Thursday, July 30, 2009

Meaning of "Straight Edge"

Straight edge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Straight Edge refers to a lifestyle and youth movement that started within the hardcore punk subculture whose adherents make a lifetime commitment to refrain from drinking alcohol, using tobacco products, and taking recreational drugs. The term was coined by the 1980s hardcore punk band Minor Threat in the song "Straight Edge".

A member of the "straight edge" movement may display their beliefs with a variety of cloth patches.


* * * *
* * * *

The "scene" started when I was of high school age. I like music with an edge. I believe in being alcohol and drug free. I used to not want anything to do with those who used any illegal drugs. Although, I don't choose to myself, I think what one does in the privacy of their own homes with other adults is their business, not the government's.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Still waiting for an answer

Is a Connecticut State Police Commissioner responsible for covering up evidence of the National Anthrax Scare Hoax? [more]

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Recalling the Downing Street Minutes

by Ray McGovern

source article

Seven years ago this week, then British Prime Minister Tony Blair gathered his top national security advisers at 10 Downing St. to hear a report from U.K. intelligence chief Richard Dearlove, just back in London from face-to-face talks with then-CIA Director George Tenet in Washington.

Blair and President George W. Bush had been talking regularly by telephone for several months. But, as is well known, even the most secure phones can be tapped, and there are some things - like preparing criminal wars of aggression, I suppose - that are so outrageous one doesn't dare take any chances.

Besides, Blair apparently had some misgivings about taking at face value the Texas-size braggadocio he was hearing at the other end of the phone about what was going to happen to Saddam Hussein and why. It is understandable that he would seek independent, authoritative confirmation that this was also what Bush was sharing with his top accomplices.

Who better to confirm or deny than Bush-vassal Tenet, who met six mornings a week with the American president to discuss the President's Daily Brief? Blair prevailed on a reluctant Tenet to host a visit from Dearlove on Saturday, July 20, 2002.

Blair had seen enough of the garrulous Tenet in action to be able to calculate - correctly - that once you got him talking about secrets he was privileged to know about, kernels of truth could be gleaned from beneath all the usual bull.

Documentary evidence now shows that the Dearlove dug out some remarkable kernels. Matthew Rycroft, aide to Blair foreign policy guru David Manning, was taking minutes at the Downing Street meeting on July 23, 2002, minutes he immediately circulated to Blair and other participants.

The minutes observed quite bluntly that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Enter an unknown patriotic truth-teller who eventually gave a copy of those minutes to London's Sunday Times which, after performing due diligence regarding their provenance, published them on May 1, 2005. Blair himself has been careful not to dispute the authenticity of what then became known as the "Downing Street Minutes."

We Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity also performed due diligence and were first off the mark with "Proof Bush Fixed the Facts," May 4, 2005.

Too Late the Leak

The Downing Street Minutes represent the kind of documentary evidence after which trial lawyers, intelligence analysts and serious investigative journalists lust. Though the unauthorized disclosure did not come early enough to head off the war, which had started more than two years before the document surfaced, the unique disclosure could have thrown some harsh light on the war's origins - IF the Fawning Corporate Media in the United States did its job.

However, having been acrobatic cheerleaders for war on Iraq, the FCM did its level best to suppress this documentary evidence of the war's fraudulent character.

Enter John Conyers, bless his heart, who was House Judiciary Committee ranking member at the time. Sadly, it is necessary to reach back four years to find the last thing Conyers did that took any courage, but one must give the timid please-don't-say-impeach-in-my-presence Conyers his due with regard to the Downing Street Minutes.

(Full disclosure: Conyers had me arrested on July 23, 2007 - the five-year anniversary of the plotting at 10 Downing St. - when I would not leave his office until he agreed to do his duty under the Constitution to launch hearings on impeachment. I stressed that, like him, I had sworn an oath in my case as an Army officer to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; that my oath carried no expiration date; and that it was the Constitution that I was trying to protect and defend. Unimpressed, Conyers called the Capitol police. I was quickly marched out of the Rayburn building off to jail, and later convicted of unlawful assembly. I would add only that, while we Irish are notorious for bearing grudges, I continue to believe - strongly - that Conyers' inaction did grave damage to our Constitution by shirking his duty to start the orderly process called impeachment that the Founders intended for use in removing a president who thought he could act like a king.)

With respect to the Downing Street Minutes, though, Conyers did manage a temporary fit of courage. Readers may recall that he scheduled a "hearing" for June 16, 2005, in the only space the Republican majority would make available - a basement room under the Capitol. On the morning before the hearing, Amy Goodman invited Conyers and me to be interviewed on Democracy Now. Just before the interview, I had a chance to look at the editorial page of Pravda, er, I mean the Washington Post, for that morning, and guess what? The Post saw fit to mention the Downing Street Minutes, though dismissively so as not to tarnish the newspaper's glorious cheerleading for war.

"The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations," the Post's editors wrote, explaining why the leading newspaper of Washington had largely ignored the contents of the British documents. "Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002."

I just now downloaded the Democracy Now transcript of my comments that morning, and was happy to see that I managed to suppress - sort of - the anger seething inside me (although my wife tells me some of it broke through).

I beg readers' indulgence: AMY GOODMAN: I'm Amy Goodman, as we talk about the Downing Street Memo, a hearing being held on this issue by Congress Member John Conyers in Congress tomorrow. Congress Member Conyers joins us in Washington, along with former C.I.A. analyst, Ray McGovern. Ray McGovern, can you talk about what is most explosive about both, what is being called the Downing Street Memo, that talks about fixing the facts and intelligence around the policy, and this latest exposé of the Sunday Times of London, showing British cabinet members were warned that Britain was committed to taking part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and they had no choice but to find a way to make it legal?

RAY McGOVERN: Well, Amy, we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity had been saying for three years that the intelligence and the facts were being fixed to support an unnecessary war. We never in our wildest dreams expected to have documentary proof of that under a SECRET label: "SECRET: U.K. EYES ONLY" in a most sensitive document reserved just for cabinet officials in the Blair government. And so, what we have now is documentary proof that, as that sentence reads, the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The Washington Post this morning is still at it. They quote that sentence, and they say, "Well, this is vague, but intriguing." Well, there's nothing vague about that at all, and it's not at all intriguing. It's highly depressing. Now, we veteran professionals, we professionals that toil long and hard in the intelligence arena are outraged at the corruption of our profession, but we are even more outraged by the constitutional implications here because as Congressman Conyers has just pointed out, we have here a very clear case that the Executive usurped the prerogatives of Congress of the American people and deceived it into permitting, authorizing an unauthorizeable war. And, you know, when you get back to how our Constitution was framed by those English folks that were used to kings marching them off to the war blithely, for their own good, of course, those framers of our Constitution were hell-bent and determined, and wrote into the very first Article of our Constitution, that the power to make or authorize war would be reserved to the representatives of people in the Congress, not in the Executive. And so, for that usurpation to happen, that is a constitutional issue, and we're even more outraged by that. ...

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Michigan Congress Member John Conyers who is holding a hearing on the Downing Street Memo tomorrow, and has won a small victory. It will actually be able to be held in Congress. Ray McGovern also with us, a long-time C.I.A. analyst for more than a quarter century, a top briefer for former Vice President George H.W. Bush. I wanted to ask you about Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, who had said that there were no weapons of mass destruction, cited by western officials, U.S. officials, for many other reasons, but they never brought up that issue. Can you talk about the significance of this?

RAY McGOVERN: Yes. This gentleman's name was Hussein Kamel. He was one of Saddam Hussein's sons-in-law. And he defected in 1995 and was thoroughly debriefed by U.N. and U.S. and U.K. debriefers. He had quite a story to tell, because he was head of the missile, chemical, biological and nuclear programs in Iraq. And he was able to finger some of the things that the U.N. inspectors did not know, and what he told them turned out to be quite right. He also told them that the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and weapons were destroyed at his order in July of 1991, right after the Gulf War. That's in black and white. It's in the debriefing report. An enterprising British researcher went to Vienna. I don't know how he got access to the debriefing report, but he did, and he found out that Kamel also said, as I said, that all those weapons were destroyed at his order.

Of course, he was in charge. Now, curiously enough, that seemed to escape our leaders. It was never cited, although Hussein Kamel himself was held up as the paragon of a reliable source. Dick Cheney, himself, in his major speech of 26 August 2002, held Hussein's son-in-law as one of our most lucrative, reliable sources, but he never told us that this source, this wonderful source, also told us that all those weapons had been destroyed in July of 1991 at his order.

Now, there's no excuse for them not knowing that. It may have slipped in a crack between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., I suppose, but it also appeared in Newsweek four weeks before the war. Four weeks before the war, the report that Hussein Kamel, their paragon source, had said all those weapons had been destroyed.

Now, the C.I.A and the spokesmen there and all of the other spokesmen in government said this was ludicrous, this was false; besides, it's untrue and everything else. And they came down real hard on it. Guess what our domesticated press did with that. No more story on that, because they were all cheerleading for the war.

And I'll just make one more point about our domesticated press. The Washington Post today in this lead editorial says that these memos were not given much play in the press because, (quote), "They do not add a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's pre-war deliberations." Now, if The Washington Post knew that as of 23 July 2002, the president had, in the British words, inevitably decided on war, if they knew that the president intended to use as justification the conjunction between terrorism and so-called weapons of mass destruction, and if they knew that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy, you know, they really ought to - they surely should have told us that, The Washington Post should have.

It's really ludicrous. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious a situation. Because what needs to happen here is you have a start-up newspaper in Washington called The Washington Spark, okay? Now, on the 11th of May, they carried the whole story, including the memo itself. Right here. Now, that hasn't appeared in The Washington Times or The Washington Post, but here in The Washington Spark, new start-up paper, just days after the memo, it's there. So it's possible there's some kind of a rule against publishing things that are so critically damaging of our president, and the editorial in the Post today is Exhibit A.

When the Conyers hearing was held on June 16, 2005, the witnesses included Gold Star mother and anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz, and me together as panelists. (My prepared remarks can be seen at "June 16 Testimony of Ray McGovern.") The room was more than somewhat cramped, but half the space was allotted for the TV cameras - including C-SPAN, which carried the proceedings live.

Fitting with its dismissive attitude toward the Downing Street disclosures, the Post sent satirical columnist Dana Milbank to cover the hearing and his article the next day dripped with sarcasm. "In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe," Milbank wrote. "They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official."

Milbank also took some cheap shots at Conyers, who Milbank wrote "banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him 'Mr. Chairman.'" [For the article's full flavor, see the Washington Post's "Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War," June 17, 2005]

Now seven years after the Downing Street Minutes were written and more than four years after their disclosure they remain one of the most damning pieces of evidence against both the Bush administration for its criminal deceptions in leading the nation to war and the FCM for its complicity in hiding the truth from the American people.

As philosopher George Santayana wisely observed a century ago, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst for 27 years, and is now on the Steering Group of (more...)

* * * *
* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for:

Campaigning to Prosecute Bush for Murder

Stolen from Kenny's Sideshow blog:

Children are never too young to be taught to despise the State distrust its agents, and to avoid cooperating in any way with the mechanism of official plunder, deception, and coercion. Parents should seek to instill such attitudes in their children as soon as possible.
Isn't it our responsibility to end the worship of the state?

* * * *
* * * *

Stolen from William N. Grigg's blog [from here, click for more]

Child-Snatchers and Life-Stealers -- Pt. I

The haunted eyes of an innocent man: John Stoll, wrongfully convicted of molesting several children, including his only son, near the beginning of a 40-year prison term. The state managed to steal twenty years of his life before his conviction was overturned in 2004, on his 61st birthday.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Dear Obama Letter

[click here] for text of letter

Scroll down in [this post] for the text of a letter I mailed to US President George W. Bush 9-15-01. I was attacked on my property 10-11-01. I then received a year in prison for pepper spraying a would be mugger. The mugger was given immunity to prosecute me as self-defense is not legal in Connecticut.

There is more to that story [here]

* * * *
* * * *

This is how Connecticut operates in a nutshell (the below [found here]):

Sec. 7-283. Employment of private detectives. No municipal corporation shall employ private detectives in the investigation or detection of crime at an expense of more than five hundred dollars unless a specific appropriation therefor has been made, nor unless the authorities thereof have first applied to the state police for assistance in such investigation and waited a reasonable time for said state police to act. Any municipal official who violates any provision of this section shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars and shall be liable to such municipality in a civil action for the amount expended in excess of such sum as has been appropriated for such investigation.
(1949 Rev., S. 664; P.A. 77-614, S. 486, 587, 610; P.A. 78-303, S. 85, 136.)
History: P.A. 77-614 and P.A. 78-303 made state police a division within the department of public safety rather than a separate department, effective January 1, 1979.
Cited. 104 C. 15.

Sec. 29-152u. Definitions. As used in this chapter:

(4) “Private detective” means any person engaged in the business of, or advertising as engaged in the business of (A) investigating crimes or civil wrongs, (B) investigating the location, disposition or recovery of property, (C) investigating the cause of accidents, fire damage or injuries to persons or to property, except persons performing bona fide engineering services, (D) providing the personal protection of individuals, (E) conducting surveillance activity, (F) conducting background investigations, or (G) securing evidence to be used before a court, board, officer or investigation committee;

Sec. 29-153. Private detective license required. No person shall engage in the business of, or solicit business as a private detective or make representations to be or advertise as a private detective or as furnishing detective or investigating services without first obtaining a license from the Commissioner of Public Safety.

Sec. 29-161. Penalties. Regulations. (a) Any person who violates any provision of sections 29-153 to 29-161, inclusive, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both. The commissioner may establish, by regulation, civil penalties for violations of sections 29-153 to 29-161, inclusive, but no such penalty shall be more than five thousand dollars. No person who violates any provision of section 29-153 shall be eligible to apply for a license for two years. Any experience accrued while operating without being licensed will not be counted to the requirements as outlined in section 29-154a.

Why are we posting this?

From The Stratford Star:

Fire chief gets disability pension
Written by John Kovach
Friday, January 30, 2009

“Outside counsel Arthur Laske of Laske Brown LLC of Fairfield, retained by the town to investigate the case, opined Nov. 20 that the process toward purchasing a new fire truck was “sufficiently flawed as to prevent any recommendation from the review committee from being upheld by a court, should any such review take place.”

From American Federation of

“The improper outsourcing of an Internal Affairs Investigation, involving the Mayor’s brother, has furthered this campaign. For the first time in the history of this department an internal investigation has been handled by outside investigators.
Attorney John Kelly and Attorney Robert Tolomeo handled the investigation. They are known, long time associates of Chief Buturla. We feel that as a result the improper outsourcing of the investigation, and the relationship between the investigators and Chief Buturla, the investigation did not have the impartiality that it required.”

By doing nothing, the Council has permitted the Gestapo-like used of private investigators to harass and persecute Town employees and Stratford residents. This is an unconscionable use of our tax dollars.

In addition to the use of unlicensed private detectives, John Buturla has also used his influence and acquaintance with Colonel Davoren of the Connecticut State Police Western District Major Crimes Unit to ferret out the identity of the citizen who took the picture of Deputy Thief Loschiavo’s unregistered illegally parked car.

The Council should immediately file a civil lawsuit against Miron/Buturla to recover the tens of thousands of dollars of our money used to pay for these illegal investigations. Further, John Buturla should either resign or face termination immediately for participation in these illegal acts.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

US Court System

Equals the old Monarchy System. There are titles, and there is a separate set of rules and laws for them. These people think they are entitled to live off of us high on the hog, reward their friends and families, and toast any of the little people getting in the way. 

It is all for them, and if you get in their way, you’re “processed”. 

It is a scam. [These people] need to be audited and investigated

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Unmanned Planes for US Domestic Spying?

file photo "UAV"

I was listening to New Hampshire Public Radio this morning. A topic was on the misuse of US Military unmanned, Predator, spy planes to be used to spy on the American citizenry.

Getting the American public used to seeing these spy planes is already in the works. In North Dakota these aircraft were deployed to "help" in flood zones, identifying problem areas etc. Technicians can hone their flying, filming, and targeting skills. Manned helicopters are probably more effective and cheaper. What is the need for stealth in humanitarian aid inside the US?

Border patrol was another proposed, or already "in use" proposition.

Should taxpayers pay for their own abuse?

Actor Roy Scheider portrayed a law enforcement official alarmed at the proposition of technology being abused to spy on and harm the public. The film, "Blue Thunder", warns the public about upcoming debates. That film is already outdated, but the message is as fresh as ever.

Denzel Washington, Bruce Willis, and others star in "The Siege" about how a government could engineer a state of emergency to declare Martial Law and seize total power. What parallels can be drawn from this movie released in 1998?

I'm currently producing and shooting an independent film on how local and state law law enforcement, the courts, and the government are getting away with, and expanding their abuse the public schemes, scams, and programs.

What type of individuals are doing the domestic spying? [pictures and post, click here]

* * * *

Is big media complicit with the rigging of the court system, public corruption, and agreeing to only report what the Good Ole Boy Network allows to be reported? [click here]

* * * *

[click here] for:

"Cash for Clunkers" Government Spy Program?


Thursday, July 09, 2009

The Bush Litmus Test?

Will Bush, forever, be the test case on whether, or not, US Presidents and their minions have to obey any laws at all? The former President of Iraq could shoot any citizen in his office and get away with it. Has the United States of America sunk to such a depth?

They elected to "just follow orders," a defense dismissed out of hand at the post-WWII Nuremberg Tribunal on war crimes. Together with the lawyer-advisers, the derivative deciders provide abundant proof that the "banality of evil" did not die with Adolf Eichmann and other functionaries of the Third Reich.

But the buck stops - actually, in this case, it began - with President Bush. Senate Armed Services Committee leaders Carl Levin and John McCain on Dec. 11, 2008, released the executive summary of a report, approved by the full committee without dissent, concluding that Bush's Feb. 7, 2002, memorandum "opened the door to considering aggressive techniques."

Here is Conclusion Number One of the Senate committee report: "Following the President's determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity, and stress positions...were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody."

It is essential that those responsible for torture be held to account. This is not about "policy differences." It is about crimes. More important still, it's about holding fast to our Constitution and enforcing accountability in the executive branch.


* * * *
* * * *

Steven G. Erickson questions Phil Donahue:

AT&T Wireless SUCKS!

I got a Sony Ericsson phone with service. I need this for work. I wanted to let loose on this asshole company everyday for well over a month. So, here you go.

It plays music when it feels like it, just bump it, or move the phone. I absolutely hate that, as I will NEVER play music on my phone as I use it as a phone, and that’s it. I would like to smash the phone and punch out whoever designed the phone. I won’t, though. AT&T service sucks. Their products suck. They over charge for their absolutely SUCKING service. They’re SLOW and UNRELIABLE. There are so many dead zones … THEY SUCK.

The cell card won’t stay connected for more than 30 seconds, and then when it is connected it keeps trying to dial out, and you have to keep closing out that windown, and you can’t even type an email without being interrupted every 5 seconds. They’re included software to use the USB wireless internet card SUCKS!!!

I hate AT&T and I hope they get broken up, bought, and every jackass that has anything to do with design or decides, what is what, IS FIRED.


I give AT&T an “F”.

We can have our own unofficial complaint department right here. Please email me your praise, or your complaint for the company here:

American Telephone & Telegraph [From Wikipedia]

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Judge Kozinski's "Naked Women Painted as Cows"

Justice Alex Kozinski

What is protected Free Speech, and what isn't?

If a judge broke no laws, should he be punished for the content on his website?

[click here for more on that story]

* * * *
* * * *

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Frying Bacon in the Nude is Risky

Image shamelessly ripped off [from here]

Is being involved in a "Liberty Conspiracy", crazy? [click for more]

P.S. I really haven't made any plans to appear in public due to death threats, so I plan on offering my support to groups mentioned in my link at a distance. Just one of those who has threatened my life.

Monday, July 06, 2009

Insiders’ Government

Lawyers run the courts, the legislature, and all business. In the age of the internet, why should they? Anyone should have access to the courts and to government, not just insiders who have their own language. Let’s do something about it. We can’t have fairness if we have no real access.

In Connecticut the population shrank. Districts were redrawn to have a Congressperson less. In the same time there has been uncontrolled spending, hiring, and the giving out of tax dollars to insiders and their friends. The nation’s spending is the same sort of insider scam. We’re collectively being ripped off.

The US Government, and its crooked court system, is just one pig. When are we going to put this pig on a diet?

* * * *

My thoughts on lawyers [click here]

* * * *

Take back America with a People's Court System, An Independent Grand Jury System:

.03% of population has 75% of the power in US

* * * *

Saturday, July 04, 2009

Propaganda and July 4th

What are we Americans really celebrating. We the People have never freed ourselves from the tyrants.

If a 13 year old girl can be accused of being a lesbian in school for passing notes to another girl where is the "independence"? Should a 6'5 Homeland Security goon being interrogating little girls for passing notes to each other? [video]

I recently went to Concord, New Hampshire. I toured a history museum there. Back in the early 1900's lawyers made, on average, ten times what farmers made. Lawyers made more than medical doctors and probably still do. Touring such a museum, you can see where we were, and now where we are.

Should elderly citizens who are unfortunate just to drive through a state such as Connecticut be confined to mental hospitals if they happen to get sick, and then have lawyers appointed for them by a State's corrupt court system where lawyers and the State can liquidate a citizen's assets? [scroll down in this post]

Pictures from July 2, 2009, Concord New Hampshire (click on picture to make bigger):

Protester saying he wants to go to Africa to help those without water. I think he's a scam artist substance abuser.

Larger view:

Concord New Hampshire State House

Stone at front door:

More pictures taken in Concord, New Hampshire, by Steven G. Erickson July 2, 2009 [click here]

View My Stats