Obama Administration: Critics Are Aiding Al Qaeda 090210
You’re either with Obama, or you’re with the terrorists
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, Feb 9th, 2010
The Obama administration has issued an op-ed piece in which critics of the president’s policy on terrorism are described as “serving the goals of al Qaeda”.
The piece, titled We Need No Lectures, appeared in USA Today and was written by John Brennan, an assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
Brennan writes that politics “should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe.”
Brennan defends the administration’s handling of the failed christmas day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, by boasting that he was read his rights and “Mirandized”.
The response comes following GOP criticism that the Obama administration was treating the attempted bombing as a routine criminal case rather than a terrorist plot.
However, both the Democrats and the GOP have failed to address the real issue on the matter, the multitude of questions surrounding the circumstances in which Abdulmutallab, known to the authorities, was allowed to board a flight without a passport.
Rasmussen reports today highlights the fact that 75% of Americans are angry at the government’s current policies.
The latest Gallup stats show that Obama’s approval rating on terrorism remains at a lowly 48%, down from 55% in the last 7 months.
Despite these figures, John Brennan writes “We need no lectures about the fact that this nation is at war. Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”
So essentially “you’re either with us or you’re with Al Qaeda” huh? Where have we heard that one before?
Brennan is a fine one to talk about politically motivated fearmongering. Just last week, he and his fellow intelligence chiefs announced to the world that a terror attack in the United States is “certain” to be launched within the next six months.
“The warning is bound to frighten the public, with no obvious benefit beyond the ability to say ‘I told you so.” commented the editors of USA Today, whose piece entitled “Officials’ handling of Christmas Day attack looks like amateur hour” also prompted Brennan’s response.
If anyone is aiding al Qaeda, it is the incumbent administration, which has not veered away from any of its predecessor’s foreign policies.
The drone missile strikes in Pakistan have been escalated. With what effect? A ratio of 123 civilian deaths to every three ‘al qaeda’ operatives.
American troop levels in Afghanistan have tripled under Obama. The “terrorist” surveillance program continues, as do military commissions, illegal rendition, and detainment of enemy combatants without charge.
How ludicrously ironic it is that the GOP critics only step out from the shadows to call Obama out whenever he does something in a slightly different cackhanded way to George W. Bush.
“The most important thing for the public to understand is we’re not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush administration handled them all through 9/11,” Obama told CBS News on Sunday.
That is exactly the problem. But then I would say that, I’m with Al Qaeda apparently.
Whoops: Palin advocates war with Iran, apparently misreading column
Raw Story
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has always tried to portray herself as tough on national security.
On Sunday, however, Palin may have taken it too far. Speaking to Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the onetime Republican vice presidential nominee signaled that she supported war with Iran, referring to a recent online column by conservative Pat Buchanan.
“Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day,” Palin quipped. “Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years.”
Only, Buchanan said the opposite thing.
“Should war come,” he wrote Friday, “that would be the end of GOP dreams of adding three-dozen seats in the House and half a dozen in the Senate.”
In addition to costing the GOP politically (the speechwriter turned pundit said that war would ensure the reelection of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Buchanan said war with Iran was simply unwise — and even more than that, unfounded.
“Despite the hysteria about Iran’s imminent testing of a bomb,” Buchanan wrote, “the U.S. intelligence community still has not changed its finding that Tehran is not seeking a bomb.”
“And if Iran is hell-bent on a bomb,” he added, “why has Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair not revised the 2007 finding and given us the hard evidence?”
Palin, seemingly misreading Buchanan’s piece, remarked, “Things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies.”
Palin’s remarks come about 3:15 into the following YouTube video. The exchange — and the column by Buchanan — was first noted by Talking Points Memo.
Yet Another War On Terror Myth Bites The Dust
YOUR NEW REALITY
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010
Stunning. It doesn’t matter what kind of bullshit you try and spin when it comes to the War On/Of Terror, the American mainstream media will line up to let you create a new reality that goes against the law, humanity and downright commonsense.
From ABC News :
John Kiriakou, the former CIA operative who affirmed claims that waterboarding quickly unloosed the tongues of hard-core terrorists, says he didn’t know what he was talking about.Kiriakou, a 15-year veteran of the agency’s intelligence analysis and operations directorates, electrified the hand-wringing national debate over torture in December 2007 when he told ABC’s Brian Ross and Richard Esposito in a much ballyhooed, exclusive interview that senior al Qaeda commando Abu Zubaydah cracked after only one application of the face cloth and water.
“From that day on, he answered every question,” Kiriakou said. “The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”
“It works, is the bottom line,” conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh exclaimed on his radio show the day after Kiriakou’s ABC interview. “Thirty to 35 seconds, and it works.”
A cascade of similar acclamations followed, muffling — to this day — the later revelation that Zubaydah had in fact been waterboarded at least 83 times.
Kiriakou did his job. He got the Torture Works! idea into the mainstream media.
Now he’s got a book out, he’s oh so sorry he lied, and so successfully seeded disinformation not only through US media, but international media as well.
“I wasn’t there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I’d heard and read inside the agency at the time.”
….Kiriakou….didn’t have any first hand knowledge of anything relating to CIA torture routines, and still doesn’t. And he claims that the disinformation he helped spread was a CIA dirty trick: “In retrospect, it was a valuable lesson in how the CIA uses the fine arts of deception even among its own.”
Right. That’s why he gave literally dozens of interviews, repeating the claim that waterboarding suspects works to stop terrorism.
I don’t believe him. Let’s waterboard him and see what he has to say then.
Yet Another War On Terror Myth Bites The Dust 190110banner4
75% Are Angry At Government’s Current Policies
Monday, February 08, 2010
Voters are madder than ever at the current policies of the federal government.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 75% of likely voters now say they are at least somewhat angry at the government’s current policies, up four points from late November and up nine points since September. The overall figures include 45% who are Very Angry, also a nine-point increase since September.
Just 19% now say they’re not very or not at all angry at the government’s policies, down eight points from the previous survey and down 11 from September. That 19% includes only eight percent (8%) who say they’re not angry at all and 11% who are not very angry.
Part of the frustration is likely due to the belief of 60% of voters that neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today. That finding is identical to the view last September, just after the tumultuous congressional town hall meetings the month before. But only 52% felt this way in November.
Americans are united in the belief “that the political system is broken, that most politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers,” Scott Rasmussen explains in his new book, In Search of Self-Governance.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Male voters are definitely angrier than women. Voters earning $60,000 to $100,000 per year are more frustrated than those in any other income group.
Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans are angry with the government’s current policies, which is perhaps not surprising with the White House and Congress both in Democratic hands. But 78% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.
Sixty-one percent (61%) of Democrats share that anger, but Republicans are three times as likely as Democrats to be Very Angry.
The divide between the Political Class and Mainstream voters, however, is remarkable. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Mainstream voters are angry, but 84% of the Political Class are not. Those numbers include 57% of Mainstream voters who are Very Angry and 51% of the Political Class who are not angry at all.
But then 68% of Mainstream voters don’t think the leaders of either major political party have a good understanding of what the country needs today. Sixty-one percent (61%) of the Political Class disagree.
By comparison, the majority of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliateds don’t believe the current political leaders have a good handle on what is needed today.
Older voters and higher-income voters share that belief most strongly.
Democratic Senate candidates are struggling in a number of states in part because of unhappiness with the government’s policies, including the controversial national health care plan. Opposition to that plan played a key part in the GOP upset Senate win last month in Massachusetts.
Most voters oppose the now-seemingly-derailed health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats for months. They continue to have very mixed feelings about the $787-billion economic stimulus plan approved by Congress last February.
Looking back, most voters still don't approve of the multi-billion-dollar government bailouts of the financial industry and troubled automakers General Motors and Chrysler.
Forty-nine percent (49%) worry the government will try to do too much to help the economy, while 39% fear it won’t do enough.
As the economy continues to stumble along, 59% of voters believe cutting taxes is better than increasing government spending as a job-creation tool, but 72% expect the nation’s elected politicians to increase spending instead.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Americans say the size of the federal budget deficit is due more to the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending than to the reluctance of taxpayers to pay more in taxes.
Voters have consistently said for months that they have more confidence in their own economic judgment than that of either the president or Congress.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.
Exposed: Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff
Authorities’ claim that virtual strip search pictures immediately destroyed proven fraudulent – use of devices needs to be halted now
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London.
UK Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said last week that the images produced by the scanners were deleted “immediately” and airport staff carrying out the procedure are fully trained and supervised.
“It is very important to stress that the images which are captured by body scanners are immediately deleted after the passenger has gone through the body scanner,” Adonis told the London Evening Standard.
Adonis was forced to address privacy concerns following reports that the images produced by the scanners broke child pornography laws in the UK. When the scanners were first introduced, it was also speculated that images of famous people would be ripe for abuse as the pictures produced by the devices make genitals “eerily visible” according to journalists who have investigated trials of the technology.
However, the Transport Secretary’s assurances were demolished after it was revealed on the BBC’s Jonathan Ross show Friday that Indian actor Shahrukh Khan had passed through a body scan and later had the image of his naked body printed out and circulated by Heathrow security staff.
Exposed: Naked Body Scanner Images Of Fil Exposed: Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff
Authorities’ claim that virtual strip search pictures immediately destroyed proven fraudulent – use of devices needs to be halted now
Exposed: Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff 080210top3
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Claims on behalf of authorities that naked body scanner images are immediately destroyed after passengers pass through new x-ray backscatter devices have been proven fraudulent after it was revealed that naked images of Indian film star Shahrukh Khan were printed out and circulated by airport staff at Heathrow in London.
UK Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said last week that the images produced by the scanners were deleted “immediately” and airport staff carrying out the procedure are fully trained and supervised.
“It is very important to stress that the images which are captured by body scanners are immediately deleted after the passenger has gone through the body scanner,” Adonis told the London Evening Standard.
Adonis was forced to address privacy concerns following reports that the images produced by the scanners broke child pornography laws in the UK. When the scanners were first introduced, it was also speculated that images of famous people would be ripe for abuse as the pictures produced by the devices make genitals “eerily visible” according to journalists who have investigated trials of the technology.
However, the Transport Secretary’s assurances were demolished after it was revealed on the BBC’s Jonathan Ross show Friday that Indian actor Shahrukh Khan had passed through a body scan and later had the image of his naked body printed out and circulated by Heathrow security staff.
Exposed: Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff 190110banner4
“I was in London recently going through the airport and these new machines have come up, the body scans. You’ve got to see them. It makes you embarrassed – if you’re not well endowed,” said Khan, referring to how the scans produce clear images of a person’s genitals.
“You walk into the machine and everything – the whole outline of your body – comes out,” he said.
“I was a little scared. Something happens [inside the scans], and I came out. Then I saw these girls – they had these printouts. I looked at them. I thought they were some forms you had to fill. I said ‘give them to me’ – and you could see everything inside. So I autographed them for them,” stated Khan.
The story was carried by Yahoo News under the headline “Shah Rukh signs off sexy body-scan printouts at Heathrow”.
Khan’s reference to “girls” with printouts of his naked body scan can only refer to female airport security staff responsible for processing the images produced by the scanners, “professionals” who are supposed to instantly delete the images, according to Lord Adonis.
The revelation that airport security staff are completely abusing any notion of the professionalism promised by authorities by printing out and circulating images of naked body scans should set alarm bells ringing, especially in light of the fact that such images of minors break child pornography laws. British authorities have made it mandatory for travelers to submit to the naked body scanners when asked and have overturned previous rules that prevented under 18’s from passing through the devices.
Within days of the devices being introduced at Heathrow, staff have abused their professionalism and printed out naked scans of a famous actor for their own titillation.
We were promised all along that the body scanners “increased privacy” because they were only accessible to a single staff member who had no personal contact with the passenger taking the scan, in addition to the assurance that the images could not be saved and were instantly deleted. It in fact turns out that airport staff have been saving, printing and circulating naked body scans in complete violation of these supposed guarantees.
Furthermore, we were told that the identity of the person undergoing the virtual strip search would also be kept private. The fact that Heathrow employees must have known that the actor was about to take the body scan in order to print out copies of the image also proves this claim to be a total fallacy.
The abuse of the naked body scan images in this instance is a total violation of every data protection law in the UK. Far from treating the story in a comical manner, Khan should be filing a very expensive lawsuit and preparing for a successful and lucrative outcome.
In the meantime, the revelation that the naked body scanner images are being freely printed out and circulated by airport security staff should prove to be the death knell for plans on behalf of governments worldwide to institute the scanners on a widespread basis.
Courts have consistently found that strip searches are only legal when performed on a person who has already been found guilty of a crime or on arrestees pending trial where a reasonable suspicion has to exist that they are carrying a weapon. Subjecting masses of people to blanket strip searches in airports reverses the very notion of innocent until proven guilty.
Barring people from flying and essentially treating them like terrorists for refusing to be humiliated by the virtual strip search is a clear breach of the basic human right of freedom of movement. Security experts agree that such scanners would not even have stopped the incident that has been exploited to justify their widespread introduction – the Christmas Day underwear bomber.
Not only have the scanners proven to be a total violation of privacy, but major international radiation safety groups are now warning of the health risks they pose.
Despite governments claiming that backscatter x-ray systems produce radiation too low to pose a threat, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.
Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”
“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg.
“I was in London recently going through the airport and these new machines have come up, the body scans. You’ve got to see them. It makes you embarrassed – if you’re not well endowed,” said Khan, referring to how the scans produce clear images of a person’s genitals.
“You walk into the machine and everything – the whole outline of your body – comes out,” he said.
“I was a little scared. Something happens [inside the scans], and I came out. Then I saw these girls – they had these printouts. I looked at them. I thought they were some forms you had to fill. I said ‘give them to me’ – and you could see everything inside. So I autographed them for them,” stated Khan.
The story was carried by Yahoo News under the headline “Shah Rukh signs off sexy body-scan printouts at Heathrow”.
Khan’s reference to “girls” with printouts of his naked body scan can only refer to female airport security staff responsible for processing the images produced by the scanners, “professionals” who are supposed to instantly delete the images, according to Lord Adonis.
The revelation that airport security staff are completely abusing any notion of the professionalism promised by authorities by printing out and circulating images of naked body scans should set alarm bells ringing, especially in light of the fact that such images of minors break child pornography laws. British authorities have made it mandatory for travelers to submit to the naked body scanners when asked and have overturned previous rules that prevented under 18’s from passing through the devices.
Within days of the devices being introduced at Heathrow, staff have abused their professionalism and printed out naked scans of a famous actor for their own titillation.
We were promised all along that the body scanners “increased privacy” because they were only accessible to a single staff member who had no personal contact with the passenger taking the scan, in addition to the assurance that the images could not be saved and were instantly deleted. It in fact turns out that airport staff have been saving, printing and circulating naked body scans in complete violation of these supposed guarantees.
Furthermore, we were told that the identity of the person undergoing the virtual strip search would also be kept private. The fact that Heathrow employees must have known that the actor was about to take the body scan in order to print out copies of the image also proves this claim to be a total fallacy.
The abuse of the naked body scan images in this instance is a total violation of every data protection law in the UK. Far from treating the story in a comical manner, Khan should be filing a very expensive lawsuit and preparing for a successful and lucrative outcome.
In the meantime, the revelation that the naked body scanner images are being freely printed out and circulated by airport security staff should prove to be the death knell for plans on behalf of governments worldwide to institute the scanners on a widespread basis.
Courts have consistently found that strip searches are only legal when performed on a person who has already been found guilty of a crime or on arrestees pending trial where a reasonable suspicion has to exist that they are carrying a weapon. Subjecting masses of people to blanket strip searches in airports reverses the very notion of innocent until proven guilty.
Barring people from flying and essentially treating them like terrorists for refusing to be humiliated by the virtual strip search is a clear breach of the basic human right of freedom of movement. Security experts agree that such scanners would not even have stopped the incident that has been exploited to justify their widespread introduction – the Christmas Day underwear bomber.
Not only have the scanners proven to be a total violation of privacy, but major international radiation safety groups are now warning of the health risks they pose.
Despite governments claiming that backscatter x-ray systems produce radiation too low to pose a threat, the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.
Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”
“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg.
My Left Breast Put Fancy TSA Scanner to the Test
Sandra Fish
Politics Daily
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010
A funny thing happened to me at airport security this week: The full-body scanner appeared to detect my fake left breast.
After I sauntered sleepily through the regular scanner at Denver International Airport, the TSA guy motioned me into the clear, cylindrical, full-body scanner (aka, the Millimeter Wave). The woman there asked me to step on the yellow footprints and raise my arms above my head. She murmured into a headset to start the scan. There was a quick motion through the plexiglass. She asked me to turn, step on the green footprints and hold my arms straight out. Another scan.
She motioned me out of the scanner and asked me to wait for word from someone in some secret room somewhere, someone looking at a vision of my body sans jeans, cardigan, turtleneck, etc. Hmmm . . .
Then she said she needed to check something. And she began sweeping her hands around my left breast and rib cage.
[...]
Back to the TSA. As the security screening woman felt me up, I mentioned to her that I have an implant, the result of mastectomy. She relayed the information to those unseen through her microphone.
A few seconds later, she sent me on my way. And I tweeted and Facebooked about the experience. A friend in Tallahassee mentioned that friend of his had to lift his shirt to expose his colostomy bag to the TSA in Philadelphia. I’m happy I didn’t have to expose anything to the scanning lady, and she should be too. Medical professionals I’ve met consider my surgical aftermath a work of art, but laypeople might be kind of weirded out by the oval skin graft and the way I can flex my breast (the lat dorsi still seems to work!). Then again, this is nothing compared to what my friend Diane goes through — she has two rebuilt hips and two fake tatas, the latter courtesy of breast cancer.
Internet Censorship Alert! Alex Jones exposes agenda to ‘blacklist’ dissenting sites and license users
Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The Western world, from Australia to the United States, UK and parts of Europe, are moving in a unified front toward dictatorial Internet censorship. Australia has led the way, despite outcry from its populace, by “filtering” out certain banned content. In the United States, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, in continuing his family’s tradition of oppressing free humanity, has pushed forward Cybersecurity legislation that has already passed the House. He has done so in the name of warding off ghastly cyber “attackers” conceivably fronting for al Qaeda while ushering in a means to restrict free speech and expression online for the general population.
With Obama’s support, most of the developed world has accepted plans for government-approved online activity and Pentagon-monitored internet traffic. The U.S. and UK are facilitating the hijacking of what has, until now, been a highly-democratic Internet. Overall, it has been a technological God-send for bringing together communication and strongly expressing thought outside of the mainstream information available on television and in print.
Now, people are being forced onto the corporate-dominated Internet2– once again, in the name of “security.” (Internet) Freedom sacrificed at the same false alter of (Internet) Security. Independent blogs, news sites and online businesses will all be financially disadvantaged by access fees not demanded of dominant entities. What is today outside the ‘norm’ but well within free speech will tomorrow be evaluated by politically-correct criteria that will be used to identify sites to block and users to deny access. Currently, a campaign is underway to convince the public to accept “driver’s licenses” for the once-free Internet.
Already, government “blacklists” have been exposed. On its lists? The usual suspects– Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, Wikileaks.org and the like. Referrals to sites like Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com are being denied not only in Australia, but in places like New Zealand– who have not adopted the same policies, but do share ISPs who have ordered a block. All across the world, wherever internet “filtering” and outright censorship has been phased in– via libraries, businesses, airports, and so forth, sites that are critical of government are consistently blocked first. This has been true not only of Alex Jones’ several websites, but also of sites like Wikileaks, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Cryptome and etc, etc. The common theme is not operating outside of law or of speaking in extremities, but challenging the power establishment through distribution of information and/or shedding light on its otherwise little known unscrupulous activities.
This Orwellian scheme has already been branded by the outrages of Cass Sunstein, one of the Obama ‘Czars’, who has called for governments to ban “conspiratorial theories” and identified thought-crimes including a disbelief in man-made global warming and a belief in the basic goodness of “sunshine.” In considering how to eradicate ‘outlawed’ beliefs, Sunstein posits the benefits of using bloggers to engage and counter ‘disinformation.’ A very similar version of this strategy has already been adopted by the Pentagon in its “infowars” campaign.
Alex uses his most-recent experience in an outright ban to sound a warning that the enemy is already among us. Internet censorship threatens to stifle out a recent phenomenon of free thought and widespread information that has flourished on the Internet / world wide web. Only by standing up to undue constraints on our rights and by saying no to efforts to chill speech on the web can we save a stronghold of free humanity.
Search Engine Giant Censors Alex Jones Material For “Advocating Against a Protected Group”
Google Bans DVD Critical Of Obama Administration
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Google has sensationally banned all sales through its shopping merchant of a DVD critical of the Obama administration under the terms of its program policy which bars any material deemed to be “advocating against a protected group”. Apparently, Google considers the government to be a “protected group,” and immune from criticism.
Radio talk show host Alex Jones’ Google merchant account has been completely disabled after the search engine giant sent an email claiming the products listed promoted violence, and refused to link to them on the Infowars Yahoo shopping cart.
“I had our new employee Thomas try to get our products from our Yahoo Store get sent to Google shopping so people using google shopping can view our products and purchase them. We went through the steps of signing up for a Google Merchant Account and then submitted our entire product list,” writes Infowars staff member Tim Fruge.
“We were denied. I said OK, we’ll try it again with just a few products. Thinking maybe certain items were possibly flagging it. So we tried it with just a few of Alex’s DVD’s only….nope, still denied. So, I said let’s just try listing Fall Of The Republic. Still denied! We had to contact Google to find out what was going on and that’s when we got the response attached to this email. Just a blanket response, basically calling us a hate group or something to that effect.”
When Fruge questioned Google as to why the account had been disabled, he received the following response.
Hello,
Thank you for your email. Your data feed contains listings for items that don’t comply with our Program Policies.
Anti and Violence: products and associated websites may not promote violence or advocate against a protected group. This standard applies to everyone who wants to post on Google, whether we agree with their viewpoint or not. A protected group is distinguished by their race or ethnic origin, color, national origin, religion, disability, sex, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity.
Visit http://www.google.com/support/merchants/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=160074 to ensure all your items comply with our Program Policies.
Sincerely,
The Google Team
“So basically Google is censoring Fall Of The Republic on Google Shopping for the above stated reason. While The Turner Diaries, and many, many more books that are blatantly racist are allowed,” writes Fruge.
We were eventually able to get our products listed on Google but only through a third party that links to the Google base network.
The fact that Google openly admits to censoring material that is “anti” anything is a startling insight into their distain for free speech. People who consider themselves “anti-homosexuality” or “anti-Christianity” and make films or write books about it would consider their point of view to constitute freedom of speech, but not according to Google, who selectively choose which groups are allowed to be criticized and which are not.
You may have a personal dislike for old people or be not particularly fond of the French – that’s hate speech according to Google’s policies.
However, the fact that Google allows the sale of clearly racist items such as The Turner Diaries, while censoring films critical of the Obama administration, is an obvious double standard.
At no point whatsoever throughout the nearly 2 and a half hour long documentary Fall of the Republic is violence against anyone advocated. What the film does expose is how Obama abandoned his promise of change and is hastily implementing and expanding the same financial and geopolitical policies advanced under Bush. This message has been received by millions of people who have seen different free versions of the film on You Tube.
Maybe the fact that Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, a man who recently spelled out pretty clearly the disregard Google has for your privacy, campaigned for Obama and appeared with him at town hall meeting held at Google headquarters in November 2007, has something to do with the anti-Obama film disappearing from Google’s merchant website.
Of course, Google can ultimately refuse to carry any material they like because their servers are their own private property, but when an organization that now plays such a massive role in numerous facets of our life takes on the role of the thought police, we should be drastically concerned, especially considering the fact that Google recently announced its intention to establish a working relationship with the National Security Agency, the government spy force responsible for warrantless monitoring of Americans’ phone calls and e-mails in the wake of 9/11.
Of course, seasoned readers will know that Alex Jones has been a constant target of the Google thought police for years.
Last year, You Tube, which is owned by Google, pulled the Alex Jones Channel on the flimsiest of pretexts and only agreed to restore it after thousands of people complained.
In 2007, Google deleted a short news clip highlighting the BBC Building 7 fiasco, despite the fact that the clip clearly constituted fair use.
Despite the story receiving widespread attention from a myriad of mainstream news outlets, for days Google censored all information relating to Charlie Sheen’s comments about 9/11 first made to The Alex Jones Show in March 2006.
More recently, Google was accused of censoring search results related to the Climategate global warming scandal.
Shortly after Google entered the Chinese search engine market and complied with demands from the Communist Chinese government that its content be censored, the company pulled a statement from its website that assured readers Google didn’t censor search results – now they do.
Google’s foundiing mantra was “don’t be evil,” and yet the company’s actions in censoring DVD’s critical of the U.S. government represents precisely that – an insidious, hypocritical and evil assault on the First Amendment.
The economic elite have robbed us all. The amount of suffering in the United States of America is literally a crime against humanity.
February 15, 2010 |
"The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist, but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is hidden in plain sight." -- Michael Lind, To Have and to Have Not
We all have very strong differences of opinion on many issues. However, like our founding fathers before us, we must put aside our differences and unite to fight a common enemy.
It has now become evident to a critical mass that the Republican and Democratic parties, along with all three branches of our government, have been bought off by a well-organized Economic Elite who are tactically destroying our way of life. The harsh truth is that 99 percent of the U.S. population no longer has political representation. The U.S. economy, government and tax system is now blatantly rigged against us.
Current statistical societal indicators clearly demonstrate that a strategic attack has been launched and an analysis of current governmental policies prove that conditions for 99 percent of Americans will continue to deteriorate. The Economic Elite have engineered a financial coup and have brought war to our doorstep...and make no mistake, they have launched a war to eliminate the U.S. middle class.
To those who feel I am using extreme rhetoric, I ask you to please take a few minutes of your time to hear me out and research the evidence put forth. The facts are there for the unprejudiced, rational and reasoned mind to absorb. It is the unfortunate reality of our current crisis.
Unless we all unite and organize on common ground, our very way of life and the ideals that our country was founded upon will continue to unravel.
Before exposing exactly who the Economic Elite are, and discussing common sense ways in which we can defeat them, let's take a look at how much damage they have already caused.
Buy the Book: The Economic Elite Vs. The People of the United States of America
Casualties of Economic Terrorism, Surveying the Damage
The devastating numbers across-the-board on the economic front are staggering. I'll go through some of them here, many we have already become all too familiar with. We hear some of these numbers all the time, so much so that it appears as if we have already begun "to normalize the unthinkable." You may be sick of hearing them, but behind each number is an enormous amount of individual suffering, American lives and families who are struggling worse than they ever have.
In this image made from KVUE-TV video, smoke billows from a ...
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 18, 2010
In anticipation of evening cable news shows exploiting one man’s grievances against the IRS to smear the entire liberty movement, websites on both sides of the political equation are being flooded with messages from what appear to be Obama supporters calling the Austin plane crash an act of “right-wing domestic terror” committed by a Tea Party activist.
Comments on both Democratic Underground and Fox Nation are blaming the attack on Tea Party activists and others in the freedom movement. They appear to be coming mainly from Obama supporters and liberals.
A selection of comments appears below.
————————————-
“This is a right-wing domestic terror act. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY – THIS SHOULD CONCERN YOU!”
————————————-
“Looks like one of the Teabaggers woke up on the wrong side of the bed. LOL. You nuts better not start doing this regularly.”
————————————-
“Not a single one of you is concerned that one of your own just committed an act of domestic terror. You are already attacking the messenger and they have not even brought the message in yet.”
————————————-
“YOU need to take an ounce of responsibility. All you repubbers are complaining about Bush but still putting all the blame for Bush’s errors on Obama or “The Government”. This plane guy decided to attack the Government. Pilot-guy sounds like a thousand posts I have read on thee boards.”
————————————-
“His “manifesto” is rank and file conservative/tea party/ repub rhetoric. I’ve read the same thing on these since before Obama was inaugurated. That dude would fit right in here, and maybe he did.”
————————————-
“These “anti-government” right wing hate machines really need to realize that violence will be done by their followers. People like Beck think about ratings, but when you tell enough people that the “government is out to get them” , sooner or later some of these people will decide to strike first.
We will see more domestic terrorism. People like the posters here need to accept responsibility to police themselves. You preach hate and destroying your enemies “foreign or domestic” and people will start blowing up innocent people because of the message you preach.
YOU did this, and I;ve no doubt more blood will be spilled because of you. Right wingers have a terrible (actually worse the dems) record of fiscal responsibility, small government, and unobtrusive gov: yet you are yelling that America is being attacked by democrats in this area.
STOP IT!
By American-Statesman staff | Thursday, February 18, 2010, 05:19 PM
A small plane crashed into a Northwest Austin building that houses federal offices about 10 this morning, injuring several people and sparking a fire that sent plumes of smoke into the air that could be seen for miles.
Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said the crash, at the Echelon 1 building in the 9400 block of Research Boulevard, “appears to be an intentional act, appears to be by a sole individual, and it appears this individual was targeting federal offices inside that building.”
WEB0219planecrashlocater.jpg
The plane, a single-engine Piper Cherokee PA-28-236 Dakota, took off from a Georgetown airport at 9:40 a.m., Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Laura Brown said.
A federal official confirmed for the Statesman that its tail number is registered to a plane owned by Andrew Joseph Stack, a private plane pilot whose nearby home was on fire at roughly the same time.
The North Austin home was destroyed, but officials have not confirmed that the two incidents are connected.
It is unclear who was piloting the plane when it crashed into the building, but an FBI agent said all indications are that Stack was piloting the plane.
A note posted on a Web site registered to Stack suggested that Stack was disgruntled with the U.S. tax system.
The Georgetown airport had been shut down and evacuated about 12:30 p.m., Georgetown police Lt. Todd Turbush said, though he did not have details on why. A dispatcher with the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office said emergency officials were investigating Stack’s car, which he had left at the airport.
Flights there were to resume about about 5:15 p.m., said an official with the Austin-Travis County Emergency Operations Center who did not wish to be named.
Austin Fire Department Division Chief Dawn Clopton said that the FBI would be taking over the investigation. An FBI agent who declined to identify himself said the agency is investigating the incident as an assault on a federal officer.
Officials said 13 people were treated at the scene, mostly with burns and heat-related injuries. Two were critically injured and transported to area hospitals.
An IRS revenue collection agent who worked on the building’s second floor is missing, said Mark Menn, a 59-year-old field revenue agent who worked in the building. Menn declined to give the man’s name.
Matilda Sanchez, spokeswoman for the Seton Family of Hospitals, said an injured man was admitted to University Medical Center Brackenridge in good condition with minor injuries and smoke inhalation. The man was later discharged.
Sanchez said a second man was admitted in serious condition with burns, then transported to Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio.
A second hospitalized patient was identified by the Texas Comptroller’s office one of its employees, 38-year-old Shane Hill. The comptroller’s office said Hill was at the Echelon building for work, but did not elaborate.
“The thoughts and prayers of Texas Comptroller Susan Combs and her agency are with Shane Hill and his family,” the office said in a written statement.
To see more on the condition of the patients, click here.
Authorities have been unable to reach the crash impact site and do not yet know the condition of the pilot, Clopton said.
“That is part of the building that is unstable,” she said. Battalion Chief Palmer Buck said that part of building has collapsed and some steel beams are bowed down.
The pilot did not file a flight plan or, as far as FAA officials know at this time, have any other contact with the agency.
Federal investigators said two F-16 fighter jets were scrambled from Houston as a precaution, but were returned after initial details showed no terrorist connection to the crash.
“At this time, we have no reason to believe there is a nexus to terrorist activity. We continue to gather more information, and are aware there is additional information about the pilot’s history,” the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in a statement.
The Internal Revenue Service has offices in the Echelon building, including its civil enforcement and criminal investigations divisions, said Special Agent Michael Lemoine, a spokesman for the criminal investigations division.
He said that some IRS offices are on the first floor, which Lemoine said was hit by the plane.
William Winnie, an Internal Revenue Service agent, said he was in a training session on the third floor of the building when he saw a light-colored, single-engine plane coming at the building.
“It looked like it was coming right in my window,” Winnie said. He said the plane veered down and to the left and crashed into the floors below. “I didn’t lose my footing, but it was enough to knock people who were sitting to the floor.”
Mischelle Diaz, a spokeswoman for St. Edward’s University, said the plane hit next to a building where the university’s Professional Education Center provides software training and teaches some graduate students. She said the education center has been evacuated and that university officials were trying to confirm that students and instructors all got out safely.
“We’re just desperately trying to get some information,” Diaz said.
The American Red Cross of Central Texas will be providing food and water to the firefighters and investigators at the crash site, said spokeswoman Marty McKellips.
Plane Crashes into Northwest Austin IRS Office Building
New bill allows U.S. citizens to be kidnapped and detained without trial indefinitely based on “suspected activity”
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, March 8, 2010
Since the establishment media is convinced that tea party members, 9/11 truthers, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and basically anyone with a dissenting political opinion is a likely domestic terrorist, they should be celebrating the fact that a new bill would allow the government to detain such people as “enemy belligerents” indefinitely and without trial based on their “suspected activity”.
The “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,” introduced by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday with little fanfare, “sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning,” writes the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder.
The bill does not distinguish between U.S. citizens and non-citizens, and states that “suspected belligerents” who are “considered a “high-value detainee” shall not be provided with a Miranda warning.”
A person is considered a “high value detainee” if they fulfil one of the following criteria.
(1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate.
Now that the Southern Poverty Law Center and the federal government, via the MIAC report and innumerable other leaked documents, now consider virtually anyone with a dissenting opinion against the state as “posing a threat,” millions of peaceful American citizens could be swept up by this frightening dragnet of tyranny.
(
However, according to the bill, an individual doesn’t even have to pose a threat to be snatched, detained and interrogated – they can merely be deemed to be of “potential intelligence value” or come under the vague and sweeping mandate of “such other matters as the President considers appropriate”.
This last designation hands Obama dictator powers to have any American citizen kidnapped, detained, and interrogated on a whim.
The only proviso that even hints at some form of check or balance is the measure that states, “The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of taking detainee into custody.”
“The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must submit its determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report the determination to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the determination,” states the bill.
The ACLU has expressed its vigorous opposition to the legislation, labeling it nothing less than a “direct attack on the Constitution”.
“Indefinite detention flies in the face of American values and violates this country’s commitment to the rule of law,” states Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.
Of course, such positions from the ACLU as well as Amnesty International will only be used as grist for the neo-con propaganda mill about how the bill ought to be passed in order to avoid being “soft on terrorists,” a piece of spin still being swallowed whole by millions of conservatives who are blissfully unaware of the fact that the apparatus of the war on terror is now being aimed squarely at politically active American citizens.
“Torture, indefinite imprisonment, secret trials and limited staged hearings are the stuff of cheap dictatorships,” writes Ian McColgin. “They are the sort of idiocy we scorned in the Soviets, the Koreans and the Vietnamese. It is astonishing that we have senators and citizens even discussing this bill which is not a capitulation to terrorism – it’s the triumph of terrorism.”
Homeland Security is already implementing technology to be enforced at “security events” which purportedly reads “malintent” on behalf of an individual who passes through a checkpoint. Perhaps the video below explains just how “enemy belligerents” will be identified on American soil.
The Supreme Court's next Second Amendment cases may decide which state and local gun-control laws can stand.
By Warren Richey Staff writer / March 2, 2010
Washington
In the nearly two years since the US Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, more than 190 challenges have been filed seeking to overturn other gun-control laws or to reverse firearms convictions.
Now, with the justices examining a similar ban in place in Chicago, gun-rights advocates are hoping for another landmark constitutional victory – this time extending an individual right to keep and bear arms in cities and towns across the country. (To see a preview of this case, click here.)
But the ultimate showdown over gun control in America will be waged in a future legal case not yet on the high court's radar, analysts say. At issue in that case: Are Second Amendment rights as fundamental as freedom of speech and religion, or will gun rights be subject to lesser constitutional protection?
The answer to that question – and the potential future course of gun control – may rest with a majority of the nine men and women on the Supreme Court. When that future case arrives, it will all boil down to a three-word phrase of legal jargon: "standard of review."
What does 'standard of review' mean and how does it relate to gun rights?
The way the Supreme Court protects individual constitutional rights against encroachment by the government is by weighing the government's interest in a particular law against the individual right preserved in the Constitution.
For example, when the government passes a law censoring people from engaging in core political speech, the court requires the government to demonstrate it has a compelling interest in the censorship and to prove that the measure is the least intrusive means of achieving that governmental interest. If it can't prove both, the law must be struck down.
Not all rights warrant the toughest level of constitutional protection. In the intermediate level, judges often attempt to balance competing interests to reach the proper outcome.
What standard of review do gun-control advocates want?
The Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Chicago case urging the justices to establish a standard of review in which judges would be reluctant to overturn gun-control regulations enacted by elected officials.
"Gun policy is best determined as it always has been in this country: in the political arena, without courts second-guessing reasoned legislative judgments," writes Paul Wolfson in his brief on behalf of the Brady Center.
What standard of review are gun-rights supporters seeking?
Many argue that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that can be limited only in the narrowest circumstances and only when the government demonstrates a compelling reason. "We think the Constitution provides the proper test. It is: 'shall not be infringed,' " said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, quoting from the amendment. "We think 'shall not' means 'none.' "
Are the Supreme Court's gun cases interconnected?
The court is engaged in what could become a three-step process. The Washington decision in 2008 established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-protection in the home.
In the second step, the court will determine whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The case currently before the court, McDonald v. Chicago, is a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban, which is like the one struck down in Washington. If the high court extends the same Second Amendment protection nationwide, then the third step would involve the court establishing a uniform standard of review to guide lower court judges in assessing which gun-control measures are permitted under the Second Amendment.
What have the justices said about the standard of review in gun cases?
The majority justices addressed this issue briefly in the Washington decision. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia.
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," Justice Scalia said. (For Monitor coverage of the Washington decision, click here.)
This suggests that the majority justices were of the view that some gun-control laws will be subject to a level of intermediate judicial scrutiny. But it's not clear whether that standard will apply in all cases, or whether others will require more rigorous "strict scrutiny."
Why is the standard of review so important?
It is potentially the most significant aspect of the Supreme Court's emerging Second Amendment jurisprudence, because it will determine which gun-control laws will be upheld and which won't.
The Washington decision brought a flood of challenges to gun-control laws, but most were upheld, said Dennis Henigan, vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center. "There has not been a wholesale invalidation of gun laws, with only one exception," he said. That involved a law forcing anyone indicted for child pornography to immediately surrender his or her firearms. Two federal judges invalidated the law because it violated the presumption of innocence.
What record do state judges have when ruling on gun-control measures?
In assessing the constitutionality of gun-control laws, Mr. Henigan said, state judges have placed significant weight on the government's interest in regulating firearms as a means to protect public safety. The Supreme Court should adopt the same rationale, he said.
Mr. Pratt of Gun Owners of America disagreed: "I should be able to carry a firearm wherever and however I want without any never mind from the government," he said.
Supreme Court, gun control, and the Second Amendment: a reckoning
Fox News doesn’t seem to be concerned about violent comments when they are made by Fox hosts, contributors, and website respondents
Fox News Calls For Obama To Be Killed While Framing Alex Jones For Instigating Violence
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Mass murder promoting Fox News, the network that was instrumental in pushing lies about weapons of mass destruction that resulted in the deaths of over a million innocent people, is so concerned about violent comments on the Internet that it employs teams of people to trawl through anti-establishment websites like Infowars.com looking for reasons to report Alex Jones to the authorities.
However, Fox seems less bothered about comments on its own website that call for violent bloody revolution and the assasination of President Obama. Perhaps Fox should direct more of its resources towards moderating violet comments on their own website rather than trawling through Infowars.com attempting to pick up on anything incendiary so they can shop Alex Jones to the feds.
As News Corpse reported earlier this month, Fox Nation comment moderators didn’t see fit to remove thinly veiled assassination threats made against President Obama.
After Fox erroneously reported an Obama quote out context about him being killed by his rising cholesterol, “The result was a rush of comments by Fox Nationalists who were only too happy to see the President dead.”
Indeed, it was all a big laugh, and not a matter for the authorities, when Fox News’ own Liz Trotta joked that both Obama and Osama Bin Laden should be killed.
In response to another Fox Nation article, respondents called for Marines to start killing people as part of a bloody revolution.
“Bring in the Marines and lock and load, then fire at will. Remember Kent State,” wrote one commenter, referring to the 1970 massacre when members of the Ohio National Guard gunned down unarmed students, killing four and injuring nine others.
Fox News was similarly unperturbed when neo-con talk show host and Fox News contributor Michael Reagan urged his listeners to kill author Mark Dice for sending 9/11 truth DVD’s to soldiers in Iraq.
“Excuse me folks, I’m going to say this,” Reagan said during his June 10th 2008 show. “We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets.”
In none of these cases did Fox News show any concern about violent comments, so their efforts to pay people to trawl through Alex Jones’ websites in an effort to implicate Jones as an instigator of violence are manifestly hytpocritical.
Fox News Calls For Obama To Be Killed While Framing Alex Jones For Instigating Violence
While its own hosts abuse free speech to make violent threats, Fox News has a history of grassing people up to the authorities for exercising their free speech. Remember when Bill O’Reilly threatened to have Fox security “pay a little visit” to a caller’s home merely for mentioning Keith Olbermann’s name on air during his syndicated radio show?
The caller began by telling O’Reilly, “I like to listen to you during the day.” Continuing, the caller stated, “I think Keith Olbermann’s show,” at which point O’Reilly disconnected the call, proclaiming: “Mike is — he’s a gone guy. You know, we have his — we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you’re listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we’re going to turn it over to Fox security, and you’ll be getting a little visit.”
Co-host E.D. Hill — who also co-hosts Fox News’ Fox & Friends — chimed in: “Maybe Mike is from the mothership.” O’Reilly responded that the caller was “going to get into big trouble, because we’re not going to play around.” Warning his listeners, O’Reilly continued: “When you call us, ladies and gentleman, just so you know, we do have your phone number, and if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security will then contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable. Fair?”
At first, the stunt seemed like a gimmick, but two callers did indeed receive threatening calls from Fox security on the back of O’Reilly’s promise.
In another example, a woman who had called into O’Reilly’s show and disagreed also received a call from Fox Security while in her car with her daughter. The woman burst into tears and was frightened by the intimidation tactic.
Perhaps Fox News should concern itself with the violent and aggressive behavior of its own hosts, contributors, and website respondents rather than hiring snoops to grass up Alex Jones because a handful of the millions of comments and forum posts made by other people on his websites hint at violence.
