Thursday, September 08, 2011
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
9/11: What You Don't Know is Killing People
NEW VIDEO: 9/11: What You Don't Know is Killing People
9/11 Truth Movement Doesn't Know These Facts. Let's set it straight for the 10th Anniversary. NOT controlled demolition!
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Saturday, August 06, 2011
9/11 Reality Regardless
9/11 Reality Regardless of What Rather Reported, Misreported or Wouldn't Report
Dan Rather wouldn't report anger at US support of Israel as motive on 9/11. This is one of my 9/11 10th Anniversary videos, more to come. Also read " As If Reality Wasn't Bad Enough
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Obama Violated US Constitution
Obama Violated US Constitution, Libya War is Abuse of Power & Betrayal of People's Trust
Obama violated his oath to the U.S. Constitution and betrayed the trust of the American people because he had no right to involve our military in a war in Libya. His violation of the Constitution is a wrong against all U.S. citizens, not only those who trusted him when he made these explicate statements in order to gain our trust. He tricked people into voting for him. We are being robbed of our rights which are stipulated in our Constitution. We have rights, the primary one is our right to our Constitutional republic. The father of the Constitution warned of exactly this abuse of power on the part of a president, James Madison explained how our Constitution was deliberately designed to prevent a president from doing what Obama has done. "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." Our Constitution was deliberately designed to prevent Obama from doing what he explicitly promised he would not do if we entrusted him to uphold the Constitution!
He should be impeached. SEE VIDEO, PASS IT ON: http://tinyurl.com/ObamaViolatedOath
He should be impeached. SEE VIDEO, PASS IT ON: http://tinyurl.com/ObamaViolatedOath
Saturday, July 23, 2011
You Assume Obama Answered?
NEW VIDEO: You Assume Obama Answered Chuck Todd's Question if War Powers Act Constitutional?(Response to a comment on my previous video.)
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Obama didn't even answer Chuck Todd's question
NEWEST VIDEO: You Assume Obama Answered Chuck Todd's Q War Powers Act Constitutional?
OBAMA: Chuck Todd?CHUCK TODD: Thank you, Mr. President.
There have been a lot of questions about the constitutionality -- constitutional interpretations of a few decisions you've made, so I'd just simply ask: Do you believe the War Powers Act is constitutional? Do you believe that the debt limit is constitutional, the idea that Congress can do this? And do you believe that marriage is a civil right?
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: Well, that was a hodge-podge.
(LAUGHTER)
Chuck we're going to assign you to the Supreme Court, man.
(LAUGHTER)
I -- I'm not a Supreme Court justice, so I'm not -- I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on here.
Let me focus on initially the issue of Libya. I want to talk about the substance of Libya, because there's been all kinds of noise about process and congressional consultation and so forth. Let's talk about concretely what's happened.
Moammar Gadhafi, who prior to Osama bin Laden was responsible for more American deaths than just about anybody on the planet, was threatening to massacre his people. And as part of an international coalition, under a U.N. mandate that is almost unprecedented, we went in and took out air defense systems so that an international coalition could provide a no-fly zone, could protect -- provide humanitarian protection to the people on the ground.
I spoke to the American people about what we would do. I said there would be no troops on the ground. I said that we would not be carrying the lion's share of this operation, but as members of NATO we would be supportive of it because it's in our national security interests and also because it's the right thing to do.
OBAMA: We have done exactly what I said we would do.
We have not put any boots on the ground. And our allies, who historically we've complained aren't willing to carry enough of the -- the load when it comes to NATO operations, have carried a big load when it comes to these NATO operations. And, as a consequence, we've protected thousands of people in Libya, we have not seen a single U.S. casualty, there's no risks of additional escalation, this operation is limited in time and in scope.
So I said to the American people, "Here's our narrow mission." We have carried out that narrow mission in exemplary fashion. And throughout this process we consulted with Congress. We've had 10 hearings on it. We've sent reams of information about what the operations are. I've had -- I've had all the members of Congress over to talk about it.
So a lot of this fuss is politics. And if you look substantively at what we've done, we -- we have done exactly what we said to do under a U.N. mandate and we have protected thousands of lives in the process, and as a consequence, a guy who was a state sponsor of terrorist operations against the United States of America is pinned down and the noose is tightening around him.
Now, when you look at the history of the War Powers Resolution, it came up after the Vietnam War, in which we had half a million soldiers there, tens of thousands of lives lost, hundreds of billions of dollar spent. And Congress said, "You know what? We don't want something like that happening again. So if you're going to start getting us into those kinds of commitments, you've got to consult with Congress beforehand." And I think that such consultation is entirely appropriate.
But do I think that our actions in any way violate the War Powers Resolution? The answer is no. So I don't even have to get to the constitutional question.
There may -- there -- there may -- there may be a time...
(CROSSTALK)
OBAMA: There -- there -- there may be a time in which there was be a serious question as to whether or not the War Powers Resolution Act was constitutional. I don't have to get to the question.
OBAMA: We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world, somebody who nobody should want to defend. And we should be sending out a unified message to this guy that he should step down and give his people a fair chance to live their lives without fear.
And -- and this suddenly becomes the cause celebre for some folks in Congress? Come on.
So, you had -- what? -- a three-parter?
(LAUGHTER)
CHUCK TODD: (OFF-MIKE)
OBAMA: What -- what are -- what are the other two?
CHUCK TODD: There is some question about the constitutionality of the War Powers (OFF-MIKE)
OBAMA: I'm just saying, I don't have to reach it. That's -- that's a good legal answer.
Chuck Todd's "Tough" Question for Obama
NEW VIDEO: Chuck Todd's "Tough" Question for Obama just a Diversion Obama's violated the Constitution with his Libya War but Chuck Todd helps divert attention away from that fact with question about the war powers act, asking if Obama thinks it is constitutional. The press conferences are not being run correctly, the people are being short changed. President Obama read from a list, he selected Chuck Todd to ask the question of him. http://TinyUrl.com/JoinEmail
Obama's violated the Constitution with his Libya War but Chuck Todd helps divert attention away from that fact with question about the war powers act, asking if Obama thinks it is constitutional. The press conferences are not being run correctly, the people are being short changed. President Obama read from a list, he selected Chuck Todd to ask the question of him. http://TinyUrl.com/JoinEmail
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Civil Discourse on YouTube
We Can Have Civil Discourse Here on YouTube (NEW VIDEO * CLICK HERE) Communicate Please! Civilized Society Must Have Civil Discourse. Let's not throw away our opportunity here on Youtube. We have to work together to overcome the domination of or public discourse by a powerful elite.
Friday, July 15, 2011
NBC Political Director Chuck Todd notified the Kucinich campaign
Remember:
"Less than 44 hours after NBC sent a congratulatory note and an invitation to Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to participate in the Jan. 15 Democratic Presidential debate in Las Vegas, the network notified the campaign this morning it was changing its announced criteria, rescinding its invitation, and excluding Kucinich from the debate.
NBC Political Director Chuck Todd notified the Kucinich campaign this morning that, although Kucinich had met the qualification criteria publicly announced on December 28, the network was "re-doing" the criteria, excluding Kucinich, and planning to invite only Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards" - From Kucinich campaign Press release
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Blockade of the Straits of Tiran
The Menachem Begin quote ("In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.")
Also see this link for more about this: Egypt's actions were accordance with International Law and Egypt was willing to have the matter arbitrated.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Monday, June 06, 2011
About Israel & 9/11
About Israel & 9/11: Caller is Correct, Politician is Wrong
PASS IT ON: http://tinyurl.com/Israeland911
Let's go to James in Los Angeles. Independent caller, you're on the air.
Thank you. What about what General Petraeus had said about U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians being a threat to American troops in theater? And yesterday, we see Netanyahu getting more standing ovations than President Obama did at the State of the Union. It's outrageous. You can go to America-Hijacked.com
Our support for Israel is what got us attacked on 9/11, you can read page 147 of the 9/11Commission Report, "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
In their book, "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission," Hamilton and Kean say "this was sensitive ground," and some commissioners worried "listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy."
Philip Zelikow, "According to KSM, Bin Ladin had even asked that the attacks occur as early as mid-2000, after Israeli opposition party leader Ariel Sharon caused an outcry in the Middle East by visiting a sensitive and contested holy site in Jerusalem that is sacred to both Muslims and Jews. Although Bin Ladin recognized that Atta and the other pilots had only just arrived in the United States to begin their flight training, the al Qaeda leader wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israel. He allegedly told KSM it would be sufficient simply to down the planes and not hit specific targets." p18
Play Video
MR. HAMILTON: I'm interested in the question of motivation of these hijackers, and my question is really directed to the agents. … But what have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?
MR. FITZGERALD: I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States as to what would motivate a young man to sacrifice his rights, to, really, go to that extraordinary next step to do that. Much of it, I believe, originates in rage, and I think when you look at the 19 hijackers and see where they came from, you can begin to see the seeds of that -- that disenfranchisement and anger.
Play Video
Jeremy Scahill: And then another event happened before the Fallujah ambush of the Blackwater contractors. On March 22, the Israeli military killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was a cleric bound in a wheelchair, as he was coming out of morning prayers, killed him and about a half a dozen people in his entourage. And in Fallujah, there was a massive protest against that. And already people believed that the Israelis and the US were working hand-in-hand during the occupation of Iraq. So that was the context leading up to the Fallujah ambush, and it’s almost never talked about.
So the people of Fallujah—I think, rightly—were very outraged at their treatment at the hands of the US and its allies and saw this sort of relationship between the US and Israel as one of conquest in the Middle East and certainly in Iraq. In fact, many people in Iraq believed that private military contractors, like Blackwater, were either CIA or Mossad. So it’s very likely that when those guys rolled into Fallujah that morning, that people thought they were attacking a CIA convoy or a Mossad convoy.
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/20/blackwater_the_rise_of_the_worlds
Atta was chosen as the emir, or leader, of the mission. He met with Bin Ladin to discuss the targets: the World Trade Center, which represented the U.S. economy; the Pentagon, a symbol of the U.S. military; and the U.S. Capitol, the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel. The White House was also on the list, as Bin Ladin considered it a political symbol and wanted to attack it as well. p4 http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf
PASS IT ON: http://tinyurl.com/Israeland911
Let's go to James in Los Angeles. Independent caller, you're on the air.
Thank you. What about what General Petraeus had said about U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians being a threat to American troops in theater? And yesterday, we see Netanyahu getting more standing ovations than President Obama did at the State of the Union. It's outrageous. You can go to America-Hijacked.com
Our support for Israel is what got us attacked on 9/11, you can read page 147 of the 9/11Commission Report, "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
In their book, "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission," Hamilton and Kean say "this was sensitive ground," and some commissioners worried "listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al Qaeda's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy."
Philip Zelikow, "According to KSM, Bin Ladin had even asked that the attacks occur as early as mid-2000, after Israeli opposition party leader Ariel Sharon caused an outcry in the Middle East by visiting a sensitive and contested holy site in Jerusalem that is sacred to both Muslims and Jews. Although Bin Ladin recognized that Atta and the other pilots had only just arrived in the United States to begin their flight training, the al Qaeda leader wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israel. He allegedly told KSM it would be sufficient simply to down the planes and not hit specific targets." p18
Play Video
MR. HAMILTON: I'm interested in the question of motivation of these hijackers, and my question is really directed to the agents. … But what have you found out about why these men did what they did? What motivated them to do it?
MR. FITZGERALD: I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States as to what would motivate a young man to sacrifice his rights, to, really, go to that extraordinary next step to do that. Much of it, I believe, originates in rage, and I think when you look at the 19 hijackers and see where they came from, you can begin to see the seeds of that -- that disenfranchisement and anger.
Play Video
Jeremy Scahill: And then another event happened before the Fallujah ambush of the Blackwater contractors. On March 22, the Israeli military killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was a cleric bound in a wheelchair, as he was coming out of morning prayers, killed him and about a half a dozen people in his entourage. And in Fallujah, there was a massive protest against that. And already people believed that the Israelis and the US were working hand-in-hand during the occupation of Iraq. So that was the context leading up to the Fallujah ambush, and it’s almost never talked about.
So the people of Fallujah—I think, rightly—were very outraged at their treatment at the hands of the US and its allies and saw this sort of relationship between the US and Israel as one of conquest in the Middle East and certainly in Iraq. In fact, many people in Iraq believed that private military contractors, like Blackwater, were either CIA or Mossad. So it’s very likely that when those guys rolled into Fallujah that morning, that people thought they were attacking a CIA convoy or a Mossad convoy.
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/20/blackwater_the_rise_of_the_worlds
Atta was chosen as the emir, or leader, of the mission. He met with Bin Ladin to discuss the targets: the World Trade Center, which represented the U.S. economy; the Pentagon, a symbol of the U.S. military; and the U.S. Capitol, the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel. The White House was also on the list, as Bin Ladin considered it a political symbol and wanted to attack it as well. p4 http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
How Israel is Reported to the American People
VIDEO: How Israel is Reported to the American People, Decades of Deception. BTW, Israel Started the 1967 War.
Notice how that almost always goes unreported?
Notice how that almost always goes unreported?
Friday, May 20, 2011
New Video With Transcript
YOu can view the transcript on the video by clicking the "CC" at the bottom of the video. See video here: What Really Happened: Osama bin Laden Death Photo Claim Debunked open letter
Below is a transcript of the words spoke in the above video (Mike Rivero is talking first):
"The photograph presented to the world as proof that Osama bin Laden was dead is a fake. And not only is it a fake, it's apparently been floating around the Internet for like a couple of years. And so, this is another obvious very heavy handed government deception. Alright, obviously top story of the day continues to be Obama bin lying about Osama bin photoshopped."
No Mike, that picture is NOT what President Obama claims to be Osama bin Laden's body. You're fooling people into thinking that Obama released the picture you're showing. Obama, his administration and the US government are NOT making any claims about this photo. They didn't release it, you're taking an old photo from some other source and making a false claim about it.. Could you please post a link to this video to correct your false news story? It's unfair of you to push falsehoods on your website like this.
Those watching this video may not know that I'm addressing an open letter to Mike Rivero who operates a website which, if you have a false idea about bin Laden or 9/11, it's likely you received the false information, either directly or indirectly, from his site. False claims are a pattern on his site.
"But we have a DNA test, even though DNA tests actually take 48 hours. To prove it was really him. And then they had this photo of the dead body all over the media."
Within the same article he argues that the a DNA test couldn't be performed in less than 48 hours. Here's a clip that disputes that: You can get DNA results in less than 12 hours. Another geneticist has been quoted as saying DNA analysis can be completed in as few as 6 hours if it's a prioritized task.
Now look at the source for Mike's claim that DNA tests can't be done in less that 48 hours. This is the level of his research. The most frustrating thing is he has an enormous influence. Mike, you know you do. And it's damaging to the public discourse because I want to make several videos talking seriously about bin Laden and 9/11 and this kind of nonsense undermines that.
Usama bin Laden, we ca'' him "UBL." That's him. Yeah, he just released a fatwa to his followers, a declaration of jihad against America.
Look at his theory about "the plane that crashed into the Pentagon." Even when he understands the fact that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon, he still manages to claim there's a government conspiracy involved! Even after he sees how absurd the "no plane hit the Pentagon" theory is, he doesn't want to learn from that and question just how possible it is that people are pushing false theories due to ignorance. Instead of questioning the reasoning of people promoting false theories, he wants to blame the government for creating the "no plane hit the pentagon" theory! Don't you think this demonstrates that Mike has government conspiracy on the brain? By blaming the government for tricking web sites, he shifts blame away from these web sites' poor reasoning and research skills.
Also sharing a big part of the blame for these conspiracy theories arising, is both mainstream and alternative media, because they failed to effectively report the motives for the attacks to the general public.They didn't adequately challenge the big lies about why the U.S. was attacked, instead their behavior reinforced confusion and suspicion. Powerful elites like Thomas Friedman have gotten away with fooling people and they share the blame for the existence of these illogical conspiracy theories. There are real abuses of power which we need to address, don't let people fool you into not doing something about it. Please subscribe and share this video with others.
Below is a transcript of the words spoke in the above video (Mike Rivero is talking first):
"The photograph presented to the world as proof that Osama bin Laden was dead is a fake. And not only is it a fake, it's apparently been floating around the Internet for like a couple of years. And so, this is another obvious very heavy handed government deception. Alright, obviously top story of the day continues to be Obama bin lying about Osama bin photoshopped."
No Mike, that picture is NOT what President Obama claims to be Osama bin Laden's body. You're fooling people into thinking that Obama released the picture you're showing. Obama, his administration and the US government are NOT making any claims about this photo. They didn't release it, you're taking an old photo from some other source and making a false claim about it.. Could you please post a link to this video to correct your false news story? It's unfair of you to push falsehoods on your website like this.
Those watching this video may not know that I'm addressing an open letter to Mike Rivero who operates a website which, if you have a false idea about bin Laden or 9/11, it's likely you received the false information, either directly or indirectly, from his site. False claims are a pattern on his site.
"But we have a DNA test, even though DNA tests actually take 48 hours. To prove it was really him. And then they had this photo of the dead body all over the media."
Within the same article he argues that the a DNA test couldn't be performed in less than 48 hours. Here's a clip that disputes that: You can get DNA results in less than 12 hours. Another geneticist has been quoted as saying DNA analysis can be completed in as few as 6 hours if it's a prioritized task.
Now look at the source for Mike's claim that DNA tests can't be done in less that 48 hours. This is the level of his research. The most frustrating thing is he has an enormous influence. Mike, you know you do. And it's damaging to the public discourse because I want to make several videos talking seriously about bin Laden and 9/11 and this kind of nonsense undermines that.
Usama bin Laden, we ca'' him "UBL." That's him. Yeah, he just released a fatwa to his followers, a declaration of jihad against America.
Look at his theory about "the plane that crashed into the Pentagon." Even when he understands the fact that a plane did indeed hit the Pentagon, he still manages to claim there's a government conspiracy involved! Even after he sees how absurd the "no plane hit the Pentagon" theory is, he doesn't want to learn from that and question just how possible it is that people are pushing false theories due to ignorance. Instead of questioning the reasoning of people promoting false theories, he wants to blame the government for creating the "no plane hit the pentagon" theory! Don't you think this demonstrates that Mike has government conspiracy on the brain? By blaming the government for tricking web sites, he shifts blame away from these web sites' poor reasoning and research skills.
Also sharing a big part of the blame for these conspiracy theories arising, is both mainstream and alternative media, because they failed to effectively report the motives for the attacks to the general public.They didn't adequately challenge the big lies about why the U.S. was attacked, instead their behavior reinforced confusion and suspicion. Powerful elites like Thomas Friedman have gotten away with fooling people and they share the blame for the existence of these illogical conspiracy theories. There are real abuses of power which we need to address, don't let people fool you into not doing something about it. Please subscribe and share this video with others.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Osama bin Laden & '9/11 Truth'
Osama bin Laden & '9/11 Truth' Conspiracy Factory: Axis of Ignorance Mike Rivero pushes conspiracy theories on his popular website. He's misdirecting people & thus undermining efforts to achieve peace.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Monday, May 02, 2011
Obama Speech: Osama Bin Laden Killed. Shot Dead in Pakistan
Obama Speech: Osama Bin Laden Killed. Shot Dead in Pakistan
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.
And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.
On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family.
We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.
Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort. We've disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot.
Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world.
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body. SEE PART 2
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
"Long Story Short" Falsifies Iraq War History
Lies dominate public discourse in this country. Here's another example: Colin Quinn theater show on HBO.
Colin Quinn's False History Pushes Iraq War LIE about UN inspectors & Saddam
We need to be organized in order to push BASIC FACTS into public discourse so we can counter the elite's agenda to mislead the public. Please subscribe to this channel and tell others. Please join the email list too, we need to be able to act quickly to give our efforts an extra boost. We need to start creating the foundation for the formal establishment of a representative press — a media system of checks and balances which is totally transparent and under the general public's complete control. Add your ideas and questions in comments to this video AND at the Representative Press forum.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
"We have Nothing to Hide" transcript
SEE VIDEO: "We have Nothing to Hide" US Hypocrisy: Refusing Access to Manning DAILY PRESS BRIEFING Apr. 12, 2011 Acting Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner delivers the U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing at the State Department.STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN MARK C. TONER: … Look, for our part, we are – we do our Human Rights Reports every year. We are candid in our exchanges with China about human rights concerns both from the podium and in our private meetings with them. And certainly, we don’t regard it as an interference in our internal affairs when any foreign government or individual organization monitors our human rights practices. And we are proud to say that our system of government allows for that kind of comment without fear or without fear of recrimination. And it speaks to the value of our system, we feel.
So I wouldn’t describe it as that. (*see botom of this post for prior question from Matthew Lee which includes the description Toner refers to.) Obviously, we’ve got a very broad and complex and varied relationship with China, and as the President said, it’s one of the pivotal relationships of the 21st century, and we feel that these kinds of people-to-people, individual-to-individual exchanges build that relationship and strengthen it going forward.
MATTHEW LEE (Associated Press): Can you explain why, if the United States is proud of its human rights record, that the UN special rapporteur has complained that you’re not allowing him independent access to Bradley Manning?
TONER: I don’t know if I agree with your characterization of it as an annual exchange of vitriol. Look, for our part, we are ... (continues at the top of this post)
MATTHEW LEE (Associated Press): Can you explain why, if the United States is proud of its human rights record, that the UN special rapporteur has complained that you’re not allowing him independent access to Bradley Manning?
TONER: We’ve been in contact with the UN special rapporteur. We’ve had conversations with you in terms of access to –
LEE: With me?
TONER: I’m sorry. We’ve had conversations with the special rapporteur. We’ve discussed Bradley Manning’s case with him. But in terms of visits to PFC Manning, that’s something for the Department of Defense.
LEE: And the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) with the same problem? You are – the State Department is the direct contact with the ICRC. At least it was for the Guantanamo inmates. Have you had any contact with them?
TONER: I’m not aware. I don’t know. I’d have to look into that. But in terms of the UN special rapporteur, we’ve had conversations with him. We have ongoing conversations with him. But in terms of access to Manning, that’s something for the Department of Defense.
LEE: With me?
TONER: I’m sorry. We’ve had conversations with the special rapporteur. We’ve discussed Bradley Manning’s case with him. But in terms of visits to PFC Manning, that’s something for the Department of Defense.
LEE: And the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) with the same problem? You are – the State Department is the direct contact with the ICRC. At least it was for the Guantanamo inmates. Have you had any contact with them?
TONER: I’m not aware. I don’t know. I’d have to look into that. But in terms of the UN special rapporteur, we’ve had conversations with him. We have ongoing conversations with him. But in terms of access to Manning, that’s something for the Department of Defense.
ARSHAD MOHAMMED (Reuters): If you welcome scrutiny, where’s the harm?
TONER: I said we’re having conversations with him. We’re trying to work with him to meet his needs. But I don’t understand the question.
MOHAMMED: Well, you said you welcome scrutiny from outsiders of the United States human rights record –
TONER: Right. We do.
MOHAMMED: – that you feel that it speaks to the strength of the U.S. system. So why does it take very lengthy conversations to agree to let a UN special rapporteur have access to an inmate?
TONER: Well, again, for the specific visitation requests, that’s something that Department of Defense would best answer. But look, we’ve been very clear that there’s a legal process underway. We’ve been forthright, I think, in talking about Private – PFC Manning’s situation. We are in conversations, ongoing conversations with the special rapporteur. We have nothing to hide. But in terms of an actual visit to Manning, that’s something that DOD would handle.
LEE: Well, but you have conveyed messages from DOD back to the UN on this?
TONER: Well, no. We’re just – look, we’re aware of his requests. We’re working with him.
LEE: Can – you said you’ve been forthright in your discussions of his treatment. It seems to me that the only person who was forthright in discussions of his treatment resigned several days after making those comments. What – can you explain what you mean by you’ve been forthright in terms of his treatment?
TONER: He is being held in legal detention. There’s a legal process underway, so I’m not going to discuss in any more detail than what I – beyond what I’ve just said because there’s a legal process underway.
LEE: So that’s what you mean by forthright?
TONER: I can’t discuss – I can’t discuss his treatment.
LEE: Being forthright is saying nothing because there’s a legal process underway; is that correct?
TONER: That’s not correct at all. And we’ve – we continue to talk to the special rapporteur about his case.
LEE: Well, okay. So if you’ve been – what do you talk to him about?
TONER: I’m not going to talk about –
LEE: He says, “I’d like to visit him and I need to do it privately,” and you say, “No,” and that’s –
TONER: I’m not going to talk about the substance of those conversations. I’d just say we feel we’ve been –
LEE: Well, then I don’t understand how you can say that you’re being forthright about it if you refuse to talk about it. And if you don’t talk about it, at least – forget about what the actual conditions of his treatment are, but if you’re not prepared to talk about your conversations with the special rapporteur, that’s being even less than not being forthright because you’re not telling us what you told him.
TONER: But you understand the legal constraints that I’m operating under because this is an ongoing legal process.
LEE: Right. But –
TONER: He is being held –
LEE: I understand that you’re put in a difficult position where you say that you’re willing, as Arshad noted when the – that you’re – you don’t understand why China is so upset because the U.S. is willing to open up its human rights situation to all kinds of scrutiny --
TONER: And, Matt –
LEE: And then the first example that anyone raises, you’re not.
TONER: And, Matt, I would raise with you the fact that much of China’s report came from open source, which is what an independent media does, and would note that that kind of independent media does serve a function. And there are details about the Manning case and other human rights concerns out there, but I’m not going to talk about it here.
-------
LEE: Last week we saw the annual ritualistic dance of your release of the Human Rights Report and the Chinese immediate condemnation of it, which, frankly, has gotten a little bit tiring every year. But do you think that that coming so soon after this – after this exchange, the annual exchange of vitriol, that these talks will be as productive as they might otherwise be? TONER: I don’t know if I agree with your characterization of it as an annual exchange of vitriol. Look, for our part, we are ... (continues at the top of this post)
Friday, April 01, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Posted 2 Questions
I posted 2 questions to the "Ask YouTube" policy event.
SEE VIDEO:
My Questions for "Ask YouTube" policy event
Here is the longer version of 2nd question: 
I have seen some of my videos get excluded from being listed in "popular," is there an intentional mechanism by which this happening? I think people should know if videos are getting handicapped and why, the partner and the public. I don't know if there is software that adds up number of flags and automatically demotes a video out of the top 100 popular for a given category. It is not made clear how it is determined, could you do so? I don't even know if there is software or why it is happening. Does it clear an editor? Could you provide partners the math used to determine position within "popular" and "top news?" If people are able to group together and false flag a video and those flags can have an effect on if a video gets to be listed in the top 100 of a given category, I think that is obviously not fair. Could you provide partners with the math if it exists? Could you give a partner channel the benefit of the doubt after it has a good total track record of about 5 years and not exclude a video from being listed if it accumulates a buck of flags? I am not sure how or why it has happened to some of my videos.
I have seen some of my videos get excluded from being listed in "popular," is there an intentional mechanism by which this happening? I think people should know if videos are getting handicapped and why, the partner and the public. I don't know if there is software that adds up number of flags and automatically demotes a video out of the top 100 popular for a given category. It is not made clear how it is determined, could you do so? I don't even know if there is software or why it is happening. Does it clear an editor? Could you provide partners the math used to determine position within "popular" and "top news?" If people are able to group together and false flag a video and those flags can have an effect on if a video gets to be listed in the top 100 of a given category, I think that is obviously not fair. Could you provide partners with the math if it exists? Could you give a partner channel the benefit of the doubt after it has a good total track record of about 5 years and not exclude a video from being listed if it accumulates a buck of flags? I am not sure how or why it has happened to some of my videos.Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Torturing Manning
Bradley Manning is accused of being the source for documents published by WikiLeaks which exposed U.S. government crimes. "I want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public." VIDEO: Forced Nudity Abuse & Torture MUST STOP NOW! 
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Chomsky on Egypt, Obama, Israel & Mubarak (U.S. Policy Supports Brutal Dictator)
VIDEO: Chomsky on Egypt, Obama, Israel & Mubarak (U.S. Policy Supports Brutal Dictator)
BTW, President Sadat of Egypt had offered a full peace treaty to Israel in 1971 but Israel rejected it. "Sadat's offer was closely in accord with official U.S. policy, but Washington decided to back Israel's rejection of it, adopting Kissinger's policy of "stalemate": no negotiations, only force." (Chomsky, Failed States, p. 173) Powerful media outlets like the New York Times falsify history by denying Sadat ever made the 1971 peace offer. "Newsweek refused even to print a letter correcting outright falsehoods on this matter by their columnist George Will, though the research department privately conceded the facts. The practice is standard." (Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World, p.29) (Also see p. 127 of Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky)
Well, Obama very carefully didn't say anything. Mubarak would agree that there should be an orderly transition, but to what? A new cabinet, some minor rearrangement of the constitutional order, it's empty. So he's doing what U.S. leaders regularly do. There is a playbook whenever a favored dictator is in trouble: try to sustain him, hold on; if at some point it becomes impossible, switch sides. The U.S. has an overwhelmingly powerful role there. Egypt is the second-largest recipient over a long period of U.S. military and economic aid. Israel is first. "In fact, if you look at the leading recipients of U.S. aid, most of it military aid, two countries are in a separate category: Israel and Egypt, which gets half the aid given to Israel. This arrangement is part of the Camp David agreement from back in 1979, unofficially. Aid to Egypt is basically aid to Israel, to encourage Egypt to play along. But aid to Israel and Egypt is in a separate category, way above anybody else." Chomsky, What We Say Goes, p.165 Obama himself has been highly supportive of Mubarak. Asked by the BBC, Obama said he didn't regard Mubarak as an authoritarian ruler, he also said he was a "force for stability and good in the region"! This is one of the most brutal dictators of the region — how anyone could have taken Obama's comments about human rights seriously after that is a bit of a mystery. But the support has been very powerful in diplomatic dimensions. Military — the planes flying over Tahrir Square are, of course, U.S. planes. The U.S. has been the strongest, most solid, most important supporter of the regime. It's not like Tunisia, where the main supporter was France. They're the primary guilty party there. But in Egypt, it's clearly the United States, and of course Israel. Israel is—of all the countries in the region, Israel, and I suppose Saudi Arabia, have been the most outspoken and supportive of the Mubarak regime. In fact, Israeli leaders were angry, at least expressed anger, that Obama hadn't taken a stronger stand in support of their friend Mubarak.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
An Open Letter to President Barack Obama about Egypt & Mubarak
NEW VIDEO: An Open Letter to President Barack Obama about Egypt & Mubarak
See video
Dear President Obama:
As political scientists, historians, and researchers in related fields who have studied the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, we the undersigned believe you have a chance to move beyond rhetoric to support the democratic movement sweeping over Egypt. As citizens, we expect our president to uphold those values.
For thirty years, our government has spent billions of dollars to help build and sustain the system the Egyptian people are now trying to dismantle. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in Egypt and around the world have spoken. We believe their message is bold and clear: Mubarak should resign from office and allow Egyptians to establish a new government free of his and his family's influence. It is also clear to us that if you seek, as you said Friday "political, social, and economic reforms that meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people," your administration should publicly acknowledge those reforms will not be advanced by Mubarak or any of his adjutants.
There is another lesson from this crisis, a lesson not for the Egyptian government but for our own. In order for the United States to stand with the Egyptian people it must approach Egypt through a framework of shared values and hopes, not the prism of geostrategy. On Friday you rightly said that "suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away." For that reason we urge your administration to seize this chance, turn away from the policies that brought us here, and embark on a new course toward peace, democracy and prosperity for the people of the Middle East. And we call on you to undertake a comprehensive review of US foreign policy on the major grievances voiced by the democratic opposition in Egypt and all other societies of the region. See video (link to HD version here) info for link to this open letter and signers. Also a link to a FAIR article.
See video
Dear President Obama:
As political scientists, historians, and researchers in related fields who have studied the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, we the undersigned believe you have a chance to move beyond rhetoric to support the democratic movement sweeping over Egypt. As citizens, we expect our president to uphold those values.
For thirty years, our government has spent billions of dollars to help build and sustain the system the Egyptian people are now trying to dismantle. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in Egypt and around the world have spoken. We believe their message is bold and clear: Mubarak should resign from office and allow Egyptians to establish a new government free of his and his family's influence. It is also clear to us that if you seek, as you said Friday "political, social, and economic reforms that meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people," your administration should publicly acknowledge those reforms will not be advanced by Mubarak or any of his adjutants.
There is another lesson from this crisis, a lesson not for the Egyptian government but for our own. In order for the United States to stand with the Egyptian people it must approach Egypt through a framework of shared values and hopes, not the prism of geostrategy. On Friday you rightly said that "suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away." For that reason we urge your administration to seize this chance, turn away from the policies that brought us here, and embark on a new course toward peace, democracy and prosperity for the people of the Middle East. And we call on you to undertake a comprehensive review of US foreign policy on the major grievances voiced by the democratic opposition in Egypt and all other societies of the region. See video (link to HD version here) info for link to this open letter and signers. Also a link to a FAIR article.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Sources for video on North & South Korea
"There have been frequent naval clashes around the Northern Limit Line, indeed it seems likely that it has been preserved by the current ROK and US authorities for that purpose. President Roh moo-hyun and Chairman Kim Jong Il, at their summit on 4 October 2007 agreed to a ‘special peace and cooperation zone in the West Sea’, but this peace initiative was overturned, as so many others, by incoming president Lee Myung-bak."
Tim Beal, "Korean Brinkmanship, American Provocation, and the Road to War: the manufacturing of a crisis," The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Dec. 2010
"If Seoul were really interested in peace, you would think it would carry out its military drills in a less sensitive area." “It is appalling,” says Korea expert Leonid Petrov. “If it was a bona fide need for artillery practice they have plenty of islands in the Western sea. This is simply sending a message that the South is putting pressure on the North.”
Stephen Gowans, "Seoul and Washington play dangerous game with Korean lives," what's left, 12/17/10
"south Korean marines had fired live artillery into waters that, according to international customary law, belong to north Korea. Seoul, however, claims the waters as its own based on a sea border drawn unilaterally by the US military in 1953. Hardly unprovoked, the north Korean retaliation was triggered by the south Korean violation of north Korean territorial waters. Moreover, the artillery exchange between the two Koreas coincided with south Korean manoeuvres involving 70,000 ROK troops backed by US Marines. Pyongyang saw the exercises as a rehearsal for an invasion, not an unreasonable inference given the number of troops involved and Lee’s overt hostility to the DPRK."
Stephen Gowans, "Lee Myung-bak Heats Up Cold War on Korean Peninsula," what's left, 12/23/10
"The sea border that has become the main battleground between North and South Korea 57 years after it was imposed by a U.S. general has been called legally indefensible by American officials for more than three decades.
Then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in a 1975 classified cable that the unilaterally drawn Northern Limit Line was “clearly contrary to international law.” Two years before, the American ambassador said in another cable that many nations would view South Korea and its U.S. ally as “in the wrong” if clashes occurred in disputed areas along the boundary."
Daniel Ten Kate and Peter S. Green, "Defending Korea Line Seen Contrary to Law by Kissinger Remains U.S. Policy," Bloomberg News, 12/17/10
(cited by Stephen Gowans in "Seoul and Washington play dangerous game with Korean lives.")
Friday, December 24, 2010
Great article
Added the following comment to this article Korean Brinkmanship, American Provocation, and the Road to War: the manufacturing of a crisis by Tim Beal (which I liked to in my previous video):
Great article, I've been telling people to read it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUxI0wXLBJg
I want to add that as far as the location of the civilians killed, the claim that the "two civilian contractors working on a military base" is supported by Kim Chi-joong, the brother of one of the civilians, "They were killed while engaging in construction work inside the military base. On top of industrial disaster benefits, the government should recognize them as those who sacrificed their lives for the country and others."
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/12/117_77317.html
Also, yes, North Korea may have been trying to fire into the water since that is what it did in response to a similar situation. On 8/9/10, North Korea fired about 110 artillery rounds off the coast of South Korea's Baengnyeong and Yeonpyeong islands. "Roughly 110 artillery rounds fired off by North Korea in the direction of the West Sea Northern Limit Line (NLL) on Monday afternoon, about 10 crossed the NLL and fell in the waters of Baengnyeong Island." "The Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on testimony from soldiers on patrol and analysis by relevant departments, concluded that about 10 shells fell in the waters off Baengnyeong Island, about one or two kilometers south of the NLL. It said that all 100 shells that fell in the waters off Yeonpyeong Island fell north of the NLL." "The Joint Chiefs official said, “Confirmation of the point of impact comes from splash the shells make as they hit the water, but as the waters of Baengnyeong Islands were experiencing 2.5m waves at the time, it was difficult to conclude that the shells crossed the NLL based on soldiers’ visual observations alone."
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/434543.html
Please send this link to everyone you can:
http://TinyURL.com/NoKoreanWar
Great article, I've been telling people to read it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUxI0wXLBJg
I want to add that as far as the location of the civilians killed, the claim that the "two civilian contractors working on a military base" is supported by Kim Chi-joong, the brother of one of the civilians, "They were killed while engaging in construction work inside the military base. On top of industrial disaster benefits, the government should recognize them as those who sacrificed their lives for the country and others."
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/12/117_77317.html
Also, yes, North Korea may have been trying to fire into the water since that is what it did in response to a similar situation. On 8/9/10, North Korea fired about 110 artillery rounds off the coast of South Korea's Baengnyeong and Yeonpyeong islands. "Roughly 110 artillery rounds fired off by North Korea in the direction of the West Sea Northern Limit Line (NLL) on Monday afternoon, about 10 crossed the NLL and fell in the waters of Baengnyeong Island." "The Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on testimony from soldiers on patrol and analysis by relevant departments, concluded that about 10 shells fell in the waters off Baengnyeong Island, about one or two kilometers south of the NLL. It said that all 100 shells that fell in the waters off Yeonpyeong Island fell north of the NLL." "The Joint Chiefs official said, “Confirmation of the point of impact comes from splash the shells make as they hit the water, but as the waters of Baengnyeong Islands were experiencing 2.5m waves at the time, it was difficult to conclude that the shells crossed the NLL based on soldiers’ visual observations alone."
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/434543.html
Please send this link to everyone you can:
http://TinyURL.com/NoKoreanWar
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Comments posted to this video in response to "prayfortruejustice" who claims that I " ignore all science and change the topic to misdirect any immutable facts about the 9/11 events":
prayfortruejustice,
WHAT "science?" WHAT "science?" I have repeatedly posted points of fact, all you have done is post notions with nothing to back it up at all. Before we even get into "science" can we start with basic logic and agree that scientific principles apply to all the buildings where steel and fire are concerned? Can we at least agree on that?
If we can agree that scientific principles apply to all the buildings where steel and fire are concerned then the theory pushed by Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Mike Rivero and others has a serious flaw because steel has weakened to the point of failing due to fire in other buildings. And as pointed out in my first video uploaded to Youtube, we can see that progressive failure of the steel columns well before the collapses. This is a fact these men are ignorant of.
And that fact should not come as a surprise to people who have taken the time to educate themselves on the subject. THE BASIC FACT that steel can be weakened by fire has been understood for a long time (its the reason they spray fireproofing onto steel for example) and I have shown how this fact had been discussed years before 9/11.
"Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having 3 or 4-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel." - Sept. 1998, John Norman, captain with the FDNY
Here is my reply to degeneratgambler, I sent this comment:
You didn't or couldn't dispute the facts I went to the trouble of posting over at my blog.
WTC7 sure as hell didn't SOUND like a controlled demolition did it?
(because in CD we hear multiple explosions, with WTC7, right before it collapses we DON'T hear multiple explosions.)
I hear one low rumble (probably an internal failure of the steel column)
and it didn't look like one since CD buildings don't show signs of structural failure well before they collapse. Firemen expected it to collapse due to its condition. Read hat they have to say: WTC 7 was severely damaged on the south side of the building and was on fire for about 7 hours.
prayfortruejustice,
WHAT "science?" WHAT "science?" I have repeatedly posted points of fact, all you have done is post notions with nothing to back it up at all. Before we even get into "science" can we start with basic logic and agree that scientific principles apply to all the buildings where steel and fire are concerned? Can we at least agree on that?
If we can agree that scientific principles apply to all the buildings where steel and fire are concerned then the theory pushed by Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Mike Rivero and others has a serious flaw because steel has weakened to the point of failing due to fire in other buildings. And as pointed out in my first video uploaded to Youtube, we can see that progressive failure of the steel columns well before the collapses. This is a fact these men are ignorant of.
And that fact should not come as a surprise to people who have taken the time to educate themselves on the subject. THE BASIC FACT that steel can be weakened by fire has been understood for a long time (its the reason they spray fireproofing onto steel for example) and I have shown how this fact had been discussed years before 9/11.
"Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having 3 or 4-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel." - Sept. 1998, John Norman, captain with the FDNY
Here is my reply to degeneratgambler, I sent this comment:
You didn't or couldn't dispute the facts I went to the trouble of posting over at my blog.
WTC7 sure as hell didn't SOUND like a controlled demolition did it?
(because in CD we hear multiple explosions, with WTC7, right before it collapses we DON'T hear multiple explosions.)
I hear one low rumble (probably an internal failure of the steel column)
and it didn't look like one since CD buildings don't show signs of structural failure well before they collapse. Firemen expected it to collapse due to its condition. Read hat they have to say: WTC 7 was severely damaged on the south side of the building and was on fire for about 7 hours.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Monday, December 06, 2010
Sunday, December 05, 2010
MORE Drills!
MORE Drills! South Korea & US are at it AGAIN. I just added two "Recommended Reading" links in the video info. Check out the two articles I posted links to in the video info: "US Ultimately to Blame for Korean Skirmishes in Yellow Sea" and "Wrong country blamed for artillery exchange on Korean peninsula" by Stephen Gowans
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
About North Korea and South Korea
Korea Correction
Some Internet sites are claiming that because CNN's Stan Grant is reporting from onboard the USS George Washington it must mean something. They make this claim on their concocted notion that CNN reporters don't accompany training exercises. The fact that CNN reporter Kyung Lah was aboard the USS George Washington reporting on training exercises debunks their claim. And more, see video!
Some Internet sites are claiming that because CNN's Stan Grant is reporting from onboard the USS George Washington it must mean something. They make this claim on their concocted notion that CNN reporters don't accompany training exercises. The fact that CNN reporter Kyung Lah was aboard the USS George Washington reporting on training exercises debunks their claim. And more, see video!
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Beyond Hiroshima!
The doctors who investigated Fallujah in Iraq found levels of cancer beyond what they found in Hiroshima, this hasn't even been reported in the United States. SEE NEW VIDEO: US Media Hides US War of Aggression's Toll on Fallujah's babies and adults.
Please pass it on: http://tinyurl.com/BeyondHiroshima
.jpg)
Please pass it on: http://tinyurl.com/BeyondHiroshima
Friday, October 15, 2010
Media FAIL Again
NEW VIDEO: Media FAIL Again: Ahmadinejad & 9/11
Someone asked, "@representativepress Could I ask what your take on the comments of President Ahmadinejad at the UN General Assembly, concerning 9/11? I personally found that part of his speech somewhat confusing, but I do not trust for a second, the media's accusation that he claimed 9/11 was an 'inside job.'
Thanks in advance!"
.jpg)
This video is my reply
Friday, September 17, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
9/11 Media Failure
NEW VIDEO: 9/11 Media Failure to Inform the Public about WHY we were Attacked
Please pass it on: http://tinyurl.com/911MediaFail
This was on the newswires on the morning of the 9/11 attacks:
Expert: Bin Laden Warned of 'Unprecedented' Attack
(Reuters) Sep 11, 11:19 AM ET
Saudi dissident 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, an Arab journalist with access to him said Tuesday.
Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi, an Arabic-language weekly news magazine, said Islamic fundamentalists led by bin Laden were "almost certainly" behind the attack of the World Trade Center in New York.
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2007/12/expert-bin-laden-warned-of.html
Please pass it on: http://tinyurl.com/911MediaFail
This was on the newswires on the morning of the 9/11 attacks:
Expert: Bin Laden Warned of 'Unprecedented' Attack
(Reuters) Sep 11, 11:19 AM ET
Saudi dissident 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, an Arab journalist with access to him said Tuesday.
Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi, an Arabic-language weekly news magazine, said Islamic fundamentalists led by bin Laden were "almost certainly" behind the attack of the World Trade Center in New York.
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2007/12/expert-bin-laden-warned-of.html
Thursday, August 26, 2010
No Apology
In a letter to the editor about the 1953 coup against Iran, Jonathan Schwarz points out that "no prominent U.S. politician has ever apologized for our role in the coup." Examining a statements made by the Secretary of State admitting that the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development," Schwarz quotes Voice of America which accurately reported at the time, "Mrs. Albright did not actually apologize."
I have see other people in addition to Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, make the claim that the U.S. apologized. For those tempted to suggest that what Albright said was an apology, the question of whether what she said was indeed an apology was put directly to Albright. The same day she made her speech in which she said, "it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs," a reporter pointed out that she had not apologized for the coup that toppled Mossadeg. Responding to the question, "you didn't come out and say it -- an apology -- but does the United States apologize for supporting the coup against Dr. Mossadegh?", Albright replied flatly, "I said, I think, everything that I needed to say on the Mossadegh coup."
Thursday, July 29, 2010
JAMES MADISON WARNED US ABOUT WAR
Please pass it on:
http://tinyurl.com/WarWarning (see video)
lettersotherwrit04madi.pdf
JAMES MADISON WARNED US ABOUT WAR
WARNING about War from the Father of the Constitution
"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes and the opportunities of fraud growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could reserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
Those truths are well established. They are read in every page which records the progression from a less arbitrary to a more arbitrary government, or the transition from a popular government to an aristocracy or a monarchy."
READ MORE HERE:
James Madison “Political Observations” April 20, 1795
Also see:
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture of heterogeneous powers: the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man: not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war a physical force is to be created, and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions, and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace." James Madison September 14, 1793 (read more there)
Sunday, June 27, 2010
"Sheer Criminal Aggression"
NEW VIDEO:
PASS IT ON: Tinyurl.com/IsraeliCriminalAggression
See video of me reading the following:
Hijacking boats in international waters and killing passengers is, of course, a serious crime. The editors of the London Guardian are quite right to say that "If an armed group of Somali pirates had yesterday boarded six vessels on the high seas, killing at least 10 passengers and injuring many more, a NATO taskforce would today be heading for the Somali coast." It is worth bearing in mind that the crime is nothing new. For decades, Israel has been hijacking boats in international waters between Cyprus and Lebanon, killing or kidnapping passengers, sometimes bringing them to prisons in Israel including secret prison/torture chambers, sometimes holding them as hostages for many years. Israel assumes that it can carry out such crimes with impunity because the US tolerates them and Europe generally follows the US lead.
Much the same is true of Israel's pretext for its latest crime: that the Freedom Flotilla was bringing materials that could be used for bunkers for rockets. Putting aside the absurdity, if Israel were interested in stopping Hamas rockets it knows exactly how to proceed: accept Hamas offers for a cease-fire. In June 2008, Israel and Hamas reached a cease-fire agreement. The Israeli government formally acknowledges that until Israel broke the agreeement on November 4, invading Gaza and killing half a dozen Hamas activists, Hamas did not fire a single rocket. Hamas offered to renew the cease-fire. The Israeli cabinet considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to launch its murderous and destructive Operation Cast Lead on December 27. Evidently, there is no justification for the use of force "in self-defense" unless peaceful means have been exhausted. In this case they were not even tried, although — or perhaps because—there was every reason to suppose that they would succeed. Operation Cast Lead is therefore sheer criminal aggression, with no credible pretext, and the same is true of Israel's current resort to force. The siege of Gaza itself does not have the slightest credible pretext. It was imposed by the US and Israel in January 2006 to punish Palestinians because they voted "the wrong way" in a free election, and it was sharply intensified in July 2007 when Hamas blocked a US-Israeli attempt to overthrow the elected government in a military coup, installing Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan. The siege is savage and cruel, designed to keep the caged animals barely alive so as to fend off international protest, but hardly more than that. It is the latest stage of long-standing Israeli plans, backed by the US, to separate Gaza from the West Bank. These are only the bare outlines of very ugly policies, in which Egypt is complicit as well.
BTW, the preceding statement was part of a longer interview for an Egyptian weekly which you can read online (see link below) BUT, the Egyptian weekly edited this out, Chomsky's mention of Egypt's complicity in Israel's crimes.
And largely the press in the US really isn't better than this. Along with the other topics he deals with, Chomsky writes about the press's poor performance in his latest book Hopes and Prospects. See the link in the video info.
BTW, the preceding statement was part of a longer interview for an Egyptian weekly which you can read online (see link below) BUT, the Egyptian weekly edited this out, Chomsky's mention of Egypt's complicity in Israel's crimes.
And largely the press in the US really isn't better than this. Along with the other topics he deals with, Chomsky writes about the press's poor performance in his latest book Hopes and Prospects. See the link in the video info.
Link to the Egyptian weekly's Chomsky interview:
http://bit.ly/cN5v41
"One of the world's major intellectual voices and a leading critic of Israel, Noam Chomsky has sided with the powerless throughout his career, while at the same time reminding the powerful of the inconvenient truths they would rather forget. He spoke to David Tresilian in Paris."
http://tinyurl.com/hopesandprospects
http://bit.ly/cN5v41
"One of the world's major intellectual voices and a leading critic of Israel, Noam Chomsky has sided with the powerless throughout his career, while at the same time reminding the powerful of the inconvenient truths they would rather forget. He spoke to David Tresilian in Paris."
http://tinyurl.com/hopesandprospects
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, June 03, 2010
We are SHOCKED
We are SHOCKED by Israel's Violence Against Humanitarian Aid Flotilla for Gaza 
Pass it on: Tinyurl.com/ShockedByIsrael
Pass it on: Tinyurl.com/ShockedByIsraelHuman Rights Council
Geneva, Switzerland
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Thunderf00t video about "THE Muslims"
UPDATE: Thunderf00t video about "THE Muslims" & Vote on Tiles for America Memorial Solution
Please DON'T mirror this video, if you want to help you can send this link to others:
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Pass it On: Bit.ly/HowardZinn
Pass it On: Bit.ly/HowardZinn
Also see Book: A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present
Howard Zinn Dies & 9/11 Media Criticism
"We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism. . . . Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children. . . .
In short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is the truth the American people need to hear.
Voices like that were mostly shut out of the major American media after the September 11 attacks."
"We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism. . . . Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children. . . .
In short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is the truth the American people need to hear.
Voices like that were mostly shut out of the major American media after the September 11 attacks."
Also see Book: A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Monday, January 04, 2010
Operation Counter Strike
Tinyurl.com/OperationCounterStrike
Zionists Conspire to Eliminate RepresentativePress with "Operation Counter Strike"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
