, I don‘t think they ever anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes. It has many of us who study the Constitution quite worried that we have a real crisis here. This is not something that really was supposed to happen. It was not something that one would predict.

OLBERMANN: This is the list that he presented last night—a remarkably lengthy and thorough record of the high crimes and misdemeanors. It‘s just a cascade really. Did Kucinich successfully make his case?

TURLEY: I think he‘s made his case. I mean, frankly, some of these claims are not really impeachable offenses. Like for example, it‘s not impeachable to be negligent. If that was the case, we‘d lose half that people that sat in the Oval Office. But there are plenty of crimes there. This is a target-rich environment.

What‘s really disturbing for many of us is that it takes a real effort for Democrats to walk from the floor to their offices and not trip over crimes. I mean, they are all over the record, from destruction of evidence, to illegal surveillance, to unlawful torture programs. They‘re all over the place.

And what‘s amazing is that the president is hiding in plain view. He hasn‘t really denied the elements of these offenses. So, all that is lacking is political will.

But that doesn‘t mean that suddenly the Democrats are going to get principled and say—my God, we took an oath, and we need to fulfill it regardless of the outcome. But it does mean that at least one member, and they‘re actually more than one, are really calling their colleagues to the floor and saying—it‘s time to pony up. It‘s time to answer the public of whether you stand for the Constitution and against its abridgement.

OLBERMANN: Have we ever seen a situation like this before, Jon? Obviously, 1868 and Andrew Johnson, there were constitutional issues but that was a political box that he was squeezed into, various laws come by that said he couldn‘t dismiss anybody who worked basically for the government. He violated those laws, they impeached him. He was kind of set up even though he‘s probably was not a very good president.

Clearly, the Clinton impeachment, whatever legalities were involved in that, that was to some degree a setup, too. This is different in that it‘s a political issue again, but it‘s not the politics of impeaching somebody, it‘s the politics of not impeaching somebody who seems to clearly constitutionally deserve it.

TURLEY: Yes. That is the most remarkable if not bizarre aspect of all of this—that President Bush‘s allies in the last seven years have been the Democratic leadership and the Democratic members that have repeatedly stepped in to protect him, not just from impeachment, but serious investigation. And it‘s part of a very cynical political strategy. It has succeeded.

The Democrats know that they can retain the Congress if they just let this guy, you know, sort of ripen on the vine. And that they are afraid that there could be a backlash if they try to impeach. But of course, that‘s literally all politics and no principle. They took an oath in the House of Representatives. And the most important thing they have to do as House members is to stand firm in the face of presidential crimes.

And I think history will be very, very severe, not just for Speaker Pelosi, but all of the Democrats, of how they could let this come to pass where they stood silent and did nothing in the face of such compelling criminal record.

OLBERMANN: Well, clearly they are going to let it come to pass in this way. So, that begs the question—is there anything to do after January 20th of next year? Is there any mechanism or precedent for dealing with the presidency that has already ended?

TURLEY: Well, there is a lot that can be done. I mean, first of all, the new administration can certainly reverse some of the more outrageous acts of this administration with regard to torture, unlawful surveillance, the misuse of the FISA accord, and misuse of the states secrets privilege. All those things can be done.

One thing that they may have to consider which would be interesting since they—it could be the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, but they could consider bringing back the special counsel law that they got rid of after the Clinton administration.

What we‘ve seen with Attorney General Mukasey and his predecessors is that the system just hasn‘t worked, that you don‘t have attorney—when the attorney general doesn‘t have the principle and independents to allow investigations, to submit evidence to grand juries, the system literally shuts down. And we may have to re-examine whether we need a special counsel that could be called upon on such occasions.

OLBERMANN: Constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley—as always, great thanks for your time tonight, sir.

TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Ex-Agent Says CIA Ignored Iran Facts

Ex-Agent Says CIA Ignored Iran Facts
"On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all."

Are we a banana republic or are we a nation of laws? What the hell is going on in this country? Demand that our representatives impeach President Bush and Vice-president Cheney immediately.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Please make a correction regarding Iran

Sent: 6/27/08 12:38 PM (no reply yet)

Dear Ms. Alexander:

You wrote, "the Iranian government, which has threatened to destroy Israel." That is false, Iran has made no such threat. Please make a correction. In this letter to the editor of the Washington Post, Iran's U.N. Press Officer, stated: "It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."

Please look at these three videos and the links in the video descriptions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd5uq1AGxPs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy

Monday, June 30, 2008

The Bush Administration is Scheming to Create a Pretext for an Iran War!

The Bush Administration is Scheming to Create a Pretext for an Iran War!

Bush Administration could create decades of horrors for the American people if they are allowed to get away with what they want to do next after they have already created such enormous misery for us. We must act now to impeach these politicians for their outrageous, illegal and dangerous acts.

"Cheney has always wanted to go after Iran, and if he had more time he’d find a way to do it." - David Obey

"The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. “The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” he said. - Hersh: Cheney Trying To Create Casus Belli For War With Iran - Preparing the Battlefield The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran. by Seymour M. Hersh

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

A note to a Youtuber about "Socialism"

A note to a Youtuber about "Socialism," here are the links I mentioned:

Here is info I added to explain a bit about how the economy actually works:
Chomsky makes this point about the US economy, "the major part is that there is a dynamic state sector in the economy which is the core of economic innovation and development. Research and development takes place mainly in the state sector." See:
Costs are socialized, profits are privatized

This post gives good examples from Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson and a link to this revealing quote: "People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country." - Dwayne Andreas of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) See:
The Fraud of Neoliberal Economic Theory

We have State-Capitalism NOT Capitalism

Permanent War Economy, "Government Must Be The Savior"

The Everlasting Battle for the Minds of Men

Nobel economics winner says market forces flawed


Tuesday, June 17, 2008

President Bush continues his threats, openly violating international law

President Bush continues his threats, continuing to openly violate international law and putting us all at greater risk of suffering the horrors of a what could be a world war.

Colin Brown , Deputy Political Editor of the Independent, seems unaware or purposely downplaying the fact that Bush is in violation of international law. Note Colin Brown's choice of words (they don't convey that Bush is engaged in a wrong and that he is threatening a serious war crime): Bush threatens Iran with military action

Colin Brown writes, "Mr Bush left no doubt that the US is holding military action in reserve. Thanking Mr Brown for keeping together the European alliance "so that we can solve this problem diplomatically", Mr Bush said: "That is my first choice. The Iranians must understand that all options are on the table, however." VIDEO: Project CHECKMATE Could Create Ten Times More Horrors

Attacking Iran would be a war crime. Threatening to attack Iran is a crime in itself.

And look how the authors at Spiegel also write as if this madness is perfecly natural and on the level. Contact Ralf Beste, Cordula Meyer and Christoph Schult and tell them there is still such thing as war crimes. The angle and tone of the article is disgusting. Israeli Ministers Mull Plans for Military Strike against Iran

"An Israeli attack will be seen as a US attack. Iran will retaliate against both Israel and the US."

Friday, June 13, 2008

Tell Conyers to Do His Job, Start the Impeachment Hearings!

Tell Conyers to Do His Job, Start the Impeachment Hearings! See VIDEO

John Conyers is Still Failing America

John Conyers is Still Failing America

I recommend this video, click here for bigger screen:
John Conyers is Still Failing America

John Perry writes, "Still waiting for the House Judiciary Chairman to honor his oath and do his job by launching impeachment hearings. This video features a reading of the message I faxed to Mr. Conyers on Monday afternoon (6/9/08), with cc's to my rep and senators."
Text of fax here. See link to poll in video description of his video. Perry writes:

Contact John Conyers. Tell him to honor his oath to the Constitution and do the job the people expect of him.

johnconyersjr@gmail.com

john.conyers@mail.house.gov


John Conyers
United States House of Representatives
2426 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2214

Phone: 202-225-512

After Downing Street
Tell Conyers to Do His Job, Start the Impeachment Hearings! See VIDEO Playlist

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Congress has sent Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment for Bush to the Judiciary Committee.

Jonathan Schwarz of TinyRevolution.com gives this update and advice, "Congress has sent Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment for Bush to the Judiciary Committee. The vote was 255-161, with the majority made up of every Democrat plus 24 Republicans. One thing anyone who cares (Polls show a large number of us do, and that is with what people know so far.) about this can do is contact John Conyers [(202) 225-5126], or your representative if they're on Judiciary. You might also want to sign this new Democrats.com petition calling on Tim Russert to put Kucinich on Meet the Press to discuss impeachment."

We shouldn't even have to beg Russert to do what he is supposed to. Russert was totally out of line with his UFO question at one of the debates. (one of the debates that Kucinich was allowed into but not allowed equal time.) The mainstream media wants to send a message to the public that they should not seriously consider some of the candidates. That is the game being played right now with the exclusions of Nader.

Spread this video: We Want Bush Impeached, We Support the Kucinich Resolution. See the video and pass it on

We Want Bush Impeached, We Support the Kucinich Resolution.

We Want Bush Impeached, We Support the Kucinich Resolution. See the video and pass it on
Impeach President Bush NOW Call John Conyers (202) 225-5126 and call Nancy Pelosi (202) 225-4965 and tell her to uphold the law and allow impeachment proceeds to begin! http://votenader.org
http://tinyurl.com/58e96a

Friday, June 06, 2008

War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception, IMPEACH NOW!

SEE VIDEO: War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception, IMPEACH NOW!


http://tinyurl.com/6jgny3
UPI reporter reveals what Neocons told him before the war.
Read more about War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception here:

United Press International journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave explains that he first heard people talking about "the inevitability" of the Iraq war when he was at a Dick Cheney book party held for Scooter Libby. Borchgrave says "the capital's top neocons" at the party "corrected" him for saying "if there is a war" because they were saying there was no "if" about it, "the decision had been made." They informed him that all the Bush Administration talk about the UN was nothing more than "the obligatory charade we had to go through for world public opinion."

As for a motive why top neocons would want to deceive the American people into a war with Iraq, you can read about "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which reveals that attacking Iraq was an agenda long before the 9/11 attacks which they dishonestly try to use as an excuse for the Iraq war. Three of Bush's top national security advisors had worked for "conservative pro-Israel think tanks" creating a plan in violation of international law which the necons do not respect. James Bamford, in his book A Pretext for War, writes, "the blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was originally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former--and future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister."

And as if this all wasn't bad enough, Arnaud de Borchgrave points out that these guys are "all superhawks on Iran as well."

What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception


Link to this post: Tinyurl.com/47nxq8

PROOF! BUSH & CHENEY LIED! *Someone MUST PAY!

"PROOF! BUSH & CHENEY LIED! *Someone MUST PAY!" is the title of a video posted by VOTERSTHINKdotORG

I don't know why Keith Olbermann says the Bush Administration lies were used for the first unprovoked war in U.S. history. First? The Iraq War isn't the first unprovoked war in U.S. history. Just take a recent example, Clinton's 1999 War on Kosovo.

"There are some striking similarities between Clinton's Kosovo campaign and George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq four years later. Both were wars of choice," writes Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior adviser to President Clinton. "Wars of choice," as Blumenthal euphemistically puts it, are by definition war crimes.

Editor of The Progressive magazine, Rothschild said: "What gives the United States and NATO the right to conduct this warfare? If the United States is going to engage in so-called humanitarian interventions, it is incumbent upon it to abide both by U.S. law and international law. It is doing neither here.

Chomksy points out, "let's look at the situation from the US point of view: There's a crisis, what do we do about it? One possibility is to work through the United Nations, which is the agency responsible under treaty obligations and international law for dealing with such matters. But the US made it clear a long time ago that it has total contempt for the institutions of world order, the UN, the World Court, and so on. In fact the US has been very explicit about that. This was not always the case. In the early days of the UN, the majority of countries backed the US because of its overwhelming political power. But that began to change when decolonisation was extended and the organisation and distribution of world power shifted. Now the US can no longer count on the majority of countries to go along with its demands. The UN is no longer a pliant, and therefore no longer a relevant, institution. This proposition became very explicit during the Reagan years and even more brazen during the Clinton years. So brazen that even right-wing analysts are worried about it. There is an interesting article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, an establishment journal in the US, warning Washington that much of the world regards the US as a "rogue super-power" and the single greatest threat to their existence. In fact, the US has placed itself totally above the rule of international law and international institutions."

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception

War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception

United Press International journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave explains that he first heard people talking about "the inevitability" of the Iraq war when he was at a Dick Cheney book party held for Scooter Libby. Borchgrave says "the capital's top neocons" at the party "corrected" him for saying "if there is a war" because they were saying there was no "if" about it, "the decision had been made." They informed him that all the Bush Administration talk about the UN was nothing more than "the obligatory charade we had to go through for world public opinion."

As for a motive why top neocons would want to deceive the American people into a war with Iraq, you can read about "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which reveals that attacking Iraq was an agenda long before the 9/11 attacks which they dishonestly try to use as an excuse for the Iraq war. Three of Bush's top national security advisors had worked for "conservative pro-Israel think tanks" creating a plan in violation of international law which the necons do not respect. James Bamford, in his book A Pretext for War, writes, "the blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was originally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former--and future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister."

And as if this all wasn't bad enough, Arnaud de Borchgrave points out that these guys are "all superhawks on Iran as well."

What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=90368

Link to this post: Tinyurl.com/47nxq8

SEE VIDEO: War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception, IMPEACH NOW!


http://tinyurl.com/6jgny3

Saturday, May 17, 2008

"A great motive to fight for those subjected to injustice and the oppressed"

I will be making a video about the latest bin Laden tape. I notice a few news outlets spin it as if he recently made it the main issue as they avoid reporting that in this tape he says:

“The Palestinian cause is the major issue for my nation. It was an important element in fueling me from the beginning and the 19 others with a great motive to fight for those subjected to injustice and the oppressed,” he said, referring to the 19 9/11 terrorists.

I noticed ABC's Diane Sawyer said "so he is now saying Israel is the central issue which is a bit of a shift from years gone by" and Brian Ross says "in the past year or two he has begun to make that the central issue, initially it was US forces." So Ross denies what bin Laden says in the tape and doesn't even mention it in his report and makes a claim it was US troops as central issue while ignoring bin Laden's statements (and the testimony of Philip Zelikow which was purposefully left out of the 9/11 Commission Report in which Zelikow says Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said bin Laden wanted to punish the US for supporting Israel) Fact is, bin Laden sometimes mentioned Palestine first, sometimes second and sometimes third in a usual list of three grievances. OVERALL, for all those involved in the attack, Israel is the main motive. But bin Laden never said, as far as I know, "troops in Saudi Arabia is the main thing" For example:
this is from the 1997 interview:

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?

BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (killings in Lebanon perpetrated by Israel)

And remember it was on the wire services on the day of 9/11/01 that "Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he and his followers would carry out an unprecedented attack on U.S. interests for its support of Israel."

Also, Peter Bergen points out that lies have been pushed: "conventional wisdom has it that bin Laden adopted the Palestinians issue only recently. Reading this declaration [the first declaration of war, issued in 1996] SHOULD PUT THAT CANARD TO REST." p164 The Bin Laden I Know, Peter Bergen

In the 1996 declaration, bin Laden wrote, "I still feel the pain of Al Quds [Jerusalem] in my internal organs" "My Muslim Brothers of The World: Your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy --your enemy and their enemy-- the Americans and the Israelis" "It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana [when Israeli forces struck a UN compound on April 18, 1996, killing one hundred] in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. " p 165 Bergen (see the 1996 declaration of war)
osama-bin-laden-has-been-angry-about.html

Another example, in this case, the first thing listed is "Al-Aksa Mosque" (this is about Israel/Palestine) then "Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines":

"The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the U.S. and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal." - Osama bin Laden May 1999

Monday, May 12, 2008

Re: Got a Question for Ralph Nader?

Re: Got a Question for Ralph Nader? - see video

Mr. Nader,

Will you honor your oath to the US Constitution to uphold the rule of law with regard to the use of US Armed Forces, unlike McCain, Obama and Hilary? Will you pledge that you will not be singing about bombing other countries like McCain or that you will not keep illegal options on the table like Obama & Hillary? Will you will absolutely rule out the use force unless it is legal according to our Constitution and the Constitutional responsibility to abide by the international treaties the US has signed which prohibit wars of aggression? McCain, Obama and Hillary are unwilling to abide by the UN Charter which the Unites States has signed. Will you declare that all threats of force are off the table and that you will instead abide by UN Charter and the law of the land as spelled out in our Constitution?

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Curly quotes, Iran, Israel, Ahmadinejad & the Media

VIDEO: Curly quotes, Iran, Israel, Ahmadinejad & the Media
President Ahmadinejad and several Iranian officials have repeatedly made clear that they are not threatening to attack Israel. Iranian President Ahmadinejad did NOT threaten to use force against Israel. He DIDN'T threaten to attack Israel. It is outrageous and dangerous how 60 Minutes and nearly all of mainstream media continue to misrepresent what he has said.

http://flashjournalism.com/tips/curlyquotes.htm

Iran: 'We Won't Use Force'
Monday, June 12, 2006; Page A20

Regarding "A Legal Case Against Iran" [op-ed, June 6]:

It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."

Also, the Islamic Republic of Iran has officially declared its commitment to the fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter, which is to refrain from the threat or use of force against any member of the United Nations. Yet a daily barrage of illegal threats by officials of the Israeli government to resort to force against Iran has continued to date.

Iran's position is very clear: We have not threatened to use force nor have we used force against any country or government in the past 250 years. We've never done that in the past, and we'll never do it in the future.

We wonder whether Israel or the United States can make the same statement.

What is urgent about the situation is getting the U.N. Security Council to act on the daily threats against Iran by the United States and Israel.

M.A. MOHAMMADI
Press Officer
Iranian Mission to the United Nations
New York

Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."
"There is no new policy," Ahmadinejad said. "They created a lot of hue and cry over that." Ahmadinejad added, "It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/

Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.