All 30 entries tagged Politics
View all 892 entries tagged Politics on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged Politics at Technorati | There are no images tagged Politics on this blog
May 02, 2008
Psychological influence of uniforms cited by authorities
Recent news that police in Massachusetts are to switch to black, military-style uniforms in an effort to appear more authoritative and aggressive highlights a more general move to militarize police in America and affect a "post 9/11" psychology of fear.
Last week an AP report headlined Massachusetts Police Get Black Uniforms to Instill Sense of 'Fear' detailed the move:
Sgt. John Delaney told a city council hearing Wednesday that the stark uniforms send a message to criminals that officers are serious about making arrests.
Delaney said a sense of "fear" has been missing for the past few years.
In recent years police in cities all over America have been increasingly seen in all black attire.
The introduction of black police uniforms has an ominous precedent. In 1932 Hitler's propaganda chief Heinrich Himmler famously introduced black uniforms for SS police, tailored to project authority and foster fear and respect. The choice of color was not by chance.
It is believed that the Nazis took the idea from the "blackshirts" in Italy years before the creation of the SS.
A 2001 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin has summarized research on police uniforms and noted the psychological influence they have:
Research has suggested that clothing has a powerful impact on how people perceive each other. The police officer's uniform has a profound psychological impact on others, and even slight alterations to the style of the uniform may change how citizens perceive them.
The studies cited found that black uniforms elicit emotions of anger, hostility, dominance, and aggression:
Applying the results of these studies in color to the police uniform suggests that darker police uniforms may send negative subconscious signals to citizens. A dark police uniform may subconsciously encourage citizens to perceive officers as aggressive, evil, or corrupt and send a negative message to the community.
Even more interesting are further findings that suggest both police officers and citizens are more likely to engage each other violently when the authorities come dressed in black:
The experiment with the colored jerseys also suggests that police officers in dark uniforms subconsciously may act more aggressively; therefore, departments should consider modifying police uniform colors.
The police uniform also may influence the safety level of the officer who wears it. Dark colored uniforms may elicit subconscious negative feelings from citizens, who may perceive the officer as aggressive, and subsequently, encourage them to consider violent action when confronted by the police.
Research has also shown that police uniforms with a lighter half have been ranked by citizens as "good, honest, helpful, and competent, the lighter colored sheriff's uniform rated noticeably higher for warmth and friendliness".
It is telling that police have ditched these in favor of the all black approach.
The same black uniform tactics have been adopted by police forces in the UK, who have ditched traditional uniforms in favor of black roll-necks and black combat trousers.
MPs have spoken out against the move, with David Jones, Conservative MP for Clwyd West describing the uniforms as "sinister".
"I think that the connotations of black shirts are obvious to anybody. They've got a kind of fascist, militaristic appearance." Jones commented at the time.
When the role of the police in a supposedly free country is to admittedly appear dangerous and to instill fear, in tandem with enhanced powers and more draconian practices, history tells us that something is most definitely not right.
May 01, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
"I wouldn't expect anything less than a fair and balanced coverage of my campaign."
April 30, 2008
State Sen. Karen Johnson explains why she went public with questions on 9/11
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
An Arizona state Senator who went public with questions over the official government version of events on 9/11 has provided further details of her position and why she chose to make her views known.
"I guess I define myself as a truth seeker, that is what I want, I want to find the truth." says Senator Karen Johnson, representative of Mesa’s District 18 for nearly two decades.
In an short interview (see video below), the Republican Senator explained that in the many in the Arizona legislature have privately told her they agree with her position but are too afraid or are unable to start asking the same questions themselves. Johnson echoed her previous statements when she told Capitol reporters "There are many of us that believe there's been a cover-up."
"There are so many unanswered questions regarding 9/11 and there never ever would have even been a Commission called for by Mr Bush and the Federal Government if it hadn't have been for the Jersey Girls." Johnson said, referring to the activist group of widowed mothers and wives from New Jersey and New York who have continued to question the events of 9/11.
"When Bush appointed Henry Kissinger, of all people, to head up that Commission, those Jersey Girls asked for a press conference with him. They went in there and started asking him about all his ties with the Bin Laden family... and he backed down." She continued.
Senator Johnson was attacked by the media for voicing her questions over 9/11 last week in the midst of a controversial debate concerning a 9/11 memorial in Arizona which contains phrases and thoughts of residents there.
The Arizona state Senate voted on legislation concerning what sort of remembrance phrases the 9/11 Memorial should include. The legislation would have extracted some locutions that were critical of the U.S. and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee had the measure passing narrowly - until it came to Johnson, whose vote against changing the memorial's phrases created a tie, killing the legislation for now.
As Johnson explains in the video, the monument was privately funded, placed on privately owned land with no State involvement. Therefore, in her opinion, the State should not claim authority over what appears on the monument, and should not claim to preside over people's opinions of the 9/11 attacks.
As shown in the video below, some of the phrases also hint at government prior knowledge of the attacks and the backing off of the intelligence agencies in the months prior to 9/11. Thanks to Karen Johnson these will remain on the monument for now.
"Who are we as a legislature to tell these private folks what they can and can't do with that monument?" Johnson commented.
Watch the Interview with Karen Johnson:
Sen. Johnson is renowned for her outspoken politics and devotion to the US constitution.
However, she will not continue in office after this year despite serving nearly two decades, because as she explains:
"I can't handle serving any longer with the folks that I sit with... The majority of them are more worried about passing a bill about talking on your cell phone as you go down the freeway than the fact that our country is falling down around us."
April 28, 2008
Ex MI6 boss, Richard Dearlove, thinks he can get away with threatening the British public. A 42-day detention period is required to stop "Al Qaeda" wiping out a city, apparently. Who exactly had the alleged "mastermind" of the 7/7 bombings under their wing again? Could it have been the corrupt, unaccountable organisation you used to direct?
Your contempt for our rights will not go unnoticed, Mr. Dearlove.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
1000+ Iraq Troops and Veterans attempt suicide per month (and steadily increasing). Many of them are successful. 100,000+ Iraqi Veterans have been clinically diagnosed with PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). Most of these veterans are suicidal, addicted to illicit drugs or addicted to prescription drugs.
Little does the common war-monger know that by "supporting the troops" they are supporting the slaughter, drug addiction, disfiguration and suicide of the troops. If the war-mongers really supported the troops they would be calling for an end to the war. Don't let them fool you. They do not "support the troops". They only support the murder and suicide of the troops.
April 21, 2008
Paul Joseph Watson
During an attempt to assault activists who asked him a question in Dublin, a European MEP tripped and fell on his face and the entire incident was caught on camera, but that didn't stop the media from reporting that an "anti-EU gang" of thugs had screamed abuse and assaulted Proinsias de Rossa - in a crass attempt to smear opposition to the European Union.
The video shows de Rossa being approached slowly by the cameraman and another We Are Change Ireland activist who asks, "Why did you do it?" to which de Rossa responds, "When are you going to grow up?"
Earlier, de Rossa had called for Irish citizens to support the sovereignty-stripping EU Lisbon Treaty, which is a re-packaged version of the European Constitution that was already summarily rejected by voters upon introduction.
The two begin walking down the street and de Rossa is the first to physically put his arm on the activist as he moves him out of the way to cross the street.
De Rossa then lunges for another cameraman behind him and then begins running towards him.
De Rossa clearly then appears to trip and fall to the ground as he reaches out for the cameraman.
We Are Change Ireland flagged down a police van themselves to report the incident and, even as media reports are forced to admit, after questioning eyewitnesses, the police made no arrests. If anyone should have been arrested for assault it was de Rossa himself.
Watch the video.
Bearing in mind what actually happened as seen on the video, look at how the media reported the incident.
Under the headline Anti-EU gang assaults Irish MEP, the BBC reported, "Irish former minister Proinsias de Rossa was knocked to the ground after a public meeting in Dublin on Monday night, according to the Labour Party."
The Labour Party being bastions of honesty, of course.
"Labour leader Eamon Gilmore said the MEP was confronted by a group of men who screamed abuse at him before knocking him over and pinning him down," added the report.
Watch the video again. Who exactly knocks de Rossa to the ground? The invisible man? It is clearly de Rossa's out of control temper and his shock at the audacity of citizens asking questions of a politician that led to him falling flat on his face.
The Belfast Telegraph went a step further, claiming de Rossa had been "attacked".
Again - police investigated the incident and interviewed eyewitnesses before making no arrests, proving that no "assault" or "attack" on de Rossa ever took place. No crime had been committed.
The Associated Press seized on the purported "assault" to smear anti-EU groups.
"The episode highlighted hostility in Ireland's hard left to the European Union, which requires a "yes" vote from Ireland for the treaty, the product of several years' negotiations, to become law," according to the report.
Again this reflects a fundamental ignorance of the fact that We Are Change Ireland were born out of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which revolves around the central issue of the 9/11 attacks, and not any prescribed political partisanship.
Why were the media so keen to perpetuate such a giant fraud and smear the activists as violent thugs while exalting the pro-EU MEP as an innocent victim?
Because a "no" vote in Ireland, the only EU member nation to allow a referendum on the issue, would signal the death knell for the Lisbon Treaty, and the press - especially the BBC who routinely propagandize for the expansion of the EU and have received over £141 million in loans and grants from Brussels - have to engage in dirty tricks and smear campaigns to try and reverse public opinion which has always been anti-European Union.
Writing about web page http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?hp
April 11, 2008
John Bolton: "This is exactly why we voted against the new human rights council."
Thursday, April 10, 2008
An official in the newly formed UN Human Rights Council has called for a fresh investigation into the events of 9/11 in order to examine the possible role that neoconservatives may have played in the attacks.
The New York Sun picked up the story today, explaining that Richard Falk, a professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights was assigned to a new position within the council on March 26.
His role is to report on human rights in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.
Two days prior to the announcement, Falk appeared on former University of Wisconsin lecturer Kevin Barrett's radio show and spoke of how he is keen to see a fresh investigation into 9/11 in order to address inconsistencies in the official account of what happened.
Mr. Falk told Barrett, "It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don't think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess."
Falk previously penned the preface to Professor David Ray Griffin's groundbreaking 2004 book The New Pearl Harbor, in which the theologian catalogued scores of unexplained facets surrounding 9/11 and inconsistencies in the official government version of events.
Falk has also published a number of notable books and essays analyzing the legality of the Vietnam War and other military operations, including the Iraq invasion.
A year ago he played a prominent role in a Citizens' hearing on the legality of the Iraq War as a tribunal testifier. Of the Invasion he has previously written:
"inescapable that an objective observer would reach the conclusion that this Iraq war is a war of aggression, and as such, that it amounts to a Crime against Peace of the sort for which surviving German leaders were indicted, prosecuted and punished at the Nuremberg trials conducted shortly after the Second World War."
Falk's appointment to the Human Rights Council has also hit headlines due to the fact that he has previously slammed the Israeli occupation of Palestine and compared the Zionist government's treatment of Palestinian Arabs to the Nazi treatment of Jews in the holocaust.
The Israeli government announced Tuesday that it will deny Falk a visa to enter Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.
Despite this and the now customary attacks from the Anti-Defamation League, Falk has stood by his comments, telling the BBC: "If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison,"
The New York Sun reports that former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton commented on Falk's recent appointment to the Human Rights Council: "This is exactly why we voted against the new human rights council."
Bolton is clearly worried that like Falk, some of the officials within the council are legal experts that recognize war crimes when they see them and may actually attempt to do something about it.
Last month Japanese member of Parliament Yukihisa Fujita told the Alex Jones Show that a potential new investigation of the 9/11 cover-up may be coordinated by individuals within the United Nations.
March 29, 2008
David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Forty years after Democratic rising star Robert F. Kennedy was killed at a Los Angeles hotel during his presidential run, new evidence suggests the man serving a life sentence for his murder did not fire the shots that killed the charismatic senator.
Forensic scientists met at a conference in Connecticut this week to discuss their independent findings that cast serious doubt on the Kennedy assassination. Sirhan Sirhan is serving a life sentence in Kennedy's death, but the conference presenters argue he could not have fired the fatal shot that killed Kennedy.
One investigator, Dr. Robert Joling, has studied the Kennedy assassination for nearly four decades. He determined the fatal shot came from behind Kennedy, while Sirhan was four to six feet in front of the senator and never got close enough to shoot him from behind, an NBC affiliate reports.
Analysis by another forensics engineer, Philip Van Praag, of a Canadian journalists tape recording, known as the Pruszynski recording, determined that 13 shots were fired while Kennedy was killed, although Sirhan's gun only held eight bullets, according to the NBC reporter. This suggests that a second shooter was involved in the assassination.
Van Praag's analysis led him to conclude that a second gun that was fired matched a type owned by one of the security guards in Kennedy's entourage.
"When that security guard was asked about owning that gun at first he admitted, 'Yes I owned that kind of gun but I got rid of it two months before the assassination.'" correspondent Amy Parmenter said on MSNBC Wednesday. "It turns out upon further investigation, in fact, he did not get rid of that gun until five months after the shooting. Of course, you can see where we're going with this. ... That security guard, was in fact behind Senator Kennedy when the fatal shot was fired."
This video is from MSNBC News Live, broadcast March 26, 2008.
March 25, 2008
Homeland Security, weapons company express desire to use "Security Bracelet" in law enforcement, crowd control
Paul Joseph Watson
The Department of Homeland Security is pursuing the introduction of a device known as the Security Bracelet, a wearable tag that would allow authorities to inflict pain compliance on suspects from a distance, while also recommending law enforcement applications and potential use in "crowd control situations".
Introduced ostensibly to combat airline terrorism, a creepy promo video courtesy of the patent holders Lamperd FTS exploits shocking 9/11 imagery to push the torture device as a solution to countering potential hijackers by inflicting "Electro-Muscular Disruption" and presumably giving the rest of the passengers a debilitating shock at the same time.
Watch the clip.
"Upon activation of the electric shock device, through receipt of an activating signal from the selectively operable remote control means, the passenger wearing that particular bracelet receives the disabling electrical shock from the electric shock device. Accordingly, the passenger becomes incapacitated for a few seconds or perhaps a few minutes, during which time the passenger can be fully subdued and handcuffed, if necessary. Depending on the type of transmission medium used to send the activating signal, other passengers may also become temporarily incapacitated, which is undesirable and unfortunate, but may be unavoidable," reads the patent for the device.
The claim that such a shock would "not cause permanent injury" is an insult to the hundreds of Taser victims who have lost their lives to so-called "non-lethal weapons" - devices whose abuse by authorities has led groups like Amnesty International to condemn them as an affront to basic human rights.
Why the terrorists wouldn't just remove the bracelet as soon as they boarded the plane isn't explained, but the perceived fallibility of the device isn't the issue - the heart of the matter is the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has publicly expressed an interest and is seeking funding to utilize the device against the "criminal element".
Letters exchanged between the company and DHS official Paul S. Ruwaldt show Homeland Security's intention to utilize the device for border control and, "indeed for anywhere else for which the temporarily restraint of large numbers of individuals in open area environments by a small number of agents or Law Enforcement Officers".
The letters confirm that funding is being sought for the widespread deployment of the device and that several state and local authorities have expressed an interest, as well as the DOD, the CDC, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture Forestry service as well as unnamed law enforcement agencies.
In addition, according to the biography of Barry Lamperd, the owner of the company behind the device, carried on his own website, "His current focus is on products related to the use of less lethal weapons in crowd control situations".
Since revelations about warrantless secret surveillance of all U.S. citizens as well as millions of innocent Americans being included on the terror watch list have come to light, the new legal precedent of guilty until proven innocent has all but been established in the "land of the free".
So why not force protesters who insist on expressing what they claim is "freedom of speech" to wear the Security Bracelet? If they step outside of their free speech zone - zap them! How about making everyone who attends a Presidential inauguration or speech wear the bracelet in the interests of national security?
Since "crowd control situations" can easily be interchanged with "unauthorized demonstrations," why not force dissenters and undesirables to wear the bracelet so as to prevent civil unrest in times of national emergency?
Why not go the whole hog and just tag babies from birth in order to combat violent crime and robbery? If a crime is in progress, the police could just activate the shock from a safe distance and save lives.
The cost of enforcing any of these measures would of course be the complete and unmitigated death of any notion of liberty and freedom, but such concepts don't seem to concern advocates of the device.
Judging by comments left by You Tube viewers, most people are not going to "happily opt" to submit to the measures, as the promotional video claims, with respondents agreeing in unison that the device itself is "a lot scarier than terrorists".
"I'd rather be killed by terrorists then spend my life tracked and controlled by government "benefactors". Freedom always carries with it some risk of things going wrong.Who trusts the government enough to allow them to track citizens? If they start implementing this kind of technology, I just won't fly," writes one.
"What better way to assist terrorists (be they called "terrorists" or "police") to use you as tools at will than to do this? If "they" can subdue a few terrorists, than "they" can just as easily subdue the entire plane and use it as they see fit. Terrorists are scary? Please. Police (by all their names: KGB, SS, CIA, FBI) have killed far, far more people than any "terrorist" ever dreamed. So, lets give THEM more power, eh?" cautions another.
"Only the worst coward would subject himself to the indignity of such a device in the name of "security." Some things are more important than security, and one of those things is freedom. Free people do not allow themselves to be treated as criminals, guilty until proven innocent," writes another.
The way in which the promo invokes horrific images of 9/11 to sell the product also leaves viewers revolted.
"Fearmongering to sell a product. No thanks. But lets get them to keep demonstrating how the shocking someone part works on their own employees!" writes one respondent.