RTAmerica| December 31, 2010 |45 likes, 4 dislikes
What's in store for the world in 2011? Trends forecaster Gerald Celente of the Trends Research Institute provided his insights on the year ahead. He argues here will be a wakeup call on the economy, a crack down on the people and a loss of liberty, and also an increase in Journalism 2.0, alternative energy and a growth in cyber war tactics. And in the end, the world will end... what that means, only Celente knows.
Gerald Celente's Top Predictions for 2011
This blogger is looking at independent movie and documentary possibilities in the US and business opportunities, lodging locations, and possibly enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness outside the US ...
The below videos, themes, and activities can end any standard employment that I seek, or have sought. But, in the coming year, the below is actually going to help me get independent film and documentary work. I have met interesting people, have made some new contacts, and have high hopes for dancing in artistic realms in 2011.
I, Steven G. Erickson, had filmed Vermont Attorney General candidate Charlotte Dennett and Vincent Bugliosi from the current Attorney General's office around the streets of Montpelier, VT, as they were asking about prosecuting US President George W. Bush for murder and about voting.
Whether or not you live in Vermont, if you want to see Bush prosecuted I advise getting in touch with people in Vermont to get out in support of Progressive candidate Dennett.
* * * *
I helped with a horror film shot in Greenfield, Massachusetts, months ago. I should be listed in the credits. It was fun working with the people in the below video. I would yell, "Rolling," "Cut", "Last Looks", etc.
Meet the Maker on Chiller TV Pt. 5
Text with video:
moderncine| November 27, 2010 |0 likes, 0 dislikes
Fifth installment of the Behind-The-Scenes look at the upcoming film by Lucky Mckee, "The Woman".
new world next week - dec30: cyberwars, banks fail, 2011 predictions
Welcome back one last time in 2010 to http://NewWorldNextWeek.com - the video series from Corbett Report & Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in alternative news & open-source intelligence. This week:
I met Robert Greenwald at the NCMR Free Press Event, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2008, filmed him, talked to him, and enjoyed the entire experience and people, over 3 days.
Media ignores infinite Afghan war
Text with video:
RTAmerica| December 30, 2010 |42 likes, 1 dislikes
Instead of investigating further, the mainstream media appears to be more concerned with entertainment news, such as the Kardashian's new product, than a war that has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and innocent Afghan civilians. Founder of Brave New Films Robert Greenwald says I think it's a combination of factors; first of all, it's only been in the last 5 or so years that the networks have forced news to become an income source the same way they look at sports or entertainment.
Corrupt, Bribed Judges are needed for a US Police State
I found the above image here, and re-posted the text below. I found the image and text below written by Jeffrey Steinberg [here]. The image seemed to fit the post theme. Los Angeles, California, Attorney Richard I. Fine stood up to judges who were taking bribes to cover up the embezzlement of child support payments, the stealing of property using Eminent Domain, covering up banks committing mortgage and other fraud, and in covering up the subversion of the courts and government. I suggest that you view the Richard I. Fine videos [found here]. Fine was held as a political prisoner for 18 months because he stood up against judges who should be arrested and jailed themselves. The videos in the link above are an eyeopener. Are courts in Los Angeles corporate entities breaking the law, not filing and paying taxes? [videos on that subject]
On February 5, 1999, in U.S. District Court in Lincoln, Nebraska, an extraordinary hearing occurred in Paul A. Bonacci v. Lawrence E. King, a civil action in which the plaintiff charged that he had been ritualistically abused by the defendant, as part of a nationwide pedophile ring linked to powerful political figures in Washington and to elements of the U.S. military and intelligence establishment. Three weeks later, on February 27, Judge Warren K. Urbom ordered King, who is currently in Federal prison, to pay $1 million in damages to Bonacci, in what Bonacci's attorney John DeCamp said was a clear signal that "the evidence presented was credible."
During the February 5 hearing, Noreen Gosch stunned the court with sworn testimony linking U.S. Army Lt. Col. Michael Aquino (ret.) to the nationwide pedophile ring. Her son, Johnny, then 12 years old, was kidnapped off the streets of West Des Moines, Iowa on September 5, 1982, while he was doing his early-morning newspaper deliveries. Since his kidnapping, she has devoted all of her time and resources to finding her son, and to exposing the dangers that millions of children in American face from this hideous, literally Satanic underground of ritualistic deviants.
"We have investigated, we have talked to so far 35 victims of this said organization that took my son and is responsible for what happened to Paul, and they can verify everything that has happened," she told the court.
"What this story involves is an elaborate function, I will say, that was an offshoot of a government program. The MK-Ultra program was developed in the 1950s by the CIA. It was used to help spy on other countries during the Cold War because they felt that the other countries were spying on us.
"It was very successful. They could do it very well."
US Sovereign States, Secession, Freedom, and Fighting Back
F. Steven Monk, "The General", proprietor of Confederate Mercantile, photo found on his website [here]. His claim is that he sells Confederate Flags, memorabilia, and other items not found at Wal-Mart. I posted his picture because it seemed like it would go well with the post subject.
I viewed the below video and interesting subjects were brought up. We the people need to do something.
Text with below video: RTAmerica| December 21, 2010 |94 likes, 5 dislikes
One hundred fifty years ago, on 20 December 1860, the South Carolina secession convention officially dissolved the state's connection with the American Union. Tom Utley the chairman of the Third Palmetto Republic says there is a new oppressive empire, the United States government.
South Carolina group seeks secession
* * * *
SHOCKING! Uncanny 1958 Prediction coming true; America's Destruction from Inside.flv
Text with video:
NWOIS666| February 06, 2010 |269 likes, 6 dislikes
Courtest youtube user LeMahu. In 1958 Robert Welch founder of John Birch Society disclosed in a speech that America is going to be destroyed from within. Mr Welch goes on to tell how this will be done and destroying our liberties. Wake-up people, this is NO JOKE ! War is coming, be prepared, stock food water medical supplies and lots of barter items. Time is short, ignore the trolls and scoffers and PREPARE !
Think the Federal Reserve is a government institution? Think again. It's a group of privately owned banks that Congress illegally gave the right to print money. Now they print it, loan it to us, then we pay it back with interest. What a scam!
Image with post called, "Gangster Government", [found here]
Recently, one of the General Government’s District Court Judges dismissed a lawsuit that challenged the purported authority of the President to order the assassination overseas of American citizens whom someone in the Executive Branch has categorized as a dangerous “terrorist”. The Judge ruled that the plaintiff, being only the father of the threatened victim, rather than the victim himself, lacked “standing” to prosecute the suit, and that in any event the issue involved a “political question” that could not be adjudicated in court. So the underlying claim was not decided, one way or the other.
The judicial dodge of denying “standing” to people who raise contentions that are extremely embarrassing to rogue officials in the General Government has become all-too-familiar these days—particularly in lawsuits and other proceedings that raise challenges to the qualifications of Barak Obama for the office of President. But in this case, not merely usurpation, but nothing less than murder is the ultimate issue. Which, one might have imagined, should have given even the most legally dim-witted and morally obtuse judge serious cause for concern that perhaps the matter was not just a “political question”.
Rather than analyzing the some eighty-three pages of this particular Judge’s opinion, though, I shall simply lay out some of the principles on which any honest and competent jurist would not only find “standing” in a case such as this, but also declare the claims of the Executive Branch to be unconstitutional.
1. The basic assertion from the Executive Branch is that the President, in his capacity as “Commander in Chief” during “the war on terror”, enjoys the inherent power, by himself or through his subordinates, to identify certain American citizens as extremely dangerous “terrorists”, and on the basis of that determination to order operatives of the General Government to assassinate those Americans wherever they may be found in foreign venues. Furthermore, the exercise of this purported power: (i) is not dependent upon any prior judicial determination that an individual targeted for execution is guilty of any crime punishable by death, or that the individual could not be apprehended and made to stand trial in some court; and (ii) is not subject to any other kind of judicial review, either before or after the execution takes place. Indeed, because many of the supposed facts on which a determination of an individual’s status as a “terrorist” certainly will be claimed to be “state secrets”, meaningful judicial review either ex ante or ex post would routinely be impossible as a matter of practice. In addition, inasmuch as the Constitution does not limit the exercise of the powers of the “Commander in Chief” (whatever they may be) to foreign venues only, no reason can be found why the supposed authority to execute certain Americans outside of any judicial process, if it does exist at all, cannot be exercised within the United States proper, even on the lawn of the White House itself. After all, if an American “terrorist” who might be apprehended in Afghanistan may nonetheless simply be assassinated there, because some bureaucrat in the Executive Branch considers the latter course of action more efficient than the former, then why should not an American “terrorist” operating within the United States also simply be executed out of hand, for the same eminently practical reason? So, in its fullest statement, the President’s contention is that he enjoys judicially unreviewable discretion—acting either by his own hand or by the hands of his minions—to assassinate, anywhere in the world and presumably by whatever means may prove effective, any American citizen whom someone in the Executive Branch, whose identity may never be disclosed, has identified as a dangerous “terrorist” by some process and on the basis of some purported evidence that in its most important particulars may forever remain secret.
2. This stark statement of the issue settles the question of “standing”. For, on this statement, any American—and certainly every American who, for whatever reason, may run politically afoul of the Executive Branch or of some subversive private organization with malign influence over the Executive Branch—is potentially the victim of an “official” assassination, the real reason for which can easily be disguised behind some fictional, or perhaps merely erroneous, assertion that the victim is a “terrorist”. Because the process and criteria for selection of an individual for “official” assassination are largely secret, one cannot predict who these victims will be, until they are killed and someone from the Executive Branch admits to complicity in the deed. But, self-evidently, once a victim has been executed, an injury irreparable by judicial process will have occurred. So, if the courts are to enforce the constitutional mandate of the Fifth Amendment that “[n]o person shall * * * be deprived of life * * * without due process of law”—with proper emphasis on the word “[n]o”—then they must entertain at least one suit by one American to determine the legality of the power the President claims, before that individual—or anyone else—is actually assassinated. Which means that the very first lawsuit meeting the standard requirements for personal jurisdiction and venue should be heard on the merits. (Of course, this would not guarantee that the issue would be decided correctly, the Bench being overrun by one Judge Flapdoodle after another in every jurisdiction throughout the federal system. But at least it would move the process of inquiry ahead under public scrutiny.)
Prudential considerations compel the same result. The doctrine of “standing” is mostly the bastard contrivance of individual judges, in the formulation and application of which the personality on the Bench rather than any fixed and certain legal principle usually decides the outcome. As such, the doctrine of “standing” is wholly nonscientific—being both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Yet, in this case, that is no demerit. Rather, it is an advantage. Because, here, a clever judicial wordsmith could easily concoct out of bits and snippets extracted from hundreds of other judicial opinions his own decision in favor of “standing”. And although other jurists and lawyers might disagree with his conclusion, who could declare him to be wrong in any objective sense? No one. He would, as well, be quite right morally. Because, having found “standing”, he could at least temporarily enjoin the continuation of the program of “official” assassinations, until the Judiciary could pass on the question after plenary consideration, thereby preventing who could predict how many irretrievable violations of the Fifth Amendment. Eventually, higher courts might overrule him, licensing the assassins to proceed. But then the blood would encarnadine those judges’ hands, not his.
If they were honest in their claim of constitutional authority, the President and his agents in the General Government, too, would themselves encourage this result, so as to find out exactly where they stand legally. For if “official” assassinations committed anywhere within the United States are unconstitutional, then both the assassins and their principals are criminals for whose transgressions the penalty may be death. For just one example, Title 18 of the United States Code provides as follows:
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * * or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, * * * shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * * or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Moreover, the victims of attempted unconstitutional “official” assassinations would, in the exercise of their natural right of self-defense, be entitled to resist their assailants with deadly force. Which means that, in an environment in which any agent of the General Government might secretly be engaged in an “official” assassination on American soil, against which the Judiciary refused to protect the citizenry, any American—and certainly any political dissident—could reasonably and justifiably resist any government agent with deadly force at any time, because the victim would have no way of knowing whether that particular agent’s assault was actually a “hit” disguised as some kind of supposedly valid “law enforcement”. Too many contemporary Americans may be sheep willing to be shorn; but it is unlikely that more than a few of them are sheep willing to be slaughtered after they finally realize that such is the shepherd’s intention, and are exposed to some examples of his bloody handiwork. And having publicly espoused the position that they may with impunity kill any American for secret (and judicially unreviewable) reasons at any time, agents of the General Government could hardly complain if every American took them at their word, and defended himself accordingly.
Obviously, to allow a situation of this kind to degenerate into widespread violence would verge on madness. So, any judge’s invocation of the “standing” ruse to derail timely litigation of this issue is more than merely intellectually indefensible and morally irresponsible. Unless the judge can successfully invoke the defense of insanity on his own behalf, his misuse of the “standing” doctrine amounts as well to his complicity in—and at least equal culpability for—whatever crimes may be perpetrated in the course of any attempted “official” assassinations. For part two click below.
(Below video contains an interesting discussion on Militia, Martial Law, 2nd Amendment Gun Ownership, and related subjects)
"Using National Guard and Military to maintain social order"
Dr. Edwin Vieira Explains States Rights and Personal Liberties on Alex Jones Tv 1/4
Text with video: TheAlexJonesChannel | May 18, 2010 | 96 likes, 2 dislikes
Alex also talks with attorney Edwin Vieira, Jr. For more than thirty years Vieira has practiced law with emphasis on constitutional issues. He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals and lectured throughout the county. Vieira is the author of the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution. http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/e... http://www.infowars.com/
* * * *
End The Fed! - Why the Federal Reserve Must Be Abolished!
End the Fed! **Update: Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill, HR 1207. America's expert on Constitutional monetary policy and acclaimed author, Dr. Edwin Vieira tells why the Federal Reserve must be abolished, and warns of potential economic collapse as the result of the massive "stimulus" bills. All Americans must watch this program to learn the facts and the potential hyper inflationary consequences of current unconstitutional monetary policy. Dr. Vieira is the author of "Pieces Of Eight" and other important books on Constitutional monetary policy and other topics. You'll also learn the Constitutional definition of a Dollar (371-1/4 grains of silver) and just what is "legal tender" (starts at 9:40). If you are a Ron Paul supporter, you'll find this valuable information, as will EVERY American: share this with your friends and emai.l list.
Call your Congressman and Senators in favor of ending the Fed and creating a REAL American economic recovery!
This is an edition of Conservative Roundtable, the nationally broadcast conservative television program hosted by Howard Phillips, and produced by The Conservative Caucus; Art Harman is the creator, producer and showrunner.
In the days of Stalin's Russia, not only would dissidents "disappear" but also. even in that pre-digital era, photographs of purged officials at May Day reviewing stands would be erased from photographs when their political stars fell. Our own "Kremlinologists" would know who was in, and who was out by comparing last year's pictures with this years.
That's one way of concealing information.
Just last week, Republicans on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission pushed to have certain words removed from the report they were writing because they posed a conflict to their view that only the government was to blame for the financial collapse
Explained economist Paul Krugman, "Last week, reports Shahien Nasiripour of The Huffington Post, all four Republicans on the commission voted to exclude the following terms from the report: "deregulation," "shadow banking," "interconnection," and, yes, "Wall Street."
When Democratic members refused to go along with this insistence that the story of Hamlet be told without the prince, the Republicans went ahead and issued their own report, which did, indeed, avoid using any of the banned terms."
In our media today, omission of images and ideas is as key to sanitizing the news as is commission, What is not reported or perhaps even known is often more important than stories that are twisted by bias.
Enter Wikileaks and an age-old battle between our right to know and their right to keep us from knowing. Its critics make a fetish about keeping secrets as if it is a holy duty and not a system of keeping the public uninformed about what their government is doing in its name.
The public has a right to know if officials are saying one thing in private and another in public, if they are concealing information or just plain lying.
The Pentagon Papers showed us that wars could be waged deceptively, based on deliberate falsehoods. Wikileaks revelations about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars tell a similar story. We have learned how torture and civilian deaths were pervasive--and covered up.
Veteran investigative reporter Bob Parry argues that in the national security area, journalists--and the people--need leaks from officials of conscience.
"Whatever the unusual aspects of the case, the Obama administration's reported plan to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for conspiring with Army Pvt. Bradley Manning to obtain U.S. secrets strikes at the heart of investigative journalism on national security scandals.
That's because the process for reporters obtaining classified information about crimes of state most often involves a journalist persuading some government official to break the law either by turning over classified documents or at least by talking about the secret information. There is almost always some level of "conspiracy" between reporter and source.
Contrary to what some outsiders might believe, it's actually quite uncommon for sensitive material to simply arrive "over the transom" unsolicited. Indeed, during three decades of reporting on these kinds of stories, I can only recall a few secret documents arriving that way to me."
It's not just the government that hides behind secrecy rules it puts in place. The private sector does too--with the complicity of much of the media, which did not warn us about the financial crisis that was building. We didn't learn about the pervasive fraud in the banking and real estate industries and still don't know the full extent of the crimes of Wall Street.
Do we have to wait for historians to tell us that the stories we are being told are a crock?
Anyone remember reading about the Spanish American war. That's the one which also marked the beginnings of "yellow journalism" when screaming headlines and falsified photos were used to mobilize the public for war.
Back then, at the turn of the last century, an American battleship, the USS Maine sank in Havana Harbor. The incident sparked a battle cry, "REMEMBER THE MAINE." We were told "THEY" sank it. And led to war which later spread to the Philippines at a cost of six million lives.
80 years later, a submersible submarine went down to the remains of the Maine on the harbor floor. What they found was that no one -- no terrorists, no Spaniards, no Cubans, sank the Maine. There had been an accident in the engine room. The whole war was based on an event that never happened.
If we had known that at the time, many lives would have been saved and the direction of US foreign policy might not have gone in an imperial direction.
So, back to today.
What do we gain from persecuting and prosecuting Bradley Manning who was among three million people with access to the diplomatic cables we are now reading about? What will we gain by jailing or killing (as some right wingers advocate) Julian Assange who is already being called "the Che Guevara of the Information Age"?
The CIA's murder of the original Guevara created a global martyr whose image is still among the most popular icons in the world. Guevara had his own problems with hostile women. One, Molly Gonzales, tried to break through barricades upon his arrival in New York with a seven-inch hunting knife. He later became famous for saying, "the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love"
Assange is being accused of sexual crimes in Sweden, a country, ironically, recently condemned by Amnesty International for not enforcing its own laws against rape. Now, the Wikileaker in chief, is being targeted by the leak of a Swedish police document detailing charges against him. (They are charges, not facts.)
The ongoing and well-orchestrated war on Wikileaks is also outraging millions worldwide who see the United States as a secretive and manipulative colossus that lives on lies and deception.
For many, this issue has reached a level of hysteria which, like the "Red Hunts" of the 1920s and the commie "crimes" of the cold war era, will only bring more shame to a Washington desperate to change the story away from the content of the leaked cables to allegations of wrongdoing by Assange. The Administration is also virtually torturing the man who dumped the documents, Bradley Manning, in Gtmo-like conditions, in an effort to turn hum against Assange. He has yet to be tried.
We can't put leaks genie back in the bottle. We might do better reflecting on the meaning of these disclosures for our democracy and media. The big secret is the one we don't want to see: that we are building support and respect for Wikileaks even as officials fulminate against it.
News Dissector Danny Schechter directed Plunder The Crime of Our Time, a film on DVD about the financial crisis as a crime story, (Plunderthecrimeofourtime.com) Comments to Email address removed
"Throw that Jew on the Barbie!" is a comment I heard in a bar on the Connecticut/New York City area within the last two weeks regarding US Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman's wish to censor and remove blogs and websites from the Internet that he thinks should be removed. My message to Joe Lieberman is, "Eat shit and go fuck yourself asshole".
To the guy who made the comment, the comment is racist, offensive, is Anti-Semitic, and is inappropriate on so many levels. But, I can understand hating Lieberman for wanting to be Censor-in-Chief. The bigot when on to say the Lieberman will foster even more hatred for the Jews. No group, race, or category should be painted with a broad brush, that is just plain ignorance.
A "Rap News" Music video sums my thoughts up, too. The video that actually includes Julian Assange of WikiLeaks [found here].
December 16, 2010 C-SPAN http://MOXNews.com Constitutional law and national security scholars testified on the constitutionality of prosecuting Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act. Among the topics addressed were the nature of journalism, the extent of constitutional protections of the press in protecting the divulgence of classified information, and the amount of information that is categorized as classified.
* * * *
"We are all subject to the Patriot Act"
Liars, Treason, Hackers and The Obama Deception Deleted!
Obama 'Internet kill switch' plan approved by US Senate panel President could get power to turn off Internet By Grant Gross | Published: 11:02 GMT, 25 June 10
A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.
Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.
The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.
The bill, introduced earlier this month, would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electrical grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.
The bill also would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.
The legislation would give the US Department of Homeland Security authority that it does not now have to respond to cyber-attacks, Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said earlier this month.
"Our responsibility for cyber defence goes well beyond the public sector because so much of cyberspace is owned and operated by the private sector," he said. "The Department of Homeland Security has actually shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks like utilities and communications could bring our economy down for a period of time if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber terrorists."
RTAmerica| December 17, 2010 |33 likes, 2 dislikes
Xe Services, the private military contractor formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide, announced on Friday that it had been sold to a group of private equity investors with ties to company founder Erik Prince. Investigative Journalist Wayne Madsen says the government involvement with Blackwater is a revolving door of former government officials becoming employed by the company.
* * * *
Who really killed JFK and why hasn't the mainstream media really jumped on this?: