You Tube >> Originally Posted 08th May 2009

He was only 23, but he still had the same fire he has today!!

SEE ORIGINAL VIDEO

Background checked for displaying an image as old as America itself

Infowars >> Originally Posted 08th May 2009

Louisiana police pulled over and detained a man for half an hour, believing him to be a possible “extremist” because of a bumper sticker on his car that read “Don’t Tread On Me”.

The man, who’s identity is undisclosed for privacy reasons, was reportedly subjected to a thorough background check after he purchased the iconic sticker from The Patriot Depot.

The details were related to Conservative website americanvision.org by the man’s sister-in-law Rosemarie, a resident of Ball, Louisiana.

The deplorable irony of this incident is almost too much to stomach given the origins of the image seen above.

The coiled rattlesnake and the defiant “Don’t Tread on Me” motto are taken from the Gadsden flag, named after American patriot Colonel Christopher Gadsden. The flag dates from around 1775 and was used by The United States Marine Corps as an early motto flag.

The rattlesnake was used to signify the fact that it only strikes after giving warning and if it feels under threat of attack.

The image of the rattlesnake even pre-dates the flag, and was regularly used as a symbol for the American colonies after Benjamin Franklin sketched a picture of a dismembered snake to symbolize the need for unity in defending the colonies during the French and Indian War.

Today the flag has been embraced by civil liberties movements, and is even still used by the US Navy.

The image is supposed to represent a symbol of shared American values, in particular the highest common value of freedom.

Of course, none of this matters to police forces that are specifically trained to look for bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitution, Libertarianism and freedom, and treat those who display them as possible “extremists”.

The Department of Homeland Security’s definition of an “extremist” is now someone who is concerned about the erosion of U.S. sovereignty or someone who questions the mainstream media.

It is now to be expected that you will be pulled over by police if you display Ron Paul bumper stickers, you may even be visited by the secret service for exercising your first amendment right.

SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The Examiner >> Originally Published 06th May 2009

Two masked gunmen burst into Charles Bailey’s apartment where he was entertaining ten guests, celebrating his birthday. The gunmen started counting bullets, making sure they had “enough,” and then separated the men and the women into different rooms to be raped. The gunmen didn’t expect one of Charles’ friends to be packing heat, but he was:

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

Calvin Lavant was found dead a block away, from a well-deserved gunshot wound to the face, and police say they are close to arresting the second gunman.

This story should illustrate that when things really hit the fan, you are ultimately responsible for protecting yourself and your loved ones. You will probably not have time to wait for help, and most importantly, you will be the one who has to live with the results. You can not count on the police to protect you, and they are not legally obligated to protect you (seriously).

Keep this story in mind as we push for tighter federal gun laws. If that one brave student hadn’t brought his gun to the party (and to be honest, I’m kind of blown away that he did), 10 lives would have been ruined, if not ended. You also might want to ask yourself why no major news outlets have been running this remarkable story, or read John Lott’s excellent essay on the media’s bias against guns.

As for me, my birthday’s not coming up for a while, but I’m asking for a cute little nine-millimeter insurance policy. And if you come to the celebration, feel free to come packin’

SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

New York Post >> 05th May 2009

The $328,835 snapshots of an Air Force One backup plane buzzing lower Manhattan last week will not be shown to the public, the White House said yesterday.

“We have no plans to release them,” an aide to President Obama told The Post, refusing to comment further.

The sole purpose of the secret photo-op, which sent thousands of New Yorkers running for cover, was to take new publicity shots of the presidential jet over the city.

“The photos . . . are classified – that’s ridiculous,” Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., said.

The photos have not technically been “classified,” a White House aide said, but they are being kept from public view.

SEE FULL ARTICLE

Radio talk star blocked from visits, along with terrorists, neo-Nazis

WorldNetDaily >> 05th May 2009

Talk radio host Michael Savage is considering legal action against Britain’s top homeland security official after she released today a list grouping him with terrorists and neo-Nazi murderers banned from entry because the government believes their views might provoke violence.

In a telephone interview with WND, Savage said he is still waiting to hear back from attorneys, but he noted Britain has very strict anti-defamation laws.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to publicize the list of 16 people banned since October to show the type of behavior Britain will not tolerate, according to U.K. news reports.

Don’t be silent! Sign the petition to block government attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Savage’s immediate reaction upon hearing the news was typically wry.

“Darn! And I was just planning a trip to England for their superior dental work and cuisine,” he recalled thinking.

“Then it sank in,” he told WND, “and I said, ‘She said this is the kind of behavior we won’t tolerate? She’s linking me with mass murderers who are in prison for killing Jewish children on buses? For my speech? The country where the Magna Carta was created?’”

Smith explained to Britain’s GMTV that she believed it was “important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it’s a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won’t be welcome in this country.”

SEE FULL ARTICLE

Savage appears on hate speech list for opposing illegal immigration

Prison Planet >> 05th May 2009

American talk show host Michael Savage has been banned from entering the UK by the Home Secretary because of his political opinions and opposition to illegal immigration, which is considered “hate speech” in airstrip one.

“Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (pictured) said she decided to make public the names so others could better understand what sort of behaviour Britain was not prepared to tolerate,” according to an ITN report.

The list of 16 “unwelcome” individuals includes Neo-Nazis, former Ku Klux Klan members, racist skinhead groups and Islamic preachers supposedly linked to terrorist groups.

Alongside these appears the name of Savage, who is a conservative talk show host in the mould of Rush Limbaugh who has consistently opposed illegal immigration and the declining stature of U.S. sovereignty.

“Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can’t live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what’s more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded,” said Smith.

Apparently the ‘rules that people live by’ in the UK do not include the right to free speech and political opinions considered unpalatable by what whistleblowers have described as a “Stalinist cabal of control freaks” currently in power in Britain.

As we have previously reported, people are mandated by government threats, peer pressure and cultural bullying to “tolerate” all kinds of minority groups and for the most part we do exactly that. The problem lies in the fact that the very same crowd that preaches “tolerance” is totally intolerant of anyone who dares utter a word against them.

The government in the UK defines “tolerance” as being banned from uttering a negative word against any minority group, and hate speech laws have codified the illegality of expressing an opinion which may be considered “offensive” to a minority.

Decrees of political correctness and the doctrines of illiberal mind control, which fronts as being liberally progressive when it is in fact fascistic, have swamped Europe to the point where Christian ministers are being arrested for reading Bible passages. It is also an illegal offence in Britain to criticize homosexuality. Television presenter Robin Page was arrested by police after he said in a speech that farmers should enjoy the same rights as Muslims and gays. Police traveled from 200 miles away to question Page, before detaining him in a prison cell with dried feces on the wall and later charging him with incitement to racial hatred.

- In 2001, Gloucestershire Police set up ‘Operation Napkin’ in which senior police officers were sent to ‘ethnic restaurants’ to eat four-course dinners and at the same time listen out for “racist hate speech.” Arrests were made as a result of the program.

- In January 2006 a student who called a mounted policeman’s horse “gay” was arrested under section 5 of the Public Order Act for making homophobic remarks and taken to court.

- Also in 2006, a 14-year-old school girl was arrested in Manchester England for making a “racist comment,” after she refused to work with a group of Asians during a science tutorial because none of them spoke English.

- Reports of “hate crime raids” where PC subversives are rounded up like terrorists by police are commonplace in the UK.

- In the U.S., members of the Repent America organization were arrested and criminally charged, with prosecutors attempting to secure 47-year prison sentences, for the crime of reading Bible passages on the street during Philadelphia’s 2004 “Outfest” gay pride march.

It seems that the only remaining sectors of society it is permissible to lambaste or make fun of is pedophiles and Christians – question any other minority, sexuality, race, gender or religion and the thought police are on your back in an instant. The sheep herd the rest of the sheep and no one is allowed to step outside of the pen.

New hate speech laws are now being passed in the United States – such legislation masquerades as being for the purpose of protecting minorities when in reality it is solely aimed at crushing the free speech of all citizens.

Though we have fundamentally disagreed with several of Michael Savage’s views in the past, the fact that he has been banned from entering the UK, a country that poses as a haven of free speech, once again proves that free speech considered politically incorrect by the government has been all but outlawed.

SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Corporate gatekeeper claims that showing a print out of an article on live TV, something which happens on every mainstream TV news network every day, equates to copyright violation

Prison Planet >> Originally Published 04th May 2009

You Tube has once again proven itself to be a corporate gatekeeper working to destroy free speech and the alternative media after it suspended the popular ‘Alex Jones Channel’ – primarily because Alex Jones showed a print out of a news article during a live show.

The Alex Jones Channel, started by a fan but since embraced as the “official” Alex Jones micro-site on You Tube, has routinely featured in the website’s most popular ranking charts and has collectively attracted millions of views for videos painstakingly catalogued and uploaded over the past two years.

Those videos are now completely gone after You Tube bosses deleted the channel, primarily because the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette complained that Alex Jones had shown a computer print out of one of their articles about the Poplawski cop killer incident last month.

To claim that showing a print out of an article is a violation of copyright is of course completely insane – not a day goes by without TV news anchors showing newspaper stories on live television. Indeed, C-Span’s popular Washington Journal program almost entirely consists of the host showing clippings of newspaper stories every morning.

The real reason for the deletion in undoubtedly the fact that Alex Jones has been on the forefront of exposing stories that have later become major national scandals, such as the MIAC report. Our coverage of the swine flu hoax has again propelled us to the top of the video ranking charts and this no doubt had You Tube’s corporate owners Google running scared. As we have previously documented – Google has intimate ties with the CIA and the military-industrial complex.

To counter such egregious censorship, we are encouraging everyone to subscribe to and bookmark the new Infowarrior channel and alert people to the fact that this will be the new home for Alex Jones on You Tube (at least until they invent a reason to pull that one too).

Visit the channel via this link.

YouTube is engaged in a hunting expedition against Alex Jones and other truth tellers. Truth is no longer acceptable on the site as it transforms itself into a pale reflection of Hulu, a site owned and operated by NBC Universal (GE) and Fox Entertainment Group (News Corp), that is to say a joint venture by a corporation owned by a death merchant (GE manufactures attack helicopters and jet engines) and a disinformation platform owned by a notorious neocon, Rupert Murdoch.

In the Hulu-ized universe, there is no room for truth or alternative media — all channels will contain the same schlock and mindless pablum already available on cable and broadcast television.

YouTube, the emerging Hulu-ized version, has no use for Alex Jones and has specifically targeted him because his videos invariably draw a large (in the millions) number of people. His message is not welcome in a commercial space dominated by Wall Street bankers and the “entertainment” transnational corporations they own, operate, and use to disseminate their opiated propaganda.

YouTube is owned by Google, the mega-internet corporation that has as its motto “Don’t be evil.” Of course, for Google evil is a relative matter, especially when it comes to the corporation’s removal or omission of information from its services, especially in the totalitarian gulag of China.

Google is infamous for its politically motivated removal of information. In February 2003, Google stopped showing the adverts of Oceana, a non-profit organization protesting a major cruise ship operation’s sewage treatment practices. In October 2007, Google banned advertisements from Maine U.S. Senator Susan Collins’ reelection campaign because she criticized the Soros operation MoveOn.org. In April 2008, Google refused to run ads for a UK Christian group opposed to abortion.

In addition to taking down Alex Jones videos, YouTube has blocked videos produced by Wael Abbas, an activist who posted videos of police brutality, and the American Life League which is critical of Planned Parenthood.

YouTube has its agenda… and it fits in snugly with the agenda of the New World Order.

SEE FULL ARTICLE

2nd ‘domestic extremism’ report includes ‘alternative media,’ ‘tax resisters’ in lexicon

WorldNetDaily – Originally Published 02nd May 2009

Two weeks before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security penned its controversial report warning against “right-wing extremists” in the United States, it generated a memo defining dozens of additional groups – animal rights activists, black separatists, tax protesters, even worshippers of the Norse god Odin – as potential “threats.”

Though the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon” was reportedly rescinded almost immediately, Benjamin Sarlin of The Daily Beast recently obtained and published online a copy of the unclassified memo, dated March 26, 2009.

While many of the groups listed in the lexicon – such as Aryan prison gangs and neo-Nazis – may indeed be widely considered extremists, others will likely take offense at being described as a potential “threat.”

For example, the memo defines the “tax resistance movement” – also referred to in the report as the tax protest movement or the tax freedom movement – as “groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified.”

SEE FULL ARTICLE

Global Research >> Originally Published 03rd May 2009

During his April 29, 2009, press conference, President Obama was asked if he would ever authorize or resort to torture. His answer more than implied an acceptance of torture, and true to form it was ignored in conference recaps by the main stream media.

The question was asked by Mark Knoller of CBS News. Here is the exchange (emphasis added):

OBAMA: Mark Knoller?

KNOLLER: Thank you, sir. Let me follow up, if I may, on [the previous] question. Did you read the documents recently referred to by former Vice President Cheney and others saying that the use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” not only protected the nation but saved lives? And if part of the United States were under imminent threat, could you envision yourself ever authorizing the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques?

OBAMA: I have read the documents. Now they have not been officially declassified and released. And so I don’t want to go to the details of them. But here’s what I can tell you, that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn’t answer the core question.

Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn’t answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?

So when I made the decision to release these memos and when I made the decision to bar these practices, this was based on consultation with my entire national security team, and based on my understanding that ultimately I will be judged as commander-in-chief on how safe I’m keeping the American people.

That’s the responsibility I wake up with and it’s the responsibility I go to sleep with. And so I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe. But I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking short cuts that undermine who we are.

And there have been no circumstances during the course of this first 100 days in which I have seen information that would make me second guess the decision that I have made. OK?

So there, in a passing comment, is the answer to the broadest question of all: Would President Obama ever condone “enhanced interrogation techniques” (the favored euphemism for “torture”)? He “will do whatever is required,” especially if he sees “information that would” change his mind about the use of torture.

Is it any wonder President Obama is gun-shy about investigating, interrogating and prosecuting those from the Bush administration who violated laws prohibiting torture?

SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Counter Punch >> Originally Published 03rd May 2009

For five years and eight months, the Bush administration held Qatari national and legal US resident Ali Saleh Kahleh al-Marri without charge or trial as an “enemy combatant” in the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Arrested by the FBI in December 2001, and subsequently charged with crimes including credit card fraud and identity theft, al-Marri, who had arrived in the U.S. with his family on September 10, 2001, to study at Peoria University in Illinois, was subsequently pulled out of the criminal justice system and held as an “enemy combatant,” when further investigation of his computer and other possessions indicated that he had been sent to the U.S. to establish an al-Qaeda “sleeper cell.”

In the last months of his confinement, before the Obama administration swiftly reviewed his case and moved him into the federal court system, al-Marri had been allowed a modicum of personal freedom — such as watching TV and making calls to his family — although he was still held in isolation in a cell block in which all the other cells were unoccupied.

These small kindnesses were, however, not enough to make up for the long years in which his isolation was absolute, and he had, moreover, been subjected to the kind of “enhanced interrogation techniques” authorized by the Office of Legal Counsel in memos released by the Obama administration two weeks ago, which, as confirmed in a Senate Armed Services Committee report (PDF) published last week, migrated to Guantánamo and to Bagram in Afghanistan, and were then adopted in Iraq.

SEE FULL ARTICLE