Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Google and YouTube Blacklists PrisonPlanet.com and Infowars.com

In the recent weeks America has undergone a heightened and escalating attack on it's civil liberties from the TSA groping and probing at airports to DHS and ICE seizing web domain names without any warning or due process of law.

Within this past year many public officials have been pushing congress to pass web censorship bills for many different reasons. It's clear the number one reason is to snuff out any alternative media that does not conform to the status qua. The most recent attack is the blacklisting of Prisonplanet.com from Google and Youtube.

Prison Planet Article

Why is YouTube and Google blacklisting PrisonPlanet.com? Both Google and YouTube claim it's because PP posted a portion of the leaked "Collateral Murder" video from Wikileaks and it was tagged inappropriate and violated the terms of use. Somehow the version PP posted is different than the countless other version posted by thousands from FOX NEWS to probably some kid who lives down the street from you.

Friday, November 26, 2010


Why are the American people allowing the Department Of Homeland Security to spend so much money on false protection? That's right false protection. There is no threat from terrorist attacks. Most Americans are completely unaware of the fact that 9/11 was carried out by our own Government. Yes planes did hit the buildings that day. But only 3 planes. One plane hit the Pentagon and the other two of course everybody knows hit the twin towers. But a 3rd building in New York came down that day. At 5pm WTC7 fell at free fall speed strait down. So, what does all this have to do with DHS today?

Our own Government staged an attack to sell the American people on invading 2 countries. Now they are using the same bullshit story that terrorist are out to get us and they need to protect us. So DHS is over spending billions of dollars on Backscatter X-Ray machines and not just in airports. Mobile Backscatter X-Ray trucks and vans, Sobriety Check Points.

Now they want to expand the airport scanners out to Courts, Shopping Malls, Schools, Sport Stadiums, Train Stations, Bus Stations, Federal and State Buildings and the list just keeps getting longer and longer. DHS knows there is no real threat but they continue to expand their security grid anyway. They have minimum wage goons groping Americans at the airport and now they've began putting in 300 surveillance cameras in Houston Texas. It won't be long now before the city or town you live in will be next. Don't believe it? Do your homework. Investigate 9/11 and every attempt since 9/11. The evidence is out in the open. Every attempt since 9/11 has been a staged event. Also investigate who else is making these claims. Many other very credible people. It's not some crazy looking people staring up at the sky preaching something you never heard before.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Newly Released 9/11 Video

Newly released 9/11 evidence provided by International Center for 9/11 Studies through their FOIA filed against NIST reveals clear evidence that explosives were used. Pay close attention to the north tower seconds before number 2 plane hits the south tower. The north tower under goes some activity. Pay attention to the fire seeping out the right side. Also notice the person at the top right waving a white cloth. Because they have the window open, you can see a blast of smoke shoot out. Then replay that section over and over many times and you will notice that whole section even 10 floors down hick ups and blow smoke out the windows. I'm not an expert but common sense is telling me there's not very many other things that could produce something that huge other than explosives.

Saturday, November 20, 2010


In the past month we've witnessed a classic form of dictatorship and tyranny escalate at an alarming rate. First the TSA (Transportation Safety Administration)slowly eased in their backscatter full body x-ray machines which raised some questions about the levels radiation and whether or not those levels are safe or not. After TSA announced to the public that these machines were safe, some evidence came forward that contradicted their claim and exposed them in their first lie.

After that their were concerns about the images and if they were being stored somewhere. Some members from TSA responded with "Of course not. We don't save any of the images anywhere in our data base." Shortly after that statement TSA once again was caught in a lie over the fact that they were storing the images on a hard drive.

Then came TSA's next wave of attack on the American people with their new pat down procedure. For clarification I'm refering to the first pat down procedure where they use the back of their hand and ever so lightly check the groin area of a person. When this procedure began they were only randomly picking out people from the regular security line based on a discrimination and stereotyping method. Also it's the alternative if one opts out from bathing themselves in radiation.

What came next was so extraordinary shocking it caused a major backlash and revolt across the united states. X-ray machines started popping up in airports all across the U.S. which caused more and more opt outs. Suddenly TSA announces a change in the pat down procedure with an enhanced pat down. That's when the pat downs became a free for all groping session where TSA workers use the palm of their hand and literally grab people in the privates. What set people off even more was these gropings are not like the standard police pat down where a female officer pat downs a female suspect and a male officer pat downs a male suspect. Many victims of this out of control groping were reporting that grown men working for TSA were grabbing their young daughters in the groin with full contact and a push.

At this point thousands are infuriated at the level of disgust TSA has inflicted on the American people. Many people started taking action. One person hit record on his camera and let it record the whole process. He opted out of the x-ray scanner and proceeded to the pat down area. When the TSA worker starts explaining the procedure the man says "If you touch my junk I'll have you arrested." Of course that stirred up a discussion with the TSA worker and a supervisor. The supervisor informs the gentleman that if he can't submit to the radiation or the pat down he can't fly. So the guy says fine I'll go see if I can get my ticket refunded and then leave the airport. Moments later the supervisor stops the guy to get his information for the case. The guy says "what case?" The TSA supervisor responds that they're going bring a civil disturbance case against him and fine him up to $11,000.

Now about four days later TSA came out with a statement that they will file a civil disturbance case against anyone who opts out of the scanner and the groping. Along with the case will be a $11,000 and then (to add fuel to the fire!!!) that person will be detained at the airport until a police officer can arrive to search pat down the person before they can leave the airport!! Why? Because that person has just put themselves in a position as someone with something to hide!!

Can you believe this load of crap? So many Americans have no idea what is staring right in the face. A total Nazi style corporate takeover designed to economically destroy and control the middle class of America.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Holy S$%T Jay Rockafeller makes bold statement!

Many Americans including myself have been aware of our Government's efforts to consolidate wealth and power into the hands a few elite's new world order. The Government efforts have been attacking free speech, the right to privacy, gun control initiatives. But this is BOLD!

Jay Rockafeller wants to get rid of Fox News and MSNBC for good

Saturday, November 13, 2010

All in the name of Homeland Security?

Ever since 9/11/2001 (which with the mountain of evidence compiled clearly indicates our own Government carried out the attack), the Department Homeland Security has been in high gear cramming their security grid down on the American people. They set up these fusion centers that fuse information with local authorities, Government departments, and other information sharing entities. Meanwhile, the border of Mexico is still wide open and sadly in control of Mexican drug cartels. The only threat we've had from terrorists is the staged false flag attacks carried out by most likely our own. Yet the I.R.S. is not allowed to reveal tax return information to investigators that would help find kidnapped children.

New York Times article

Homeland Security is an eefing joke!!

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Drug cartels plan to send assassins to Arizona

by Alicia E. Barrón azfamily.com Posted on October 15, 2010 at 5:41 PM

A recently leaked memo from the Department of Homeland Security alerts law enforcement agencies that assassins are being hired by drug cartels in an effort to improve drug trafficking through Arizona.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu says the leaked memo was sent to law enforcement agencies throughout the southwest. Sheriff Babeu says, "This is the federal government. Our own homeland security is saying that these drug cartels in Mexico are now working together to protect their interest."

The memo states there was recently a meeting in Puerto Peñasco, Mexico, or Rocky Point, between multiple drug smuggling organizations. Allegedly at the meeting, members of several drug cartels decided to send approximately 15 paid assassins to Vekol Valley in Pinal County. Cartel members also allegedly outlined a plan to send assasins disguised as drug smugglers through the highly-trafficked drug corridor in Vekol Valley. If the fake smugglers were approached by bandits attempting to steal the drugs, the assassins were to execute them.

For critics who say this is just drug dealers killing drug dealers, Babeau says it is more than that. He says the federal government needs to send thousands of armed troops to the border, build a two-walled fence and increase penalties for illegal immigrants arrested in the United States.

"This is a national security threat," explains Sheriff Babeu. "It's no longer just the sheriffs and local police...the day has now arrived where these cartels think that there is no boundary. They'll do whatever it is to carry on their business".

The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Democracy

Noam Chomsky chomsky.info, January 24, 2010

January 21, 2010 will go down as a dark day in the history of American democracy, and its decline. The editors of the New York Times did not exaggerate when they wrote that the Supreme Court decision that day "strikes at the heart of democracy" by having "paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding" -- more explicitly, for permitting corporate managers to do so, since current laws permit them to spend shareholder money without consent.

Nor does Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law, exaggerate when he writes that this exercise of the radical judicial activism that the rightwing claims to deplore "matches or exceeds Bush v. Gore in ideological or partisan overreaching by the court. In that case, the court reached into the political process to hand the election to one candidate. Today it reached into the political process to hand unprecedented power to corporations."

The Court was split, with the four reactionary judges (misleadingly called "conservative") joined by Justice Kennedy in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice Roberts selected a case that could easily have been settled on narrow grounds, and maneuvered the Court into using it for a far-reaching decision that overturned precedents going back a century that restrict corporate contributions to federal campaigns.

In effect, the decision permits corporate managers to buy elections directly, instead of using more complex indirect means, though it is likely that to avoid negative publicity they will choose to do so through trade organizations. It is well-known that corporate campaign contributions, sometimes packaged in complex ways, are a major factor determining the outcome of elections. This alone is a significant factor in policy decisions, reinforced by the enormous power of corporate lobbies, greatly enhanced by the Court's decision, and other conditions imposed by the very small sector of the population that dominates the economy.

A very successful predictor of government policy over a long period is political economist Thomas Ferguson's "investment theory of politics," which interprets elections as occasions on which segments of private sector power coalesce to invest to control the state. The means for undermining democracy are sure to be enhanced by the Court's dagger blow at the heart of functioning democracy.

Some legislative remedies are being proposed, for example requiring managers to consult with shareholders. At best, that would be a minor limit on the corporate takeover of the political system, given the very high concentration of ownership by extreme wealth and other corporate institutions. Furthermore any legislation would have been difficult to pass even without this new weapon provided by the Court to unaccountable private concentrations of power. The same holds, even more strongly, for a Constitutional amendment that Waldman and others think might be necessary to restore at least the limited democracy that prevailed before the decision.

In his dissent, Justice Stevens acknowledged that "we have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment." That traces back to the time when the 1907 Tillman act banned corporate contributions, the precedent overturned by the Court. In the early 20th century, legal theorists and courts came to adopt and implement the Court's 1886 (Santa Clara) principle that these "collectivist legal entities" have the same rights as persons of flesh and blood, an attack on classical liberalism that was sharply condemned by the vanishing breed of conservatives as "a menace to the liberty of the individual, and to the stability of the American States as popular governments" (Christopher Tiedeman). In later years these rights were expanded far beyond those of persons, notably by the mislabeled "free trade agreements."

The conception of corporate personhood evolved alongside the shift of power from shareholders to managers, and finally to the doctrine that "the powers of the board of directors ... are identical with the powers of the corporation." Furthermore, the courts determined that these state-established "natural entities" must restrict themselves to pursuit of profit and market share, though the courts did advise corporations to support charitable and educational causes, or an "aroused public" might take away the privileges granted to them by state power.

As corporate personhood and managerial independence were becoming established in law, the control of corporations over the economy was so vast that Woodrow Wilson described "a very different America from the old, ... no longer a scene of individual enterprise ... individual opportunity and individual achievement," but an America in which "Comparatively small groups of men," corporate managers, "wield a power and control over the wealth and the business operations of the country," becoming "rivals of the government itself." In reality, becoming increasingly its masters, a process that has extended since, and is now given even greater scope by the Roberts Court.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion held that there is no principled way to distinguish between media corporations and other corporations: that is, no principled way to distinguish between corporations that are bound by law to restrict themselves to gaining profit and market share from those that in principle have the role of providing news and opinion in an unbiased fashion. Media corporations have indeed been criticized for violating this trust, but never so severely as in Kennedy's analogy.

The Court decision followed immediately upon another victory for wealth and power, the election of Republican candidate Scott Brown to replace the late Senator Edward Kennedy, the "liberal lion" of Massachusetts. This was depicted as a "populist upsurge" against the liberal elitists who run the government. The voting data reveal a rather different story. Very high voting in the wealthy suburbs carried Brown to victory, thanks to lower turnout in the urban areas that are largely Democratic. "55% of Republican voters said they were `very interested' in the election," the Wall St. Journal reported, "compared with 38% of Democrats. It was indeed an uprising against Obama's policies: for the wealthy, he was not doing enough to enrich them further, while for the poorer sectors, he was doing too much to achieve that end.

Doubtless there was some impact of the populist image crafted by the PR machine ("this is my truck," "army guy," etc.). But this appears to have had only a minor role. The popular anger is quite understandable, with the banks thriving thanks to bailouts while unemployment is above 10% and in manufacturing industry at the level of the Great Depression, one out of six unemployed, with few prospects for recovering the kinds of jobs that are lost, with the increasing financialization of the economy and concomitant hollowing out of productive industry.

Brown presented himself as the 41st vote against health care -- the vote that could undermine majority rule, by virtue of the current Republican tactic of regular resort to filibuster to enable a unanimous minority bloc to bar any legislation put forth by the administration, a novelty in American politics. It is true that Obama's health care program was a major factor in the election, and the headlines are correct when they report that the public is increasingly turning against it. The poll figures explain why: the bill did not go far enough.

A Wall St. Journal/NBC poll found that 64% of voters disapprove of the Republicans' handling of health care (55% disapprove of Obama's handling). Among Obama voters who voted for Brown, 60% felt that the health care program did not go far enough (85% among those who abstained). In both categories, about 85% favored a public option. These figures accord with other recent polls that show that nationwide, the public option was favored by 56%-38%, and the Medicare buy-in at age 55 by 64%-30%; both abandoned. 85% believe that the government should have the right to negotiate drug prices, as in other countries; Obama guaranteed big Pharma that he would not pursue that option. Large majorities favor cost-cutting, which makes good sense: US per capita costs for health care are about twice those of other industrial countries, and health outcomes are at the low end. But cost-cutting cannot be seriously undertaken with largesse showered on the drug companies, and health care in the hands of virtually unregulated private insurers, a very costly system unique to the US.

The Supreme Court decision raises significant new barriers to overcoming the serious crisis of health care, or to addressing seriously such critical issues as the looming environmental and energy crises. And the damage to American democracy can hardly be overestimated.

Sunday, November 7, 2010


By EILEEN SULLIVAN Associated Press

The Transportation Security Administration is changing the way it pats down passengers at airports moving from the screener’s traditional hand pat to more of a hand-sliding motion, a law enforcement official said Thursday.

The TSA regularly reviews and updates its screening procedures, agency spokeswoman Kristin Lee said. And screeners will continue to use the pat-down method to help detect hidden and dangerous items like explosives or bomb parts. Lee said the procedure will continue to be conducted by screeners who are the same gender as the passenger. The TSA, for security reasons, would not provide details about the differences in the new technique for pat-downs.

The law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the security procedure, said the new hand-sliding technique is already in use in some airports across the country.

Pat-downs are used when something on the passenger sets off the metal detector, when the imaging technology detects something suspicious on the passenger and when the passenger opts out of the electronic screening methods.

“Passengers should continue to expect an unpredictable mix of security layers that include explosives trace detection, advanced imaging technology, canine teams, among others,” Lee said.

Counterterrorism officials say commercial aviation continues to be an attractive target for terrorists and terror operatives are constantly trying to find ways to evade security.

ABC and NBC first reported the new policy on Thursday.

Friday, November 5, 2010

They're Printing More Money!

A few weeks ago the Federal Reserve's printing presses went into high gear at the expense of the American people. Ben Bernanke (Chair Federal Reserve) announced the Federal Reserve would be printing a mountain of money they call quantitative easing 2 to stimulate the economy and keep it from total derailment.

Many top economist stated that flooding the economy with a mountain of money made out of thin air will only worsen the economy over time. With more economist agreeing there would be adverse effects than not, maybe the FED should have call it destructive softening.