| Don't share this! - Diamond in the Rough - Home of the brave - 515 sec
Don't share this! - Diamond in the Rough - Home of the brave - sang by Genelle sings in Iraq. The reason that I say not to share this video is just like the media not covering Iraq anymore, as if it's not important, or the soldiers over there are forgotten. The 4100 plus soldiers who have died in Iraq, 50,000 plus injuries with either loss of limbs, or serious permanent head injuries and the like. For what, to defend the world for Exxon, Shell, BP, and the other oil companies, you didn't think democracy did you or the lies of WMDs, the phony, cherry picked intelligence of WMD's, and the Curveball burger flipper informant?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-curveball18-2008jun18,0,6987323,full.story
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: diamond in the rough home of brave iraq us usa patriot love peace unity hope joy god
 | | Worst of the Worst Awards of 2008 - 126 sec
Sam Zell
Rupert Murdoch
Republic and Democratic members of Congress who voted to give retroactive immunity to Big Telcos caught illegally spying on Americans
Treasonous President George W. Bush
From the National Conference for Media Reform, June 8th 2008
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: worst awards 2008
| | Worst Shill or Astroturf Awards of 2008 - 87 sec
FreedomWorks.org
Scott Cleland
Mike McCurry
the clip with the why.
From the National Conference for Media Reform, June 8th 2008
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: shills media
| | Will the NET NEUTRALITY bill grow up and become a real law - 94 sec
A short clip about the Net Neutrality bill that is vital and at the missing cornerstone of a democratic free society.
From the National Conference for Media Reform, June 8th 2008
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: net neutrality bill
| | Big Media Hall of Shame 2008 - 189 sec
Out of the following for 2008:
Verizon
Comcast
Viacom
AT&T
guess which one wins?
From the National Conference for Media Reform, June 8th 2008
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: media hall shame
| | Antonin Scalia - 60 Minutes pt 4 of 4 - 415 sec
Transcript here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml
On abortion: a woman who is pregnant should not be counted as two, and because the unborn child cannot walk, it is not a person, how about crawl?
Then on Gore vs. Bush, he says get over it, get over Roe v. Wade too? Is the Constitution something to get over since it was written long ago?
According to the transcript from this interview, he states that the vote was actually 7-2. I've never heard that before.
Actually the vote was right down party lines - 5 to 4
The difference was that were different legal issues at work in Bush v. Gore. On one of them, the court came down 7-2. On the other, the court was split 5-4.
The first issue was whether Florida's recount, as it was being conducted, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The argument the Bush folks were using was that the hand recounts had no standard from county to county. A vote that might have been counted in one county would have be thrown out in another. Moreover, the state of Florida seemed to have no mechanism for ensuring that each person's vote counted equally. Seven of the justices on the court agreed that, as it was proceeding, Florida's vote counting violated the Constitution's protection of the one-person-one-vote rule.
Then came the question of what to do about it, and this is where the Court split right down party lines. The left-leaning four (two of whom did not see a problem with the vote count in the first place) said, if there is a Constitutional violation here, the Supreme Court should remand the case back to the Florida courts with directions about how to revamp the vote count in order to make it comply with the Equal Protection Clause.
The right-leaning five said, sorry, but we can't do that. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to tell a state how to count its votes. We can only decide that the manner in which it's counting is unconstitutional, but we can't instruct them to do anything.
The result: Florida couldn't do anything but stop its recount, and certify the results as they were.
That's somewhat of a simplification of the issues involved, but it gets to the heart of the matter. There's a certain rationale to what the Court did, but it's a mind-numbing rationalization, and an exploitation of legal technicalities.
Not political? Bullshit. And Scalia knows it. Souter almost quit the Court because of it.
The decision also stated that it's decision should not be a precedent meaning it should never be followed by another court in making a decision.
Which in my opinion is tantamount to saying, "What we just did has no basis in law and is bullshit!"
"the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."
The four dissenters argued with what they saw as problems with the ruling, including the principle of fairness, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution that the people should elect their presidential leaders, not the courts.
Seven justices (the five Justice majority and Breyer and Souter in dissent) initially agreed upon review that there might be Equal Protection issues in using different standards of counting in different counties.
But the major decision that the Judges decided to replace the vote for the nation by ceasing all recounts and by are criminals and treasonous against the American democratic process.
William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy,
Sandra Day O'Connor,
Clarence Thomas,
Antonin Scalia,
Judges that wanted a recount.
John Paul Stevens,
David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer
Scalia also states that torture is NOT prohibited under the 8th amendment of cruel and unusual punishment because the torture of a captured individual to obtain information is not punishment (though the individual is punished or tortured for not talking). The second way he says it's not torture is that the constitution does not apply if it is not done on American soil or to an American. That's what all the prisons overseas are for.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/24/60-minutes-scalia-on-bush-v-gore-2000-get-over-it/
Yet, the Supreme Court is deciding on the 2nd amendment instead of never taking up the case because the 2nd amendment is clear, but they are distorting the words and attempting to inject their own interpretation of what the founding fathers meant as if they know better than the words themselves from people who have long passed.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: scalia 60 minutes
| | Antonin Scalia - 60 Minutes pt 3 of 4 - 388 sec
Transcript here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml
On abortion: a woman who is pregnant should not be counted as two, and because the unborn child cannot walk, it is not a person, how about crawl?
Then on Gore vs. Bush, he says get over it, get over Roe v. Wade too? Is the Constitution something to get over since it was written long ago?
According to the transcript from this interview, he states that the vote was actually 7-2. I've never heard that before.
Actually the vote was right down party lines - 5 to 4
The difference was that were different legal issues at work in Bush v. Gore. On one of them, the court came down 7-2. On the other, the court was split 5-4.
The first issue was whether Florida's recount, as it was being conducted, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The argument the Bush folks were using was that the hand recounts had no standard from county to county. A vote that might have been counted in one county would have be thrown out in another. Moreover, the state of Florida seemed to have no mechanism for ensuring that each person's vote counted equally. Seven of the justices on the court agreed that, as it was proceeding, Florida's vote counting violated the Constitution's protection of the one-person-one-vote rule.
Then came the question of what to do about it, and this is where the Court split right down party lines. The left-leaning four (two of whom did not see a problem with the vote count in the first place) said, if there is a Constitutional violation here, the Supreme Court should remand the case back to the Florida courts with directions about how to revamp the vote count in order to make it comply with the Equal Protection Clause.
The right-leaning five said, sorry, but we can't do that. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to tell a state how to count its votes. We can only decide that the manner in which it's counting is unconstitutional, but we can't instruct them to do anything.
The result: Florida couldn't do anything but stop its recount, and certify the results as they were.
That's somewhat of a simplification of the issues involved, but it gets to the heart of the matter. There's a certain rationale to what the Court did, but it's a mind-numbing rationalization, and an exploitation of legal technicalities.
Not political? Bullshit. And Scalia knows it. Souter almost quit the Court because of it.
The decision also stated that it's decision should not be a precedent meaning it should never be followed by another court in making a decision.
Which in my opinion is tantamount to saying, "What we just did has no basis in law and is bullshit!"
"the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."
The four dissenters argued with what they saw as problems with the ruling, including the principle of fairness, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution that the people should elect their presidential leaders, not the courts.
Seven justices (the five Justice majority and Breyer and Souter in dissent) initially agreed upon review that there might be Equal Protection issues in using different standards of counting in different counties.
But the major decision that the Judges decided to replace the vote for the nation by ceasing all recounts and by are criminals and treasonous against the American democratic process.
William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy,
Sandra Day O'Connor,
Clarence Thomas,
Antonin Scalia,
Judges that wanted a recount.
John Paul Stevens,
David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer
Scalia also states that torture is NOT prohibited under the 8th amendment of cruel and unusual punishment because the torture of a captured individual to obtain information is not punishment (though the individual is punished or tortured for not talking). The second way he says it's not torture is that the constitution does not apply if it is not done on American soil or to an American. That's what all the prisons overseas are for.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/24/60-minutes-scalia-on-bush-v-gore-2000-get-over-it/
Yet, the Supreme Court is deciding on the 2nd amendment instead of never taking up the case because the 2nd amendment is clear, but they are distorting the words and attempting to inject their own interpretation of what the founding fathers meant as if they know better than the words themselves from people who have long passed.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: scalia 60 minutes
| | Antonin Scalia - 60 Minutes pt 2 of 4 - 372 sec
Then on torture, current laws already ban torture, the Geneva Conventions for example, to the War Crimes Act of 1996. Supreme Court Justice Scalia says that torture does not constitute - cruel and unusual punishment , because torture is not meant to punish, but only to get information. Mr. Scalia's argument fails for several reasons.Torture Does not Generate Useful Information. Initially, torture is a notoriously inaccurate way to obtain information. Indeed, it is well-known by professional interrogators that torture does not work. Experts on interrogation say that torture actually interferes with the ability to gather useful information. So if torture is not an information-gathering technique, its only purpose must be punishment and,or intimidation. Torturing People Who can not Give Useful Information is Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Some try and say that the 8th amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to banning torture because the suspect has not been found guilty yet, but no where in the 8th amendment does it say only in the sentencing phase. Looking at the 8th amendment, the bail part refers to a monetary sum that is collateral for not fleeing even though guilt has not been determined. So the 8th amendment is not specifically talking about a penalty only after guilt is determined. Who would have thought? Clearly It is obvious that the 8th amendment is saying no cruel and unusual punishments shall be inflicted saying torture is not only illegal but wrong. This not only goes against laws already written but against our moral compass as human beings.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: scalia 60 minutes
| | Antonin Scalia - 60 Minutes pt 1 of 4 - 477 sec
Transcript here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml
On abortion: a woman who is pregnant should not be counted as two, and because the unborn child cannot walk, it is not a person, how about crawl?
Then on Gore vs. Bush, he says get over it, get over Roe v. Wade too? Is the Constitution something to get over since it was written long ago?
According to the transcript from this interview, he states that the vote was actually 7-2. I've never heard that before.
Actually the vote was right down party lines - 5 to 4
The difference was that were different legal issues at work in Bush v. Gore. On one of them, the court came down 7-2. On the other, the court was split 5-4.
The first issue was whether Florida's recount, as it was being conducted, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The argument the Bush folks were using was that the hand recounts had no standard from county to county. A vote that might have been counted in one county would have be thrown out in another. Moreover, the state of Florida seemed to have no mechanism for ensuring that each person's vote counted equally. Seven of the justices on the court agreed that, as it was proceeding, Florida's vote counting violated the Constitution's protection of the one-person-one-vote rule.
Then came the question of what to do about it, and this is where the Court split right down party lines. The left-leaning four (two of whom did not see a problem with the vote count in the first place) said, if there is a Constitutional violation here, the Supreme Court should remand the case back to the Florida courts with directions about how to revamp the vote count in order to make it comply with the Equal Protection Clause.
The right-leaning five said, sorry, but we can't do that. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to tell a state how to count its votes. We can only decide that the manner in which it's counting is unconstitutional, but we can't instruct them to do anything.
The result: Florida couldn't do anything but stop its recount, and certify the results as they were.
That's somewhat of a simplification of the issues involved, but it gets to the heart of the matter. There's a certain rationale to what the Court did, but it's a mind-numbing rationalization, and an exploitation of legal technicalities.
Not political? Bullshit. And Scalia knows it. Souter almost quit the Court because of it.
The decision also stated that it's decision should not be a precedent meaning it should never be followed by another court in making a decision.
Which in my opinion is tantamount to saying, "What we just did has no basis in law and is bullshit!"
"the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath."
The four dissenters argued with what they saw as problems with the ruling, including the principle of fairness, and held that this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution that the people should elect their presidential leaders, not the courts.
Seven justices (the five Justice majority and Breyer and Souter in dissent) initially agreed upon review that there might be Equal Protection issues in using different standards of counting in different counties.
But the major decision that the Judges decided to replace the vote for the nation by ceasing all recounts and by are criminals and treasonous against the American democratic process.
William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy,
Sandra Day O'Connor,
Clarence Thomas,
Antonin Scalia,
Judges that wanted a recount.
John Paul Stevens,
David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer
Scalia also states that torture is NOT prohibited under the 8th amendment of cruel and unusual punishment because the torture of a captured individual to obtain information is not punishment (though the individual is punished or tortured for not talking). The second way he says it's not torture is that the constitution does not apply if it is not done on American soil or to an American. That's what all the prisons overseas are for.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/24/60-minutes-scalia-on-bush-v-gore-2000-get-over-it/
Yet, the Supreme Court is deciding on the 2nd amendment instead of never taking up the case because the 2nd amendment is clear, but they are distorting the words and attempting to inject their own interpretation of what the founding fathers meant as if they know better than the words themselves from people who have long passed.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: scalia 60 minutes
| | 9/11 Flight Controller: "Is this real world or exercise?" - 6 sec
On a BBC video report which focuses on the 'hijacker screening video', a clip is played from the voice of a 9/11 flight controller, in which he responds to news of a hijacked flight heading towards New York with the words, "is this real world, or an exercise?'
We know that wargames on the morning of 9/11 simulated planes crashing into buildings. This is how both NORAD and the FAA were slow to react to the hijacked flights. At first they believed it to be a drill and when they understood it to be real it was too late. The only plane they were able to shoot down was Flight 93 and that was only because it was delayed on the runway.
Although I understand that this tape may have been in the public domain for a while I highlight it today because of its significance and the fact that I hadn't come across it before.
9/11 Flight Controller: "Is This Real World or an Exercise?"
Paul Joseph Watson for Alex Jones' Prison Planet | July 22 2004
http://www.prisonplanet.com/agency_planned_exercise_on_sept_11_built_around_a_plane_crashing_into_a_building.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_exercises.html
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: wargames exercises 911 real world exercise confusion false flag
| | Wargames on 911 actually enhanced the response - 195 sec
Cynthia McKinney asked General Richard Myers whether or not the activities of the 4 Wargames going on 911 impaired our (the U.S. air defense) ability to respond to the attacks.
General Richard Myers said "No, it did NOT impair our ability to respond. In fact, General Ralph Eberhart who was in the commander (position, duty,or in charge of the responsibility) of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) as he testified in front of the 911 Commission I believe, I believe he told them that 'it enhanced our ability to respond' given that NORAD did not have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks of that day, that was an FAA responsibility, but they were two CPXs, there was one department of justice exercise (that didn't have anything to do with the other three), and there was an actual operation ongoing because they was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska.
Cynthia McKinney then asks Gen. Myers, "who was in charge of managing those wargames"
The chairman interrupts the exchange (perhaps to give Gen. Myers more time to think over an answer, perhaps to end this line of discussion).
General Richard Myers responds, "The important thing to realize is that (NORAD) was responsible. These are command post exercises, what that means, all the battle positions that are normally not filled are indeed filled, so it was an easy transition from an exercise into a real world situation, it actually enhanced the response, otherwise it would take somewhere between 30 minutes and a couple of hours to fill those positions, those battlespaces, with the right staff officers.
Finally Cynthia McKinney then asks Gen. Myers whether September 11 was declared a "National Security Special Event Day" because of the activities going on, that had been scheduled at the U.N. that day." He did not know.
When asked who was responsible for coordinating the multiple war games running on the morning of September 11, 2001, General Ralph E Eberhart, the man in charge of NORAD on the morning in question replied,
"No Comment."
It is extremely suspect that Eberhart was unable to comment when we look at his sworn testimony just moments before this question was posed to him on June 17, 2004, in response to Commissioner Roemer's line of questioning.
Tim Roemer was the only Commissioner to pose a question about military exercises running on the morning of 9/11. He opened by making reference to an 8:38 FAA communication to NEADS regarding a hijacked aircraft headed to New York. The response from NEADS was, "Is this real world or an exercise?" FAA response was, "No, this is not an exercise, not a test."
Roemer then asked General Eberhart:
My question is, you were postured for an exercise against the former Soviet Union. Did that help or hurt? Did that help in terms of were more people prepared? Did you have more people ready? Were more fighters fueled with more fuel? Or did this hurt in terms of people thinking, "No, there's no possibility that this is real world; we're engaged in an exercise," and delay things?
Eberhart's response:
Sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews - they have to be airborne in 15 minutes and that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped.
If the war games helped "because of the focus," why would General Eberhart be reluctant to go on record regarding the issue of just who was the central person coordinating that focus? Was the General himself, the man who headed NORAD that very morning, in charge of coordinating the multiple war games on 9/11?
No Comment.
----
Cynthia was able to have General Richard Myers admit that NORAD was in charge of managing the wargames, "it was their responsibility."
More info on General Eberhart testimony during the final 9/11 Commission hearing.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_final_fraud.shtml
On a final note, if these wargames actually helped, why is there the confusion caught on audio of whether the possible hijacking was "real world or exercise" and the statement "we fought a lot of phantoms that day" from input blips on the radar screens that these wargames created for responders.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: wargames 911 enhanced response norad general myers eberhart donald rumsfeld Cynthia McKinney
| | Cheney Energy Task Force - 595 sec
The Energy Task Force is commonly known as the Cheney Energy Task Force after Vice President of the United States of America and former CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney.
In his second week in office George W. Bush created the task force, officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) with Dick Cheney as chairman. This group was supposed to develop an energy policy for the Bush administration. With both Bush and Cheney coming from the energy industry, which had contributed heavily to their campaign, and with the group proceeding in extreme secrecy, critics charged that the energy industry was exercising undue influence over national policy.
This secret task force was the catalyst for the events of 911 orchastrated for the pre emptive occupying wars of Afghanistan, Iraq, and future countries to come.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: Cheney Energy Task Force National Policy Development Group NEPDG
| | FEDS REMOVE WITNESS!! - 18 sec
Guy removed by FBI agent never to be seen again after 911.
Why is the account of 911mythbusters suspended and this video was removed from youtube?
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: fbi removed killed witness 911 explosions explosion bomb inside job
| | Money Funding 911 Little Practical Significance, Kean - 88 sec
Thomas Kean stating that the funding source of the 911 attacks is of little practical significance, and denies the $100000 wire transfer by Pakistani Inter Services ISI Intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, who ordered Saeed Sheikh to send $100,000 to the lead 911 hijacker Mohammed Atta confirmed by the FBI, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, among other sources.
Money is always crucial in any criminal case, it provides a source of the answer to the means of an operation (the others being motive and opportunity). For the 911 Commission to not look more deeply into this aspect and report everything it knew about who funded 911 is a complete cover-up.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: Thomas Kean funding money Mohammed Atta wire transfer Mahmoud Ahmad ISI Pakistan wtc wtc7 conspiracy police brutality
| | ECHELON, Total Information Awareness NSA - 443 sec
The US and other countries have instituted domestic surveillance programs and share information between countries. The final elements of a surveillance society is emerging where you can be tracked anywhere, any time and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: ECHELON Total Information Awareness NSA domestic surveillance spying
| | George Tenet - 60 Minutes pt 4 of 4 - 370 sec
Three years after he left the CIA, George Tenet lets loose with criticism of his former Bush Administration colleagues. He tells Scott Pelley about leading the war in Afghanistan, the CIA's policy on torture and the failure to find WMD in Iraq.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: george tenet torture iraq afghanistan wmd 60 minutes
| | George Tenet - 60 Minutes pt 3 of 4 - 476 sec
Three years after he left the CIA, George Tenet lets loose with criticism of his former Bush Administration colleagues. He tells Scott Pelley about leading the war in Afghanistan, the CIA's policy on torture and the failure to find WMD in Iraq.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: george tenet torture iraq afghanistan wmd 60 minutes
| | George Tenet - 60 Minutes pt 2 of 4 - 405 sec
Three years after he left the CIA, George Tenet lets loose with criticism of his former Bush Administration colleagues. He tells Scott Pelley about leading the war in Afghanistan, the CIA's policy on torture and the failure to find WMD in Iraq.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: george tenet torture iraq afghanistan wmd 60 minutes
| | George Tenet - 60 Minutes pt 1 of 4 - 396 sec
Three years after he left the CIA, George Tenet lets loose with criticism of his former Bush Administration colleagues. He tells Scott Pelley about leading the war in Afghanistan, the CIA's policy on torture and the failure to find WMD in Iraq.
Auteur : patriotpsyops
Tags: george tenet torture iraq afghanistan wmd 60 minutes
|
|
