All 19 entries tagged Video
View all 641 entries tagged Video on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged Video at Technorati | There are no images tagged Video on this blog
May 16, 2008
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.
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.
February 02, 2008
Writing about web page http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Olbermann_rails_against_Bush_fascist_telecom_0201.html
Olbermann: Bush push for telco immunity 'textbook example of fascism'
David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Friday, February 1, 2008
In a blistering condemnation of President Bush's willingness to go to the wall for corporations he relies on to spy on Americans, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann says the president's message in his State of the Union address calling for immunity of telecommunications companies is a "textbook example of fascism."
Bush and Congressional Democrats are in a pitched fight over whether to free telecoms from legal liability as part of an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The president says the companies should be rewarded for their cooperation in the war on terror; critics say legal immunity would preclude any oversight of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program that ensnared US citizens.
Olbermann accused Bush's threat to veto any bill without immunity of aiding the terrorists, when coupled with his threat that failing to act on a permanent FISA expansion would weaken US national security.
"You told Congress, if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened, and our citizens would be in greater danger," Olbermann said. "Yet you you are willing to weaken that ability. You will subject us, your citizens, to that greater danger. This is simple enough for you to understand. If Congress approves a new FISA act without telecom immunity, and sends it to your desk, and you veto it, you, by your own terms and your own definitions, you will have just sided with the terrorists."
The host further excoriated Bush for refusing to even acknowledge corporate assistance, always couching his calls for immunity by describing companies "believed" or "alleged" to have assisted his still-classified program.
"If you, sir, are asking Congress and us to join you in this shameless, breathless, literal textbook example of fascism, the merged efforts of government and corporations who answer to no government, you still don't have the guts to say the telecom companies did assist you in your efforts?" Olbermann asked. "Will you and the equivocators who surround you like a cocoon never go on the record about anything? Even the stuff you claim to believe in?"
Ironically, Olbermann notes, that Vice President Dick Cheney did go on the record about telecom involvement, when he spoke to conservative talker Rush Limbaugh Wednesday.
"The Vice President probably shouldn�t have phoned in to the Rush Limbaugh Propaganda-Festival yesterday. Sixth sentence out of Mr. Cheney�s mouth: The FISA bill is about, quote, 'retroactive liability protection for the companies that have worked with us and helped us prevent further attacks against the United States,'" Olbermann said. "Oops. Mr. Cheney is something of a loose cannon, of course. But he kind of let the wrong cat out of the bag there."
Some critics dismissed Olbermann as a hyberbolic ranter who relies on over-the-top rhetoric.
"The MSNBC host, who once scolded public figures who use Nazi references, made his own latest invocation of Nazi Germany, as he compared the telecoms to the Krupp family who were convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg," wrote conservative media critic Brad Wilmouth. "Olbermann: 'It begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich trying to protect the Krupp family industrial giants by literally rewriting the laws of Germany for their benefit. And we know how that turned out. Alfred Krupp and 11 of his directors were convicted of war crimes at Nuremburg.'"
Unable to reach a final agreement on how to update FISA and whether to give immunity to the telecoms, Congress this week passed a 15-day extension to the Protect America Act, a temporary FISA extension forced through Congress just before its August recess.
On Monday, the Senate will resume debate on the FISA expansion, after Republicans backed off their demands that all proposed amendments be subjected to a 60-vote majority, according to Congressional Quarterly. The subscription-only Capitol Hill journal reports:
Three amendments to be voted on next week will address retroactive immunity for companies being sued for allegedly assisting the National Security Agency in its warrantless surveillance program.
One, by Democrats Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, would simply remove the immunity provisions, which are a priority for the Bush administration.
Another, by Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., would substitute the federal government as the defendant in the lawsuits. Both would only need a simple majority for adoption.
A third, by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would require the companies to justify their actions before the secret FISA court, which would then decide whether immunity was warranted. It would require 60 votes to be adopted.
Some critics see the move as just another GOP gambit to block immunity from passing.
"It seems rather clear what happened here. There are certain amendments that are not going to get even 50 votes -- including the Dodd/Feingold amendment to strip telecom immunity out of the bill -- and, for that reason, Republicans were more than willing to agree to a 50-vote threshold, since they know those amendments won't pass even in a simple up-or-down vote," writes Glenn Greenwald, a prominent blogger covering the FISA fight.
"But then, there are other amendments which might be able to get 50 votes, but cannot get 60 votes -- such as Feinstein's amendment to transfer the telecom cases to the FISA court and her other amendment providing that FISA is the "exclusive means" for eavesdropping -- and, thus, those are the amendments for which the GOP insisted upon a 60-vote requirement."
During his comment, Olbermann reiterated the revelation from former AT&T technician Mark Klein, who blew the whistle on his former company's collusion with the National Security Agency, that he connected a "Big Brother machine" to funnel every piece of communication crossing AT&T's wires into an NSA database.
"This isn't about finding that kind of needle in a haystack, this isn't even about finding that haystack" Olbermann said. "This is about scooping up every piece of hay there ever was."
This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast January 31, 2008.
January 27, 2008
We already knew this from reports at the time but now it's on the History Channel