Which Side Are You On?

Posted on

In San Francisco–Dockworkers Refuse to Cross Picket Line to Unload Israeli Ship 20. Jun, 2010

Activists singing “Which Side Are You On?’ sums up the protest.

Hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters picketed at the Port of Oakland, in California, on Sunday hoping to delay an Israeli cargo ship from docking, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Police estimated that more than 500 demonstrators gathered early Sunday morning at Berth 58, where a cargo ship operated by the Israeli Zim shipping company was scheduled to dock. The crowd dispersed around 10 a.m. but around 200 protesters returned in the afternoon when a second shift of dockworkers were scheduled to work.

The demonstration was staged to protest Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip.

“Our objective was to boycott this ship for 24 hours, and we succeeded in doing that,” said Richard Becker, with the ANSWER Coalition, one of the groups that organized the protest. {more}

This protest gives us the opportunity to take a look at a bit of the past history of Zim Shipping. The 9/11 connection.

That a company moved from one place to another is not news, it happens all the time.

But for a company partially owned by the state of Israel to move out of the WTC one week before the attacks and forfeit $50,000.00 in broken lease fees is news.

And where has Zim moved part of its operations to?

O’Neill’s FBI colleague, Mike Dick, aggressively investigated this Israeli ring before and after 911 . But like O’Neill, he soon found himself removed from his duties on the orders of the then-head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division Michael Chertoff. Dick was very suspicious when Israeli movers quickly moved Zim American Israeli Shipping Company out of its 10,000 square feet of office space on the 17th Floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The partially Israeli state-owned firm forfeited a $50,000 security deposit when it terminated its lease and vacated the building one week prior to 911. According to a non official cover (NOC) CIA source who worked with Dick, Israeli movers moved explosives into the 17th Floor office space after Zim moved out.

After 911, Dick as well as the CIA NOC were harassed by their superiors on orders “from above.” Those orders came from Chertoff. Dick was first relieved of his primary counter-espionage duties, eventually sent to Pakistan to investigate the kidnapping of  Wall Street Journal  reporter Daniel Pearl, and eventually buried in a desk job at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC.

September 4, 2001: Israeli Company Moves Out of WTC

The Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co. moves their North American headquarters from the 16th floor of the WTC to Norfolk, Virginia, one week before the 9/11 attacks. The Israeli government owns 49 percent of the company.

More than 200 workers had just been moved out; about ten are still in the building making final moving arrangements on 9/11, but escape. [JERUSALEM POST, 9/13/2001; JOURNAL OF COMMERCE, 10/18/2001]

The move leaves only one Israeli company, ClearForest, with 18 employees, in the WTC on 9/11. The four or five employees in the building at the time manage to escape. [JERUSALEM POST, 9/13/2001]

One year later, a Zim ship is impounded while attempting to ship Israeli military equipment to Iran; it is speculated that this is done with the knowledge of Israel. [AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, 3/29/2002]
{more – Goon Squad}


Salbuchi – We Will NOT Bow to the One-World Elite

Posted on

This is the second of the “What To Do…” series of Videos prepared by Adrian Salbuchi.
In it, he explains that we need to understand WHAT the One-World Elite want us to do and WHY, and then we must do exactly the OPPOSITE.

The video also describes that Five Basic Steps proposed by the Argentine Second Republic Movement MSRA, Movimiento por la Segunda República Argentina – that are necessary to put Argentina back on its feet again.

Those Five Steps are universally valid, and need only be fine-tuned to each country’s specific problems, needs and characteristics.

Part 1

arsalbuchi you tube channel

Adrian Salbuchi website

11 Reasons You Should Fight Hate Laws

Posted on Updated on

From My Hate Speech…….

by Harmony Grant

Unless we resist now, a thought crimes bureaucracy like those regulating Australia, Canada and Europe will soon rule America. In these nations, federal hate laws have destroyed citizens’ rights to free speech. Punishment of politically incorrect bias is the ultimate goal of this legislation.

A national hate law would shatter Americans’ First Amendment rights, which are now sadly unique among Western democracies. We would lose our precious freedom to express politically incorrect ideas, moral judgments, or whatever personal convictions the reigning thought police deem “hateful.”

Think this can’t happen in America? Think again.

Hostile work environment law and campus speech bans already severely curtail free expression in American workplaces and universities. A US federal hate law would follow the examples of Europe, Canada, and Australia where Christian pastors have been indicted simply for quoting politically incorrect Scripture in their sermons. Iceland’s Orwellian hate law, for example, promises two years’ jail if you verbally “insult” a person on the basis of their nationality, skin color, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

If a federal hate law were passed, free expression across the political spectrum would be threatened. What would happen to blasphemous art like Piss Christ or South Park, to Ann Coulter or Al Franken, to Christians protesting sodomy or homosexuals attacking the Bible? Every American, from left-leaning feminists to red state Republicans, should protest “anti-hate” legislation. If Rosie O’Donnell were an Icelander, she could have been prosecuted for verbal “assault” for her recent statement that radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam. Political activists in nations with hate laws have already been indicted for criticizing Islam, Zionism, and homosexuality. Hate laws threaten your freedom to speak your mind, no matter what’s on it.

Here are some of the most powerful, bipartisan reasons to fight this legislation.

1. Speech bans are a political weapon used by those in power to silence their opponents and politically unpopular minorities.

Hate laws empower the government to enforce the orthodoxy of whoever happens to be in charge. The government can define which biases or “hatreds” are unacceptable and which are okay. For instance, hate laws in our PC age allow women to derogate men but would silence men from legitimate (though possibly hurtful) speech like a discussion of biological gender differences.

In 2004 Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel wrote a hate-filled screed published in a major daily. Her article describes white men as arrogant, sex-obsessed and exploitative, explaining that Rytel just wants to “puke” on them. Stockholm authorities refused to indict Rytel under their hate law, saying it was passed to protect ethnic minorities, not white Swedes. This is one example of speech bans’ uneven enforcement; they are used to punish certain kinds of hate and allow others.

Because almost every exercise of free speech offends someone, government officials would end up enforcing speech bans on the basis of their own bias. Speech bans simply can’t be evenhanded unless everyone is shut up altogether.

In the real world, speech can and does wound. That’s a cost of life. We naturally resent painful realities like economic competition, unfair comments, and hard work. But in each case, the cures we’ve tried were far worse than the sickness. Speech bans might censor some hurtful speech but would empower government to silence minorities and strip the intellectual marketplace of legitimate and needed expression-the kind that creates positive, social change precisely because it is minority and challenges the sins of the group.

2. Hate speech bans don’t work.

Genuine racism and false hatreds exist in this world. Bans on hate speech, however, won’t solve the problem. If you only break off a tick’s body, its head will burrow deep beneath the skin. The only effective response to bad ideas is the truth. We should combat falsehoods with more and freer discussion, not less.

3. Hate laws aren’t necessary.

ADL claims an epidemic of hate sweeps America that can only be fought with stiffened penalties for bias-driven crimes. Yet the FBI’s 2005 Uniform Crime Report shows alleged hate crimes form a tiny 1/15 of 1 percent of all crime in America. Law enforcers’ time would be far better spent fighting the 99.85 percent of crime that’s happening every minute across our nation rather than getting entangled in discerning and testifying against the perceived motivations of a tiny minority of criminals.

Hate laws would require vast government bureaucracies, complicate law enforcement, and distract police and prosecutors from dealing with actual physical crimes. Government and law enforcement should focus on criminal acts, not words or motivations, in a nation where someone is murdered every 22 minutes, raped every 5, robbed every 49 seconds and burgled every 10 seconds. Discerning and prosecuting criminal motivations would only be a good plan if law enforcers had God’s omniscience and time to waste. Ours have neither.

4. Hate speech bans are unconstitutional.

Because the First Amendment underwrites our most precious civil liberty, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against speech bans. In 1972 the Court declared, “[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its contents.” (Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92)

Some forms of speech are restricted; these include threats and “fighting words” that incite “an immediate breach of peace.” But these restrictions are (and must remain) extremely narrow and content-neutral-the government is not allowed to censor speech based on the viewpoint it expresses but only on whether it constitutes an immediate threat. Hate laws, however, would punish the viewpoints expressed in speech, in violation of the Constitution.

International use of ADL-designed hate laws shows that the first kinds of speech to be sanctioned are extreme right, white nationalist speech and Holocaust reductionism. The average person is slow to defend such speech. But hate laws quickly broaden to punish forms of expression the average citizen would never dream of stifling. Sweden’s 2002 modified hate law, for example, explicitly exposes Christian sermons to prosecution!

All forms of controversial political and religious speech are potentially vulnerable to prosecution under hate laws. This contradicts Supreme Court Justice Holmes Jr. who said in 1929, “[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment [loyal defense] than any other, it is the principle of free thought-not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.”

5. Speech bans will be used against the very minorities they were meant to protect.

Speech bans silence some to protect the feelings of others. But when the government has power to silence expression that power can be wielded against the very people who once enjoyed its protection. Liberals, the champions of unrestrained speech in the 1960s, now vote as a bloc in Congress to support speech restrictions. Yet already in countries such as Canada, England and Australia, leftist critics of Islam have become the victims of hate laws, indicted for religious “hate speech.”

Leftist artists Rowan Atkinson and Salman Rushdie realize hate laws don’t just threaten white nationalists like David Duke but liberals as well- they recently fought for revision of Britain’s hate law because it could be used to outlaw art that blasphemes or criticizes religion. Atkinson and Rushdie are just a few of hate laws’ leftist critics who know that persons of all political persuasions have a stake in defeating this legislation.

6. Speech bans chill legitimate and valuable speech.

Under the threat of possible indictment, many people will refrain from discussing controversial but important ideas. Speech bans are often broad and vague, leaving citizens unsure what might get them hauled into court.

This is what has happened in American workplaces, where hostile work environment law has left many employees unsure what they can say. Many Americans avoid all controversial speech and voluntarily refrain from exercising First Amendment rights at work. Hate laws would extend this dangerous minefield to the national political scene.

Legal philosopher Edmond Cahn points out that speech bans would leave our bookshelves empty. “[T]he officials could begin by prosecuting anyone who distributes the Christian gospels, because they contain many defamatory statements not only about Jews but also about ChristiansThen the officials could ban Greek literature for calling the rest of the world “barbarians.” Roman authors could be suppressed because when they were not defaming the Gallic and Teutonic tribes, they were disparaging the Italians. Then there is Shakespeare, who openly affronts the French, the Welsh, the Danes” (Beyond the Burning Cross, E. Cleary, Random House, 1994)

7. Speech bans greatly reduce the possibility of healthy, democratic change.

Criminalizing speech that expresses “hate” or “bias” would require us to outlaw history’s most valuable speech, especially the political and religious speech that threatens social stasis and ignites progress.

Aggressive speech is often the only tool available to political, social, or religious minorities whose access to government lobbying and mass media is limited. Those agitating for social change often need to use inflammatory and even “hateful” language to startle the public into hearing their message. Socrates compared himself to a horsefly biting the lazy flanks of his republic. We should certainly know enough by now to prefer the annoyance of stinging speech (even when we don’t see its value) to a tyrannical majority that plods, unchallenged, toward slavery.

Americans are so used to our mudslinging, no-holds-barred political discourse that we find it hard to envision the way freedom of speech could disappear. But the freedom we enjoy is extremely rare in history, and quickly lost. Free expression for intellectuals is the first thing to go when tyrants rise to power; the history of oppressive regimes makes it clear that freedom of political speech is a delicate exception and the overarching tendency is for majorities or elites to get power and silence all opposition.

8. The government’s interest in reducing violent crime does not outweigh our interest in preserving civil liberty.

Hate law advocates including the ADL argue that hateful speech incites violence, and appeal to the government’s interest in reducing violent crime. But it would be unfair to ban, for instance, white racist speech or Christian sermons against homosexuality without also banning the plethora of other speech that might incite crime. Gangsta rap and videogames would be open to censure; we would also have to ban pornography, especially sadomasochistic porn, which certainly inspires violence against women.

Yet bans against these kinds of speech have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional. The government has an interest in lowering violent crime of all stripes but has always found the value of the First Amendment to be greater. It’s unjust to argue that a few kinds of speech must be banned because they possibly incite violence (e.g., criticism of Jewish actions or homosexuality) yet permit huge categories of speech (violent sexual entertainment) that do the same. This would happen, however, under hate laws’ unequal and partial enforcement. The ADL is not truly driven by the desire to reduce violent crime but rather to enforce a social and political orthodoxy.

Instead of passing a hate law that would shatter the First Amendment and impossibly complicate law enforcement, people concerned with hate-driven crimes should focus on improving our existing justice system and making sure hard crimes don’t go unpunished.

9. Speech bans are offensively paternalistic.

They presume we can’t think for ourselves, reject racist or hateful ideas for ourselves, or deal with the hurt caused by others’ free expression. Are we such children that we need the government to cover our ears? Speech bans especially condescend toward the minorities they portray as helpless victims whose feelings must be sheltered from ideas they can’t combat in a free intellectual market.

10. Speech bans permit government to do something an individual could not morally do.

Frederic Bastiat’s classic treatise on The Law says government exists only to prevent injustice by defending our basic rights to person, liberty, and property. Government does not exist to guarantee our economic outcomes, redistribute our wealth, or protect our psyches. Speech bans would empower government to silence individuals by force. This is immoral whether it’s one person silencing another person or the government silencing a fringe group of dissenters. Human fallibility requires at least enough humility to allow others to question, challenge, and dissent from our ideas. John Stuart Mill explains, “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

11. Speech bans deny self-determination and individual freedom by criminalizing self-expression.

By censoring speech, hate laws censor thought and restrict our access to ideas. This is the essence of mind control. They deny the personal growth that comes from sharing ideas-including hateful, prejudiced, or false ideas-and having them challenged in a free intellectual marketplace.

Hate law speech bans have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional and would rend the very foundation of our freedom and democracy. Far from combating hate, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is actually the most hateful and enslaving legislation to ever reach Congress; it would invade states’ rights in law enforcement, enabling a hate crimes bureaucracy to police our thoughts and expression. Government could censor by force all speech that dissents from the reigning orthodoxy. Every American must speak up now in defense of the freedom for which our forefathers gave their very lives.

Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. It is also one of the most dangerous rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one’s discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. As such, it is one of the most threatened rights, with governments – and even human rights groups – all over the world constantly trying to curtail it.

Make your voice heard today or it will be silenced tomorrow. {Source}

This post was originally from Harmony Grant.


George Orwell
George Orwell, the author of several books including ‘1984’ originated the term ‘thoughtcrime.’ Orwell, also accurately commented, “anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing.” Few realize that this great English author continually questioned all “official” or “accepted” versions of history. At the conclusion of the war in Europe, Orwell even expressed doubt about the Allied account of events and posed the following question in his lesser known book Notes on Nationalism, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear… Is it true about the gas ovens in Poland?” Ironically, those words from Orwell’s pen could have resulted in a prison term for him in many European countries today — for ‘thoughtcrimes.’

Nonviolence and Its Violent Consequences

Posted on

William P. Meyers gives us a detailed look at how the non-violent establishment may be leading us astray.

excerpts from Thomas Paine’s Corner;

The ideology of nonviolence has come to play a major role in political struggles in the United States of America and, indeed, in nations around the world. Almost every organization seeking radical change in the USA has been targeted by organizers for the nonviolence movement.

In this essay it will be argued that nonviolence encourages violence by the state and corporations. The ideology of nonviolence creates effects opposite to what it promises. As a result nonviolence ideologists cooperate in the ongoing destruction of the environment, in continued repression of powerless, and in U.S./corporate attacks on people in foreign nations. To minimize violence we must adopt a pragmatic, reality-based method of operation.

I agree that violence, properly defined, is bad. It should, ideally, not be part of how humans deal with each other. I believe that a society should and can be created where no state, economic entity, or religion uses violence against people. In such a society people can achieve their individual and collective goals through voluntary cooperation. But when you scrape the make-up off the face of the ideology of Nonviolence, there you will find, grinning, the very violence it pretends to oppose.

Much of the ability of the corporate state to neutralize its opposition in the USA (and elsewhere) depends on purposeful confusion of the language used to discuss the issues. It is important to distinguish exactly what is meant by violence, not being violent, and the ideology of Nonviolence. Most people have a pretty clear idea of what violence is: hitting people, stabbing them, shooting them, on up to incinerating people with napalm or atomic weapons. Not being violent is simply not causing physical harm to someone. But gray areas abound. What about stabbing an animal? What about allowing someone to starve because they cannot find means to pay for food? What about coercing behavior through the threat of violence? Through the threat of losing a job?

Violence as a dichotomy, with the only choices being Violence or Non-violence, is not a very useful basis for political discussion, unless you want to confuse people. Violence, the word, must be modified and illustrated to be useful for discussion. In this essay violence against animals, plants, and inanimate objects will be distinguished from violence against humans. Violence, unmodified, will always mean direct violence, actual bashing of people, and will be distinguished from the threat of violence, as when laws are passes with violent penalties attached. Also distinguished will be economic violence, as when economic activity leads to physical harm to humans, such as starvation or disease. Other methods of categorizing violence need to be distinguished, such as violent self-defense against violent predation.

Self-defense must be a right we reserve to ourselves. Otherwise we invite violent attacks on ourselves, our families, our organizations, and our communities. Self-defense keeps violent institutions in check. It must be combined with genuine solidarity. We must stand in solidarity with the ecosystems that are under attack, and with our fellow human beings who are under attack. Even the American middle class understands and approves of the right to self-defense.

The path forward is not easy, but drop the load of dogma called Nonviolence off your back, and you have a lot better chance of getting where you want to go.

Not all groups or individuals must act in the same way or on the same issues. Respect your brother and sister activists’s work, but don’t let them stop you from doing what you know you have to do.

“We are resolved that our group will not use or instigate violence against human beings as a means to achieve its ends. However, we recognize the right of people to self-defense and community defense.”

If a group really understands how Nonviolence has violent consequences, it might adopt a resolution such as:

“Whereas our group is against violent attacks upon individuals and violent attacks upon the environment, and wants to minimize such violence as quickly as possible and abolish it as soon as possible, it is resolved that we reject the ideology of Nonviolence, which encourages violence by unjust institutions.”

I recommend reading the entire essay at Thomas Paine’s Corner.

A Message To The Revolution: The Easiest Way To Destroy A Movement Is To Become It

Posted on

By Harold Gray

JustGetThere | I guess you could say that the media’s new catch phrase these days is Tea Party. A couple of years ago, this tradition was reborn by a nationwide grassroots movement of non-partisan freedom lovers, who are seeking a return to the Constitutional roots of this nation.

Arising first as the Ron Paul Revolution and now the Campaign For Liberty, this diverse and tech-savvy group of creative individuals reignited the idea of liberty in the political collective consciousness. Congressman Ron Paul has stated many times, “freedom is popular“, so as our liberties continue to be curtailed, the resistance grows. Our instinctive reflex is to rebuke these incremental attacks on our un-a-lien-able rights. This human dynamic to rebel against tyranny is also well known by the elite controllers of the world today. The veritable peaceful, organic, spontaneous, synchronistic rebellion by the immensely informed sovereigns, united under one banner of freedom, has to be prevented at all costs by the establishment. A genuine social movement would enable a paradigm shift to occur, which would enhance the publics understanding of the true geopolitical construct that sustains the status quo. This will allow people to stop fixating on presidential appointments and start focusing on the control system itself, and the architects of the global agenda who manipulate both sides of the political spectrum.

We just witnessed the liberal, anti-war, anti-Patriot Act movement, co-opted by the slick packaging of hope and change, coupled with Obama’s cult of personality. Another predictive programming operation has now been implemented in order to imprint a false neo-conservative overlay over the growing liberty movement. This will trigger a negative auto-response by those unaware of the neuro-linguistic keywords used by the media to falsely label the movement, thus preventing the next crucial growth period from happening. The liberal newspapers and blogs are playing the part by going after their predetermined enemy, but now categorizing the Tea Party movement as a pathetic swipe against Obama by the right. I do agree in some sense that the failed and discredited republicans are basing these events around attacking Obama, while ignoring issues such as the private Federal Reserve system. The problem is that the Orwellian newspeak media has left out the fact that the Ron Paul Tea Parties started under the Bush administration, and were not focused on attacking Bush, but instead were exposing the unconstitutionality of the Fed, IRS, NAU, Patriot Act, NAFTA, wars for empire and the list goes on. Our enemy is not a politician, political party or pundit, it’s the corporate governmental mechanisms of control that expand no matter who is in office.

Using history as our guide, we know that the only way for a tyrannical government to prevent an emergent revolution is to co-opt it by managing who is given the media attention, and how the movement evolves and dissolves. This is a covert operation, a false flag in a sense, using the Ron Paul meme as the camouflage for the foxes underneath. A short time ago, the spirit of the RPR was riding the wave of liberty in the political ocean and was all but ignored or ridiculed. Congressman Paul was the only candidate providing the gust of political fresh air, moving away the fog, allowing us to see the mammoth iceberg named, Federal Reserve System, approaching our vessel. Some pundits from the defunct and discredited false left-right paradigm called his supporters domestic terrorists, for questioning the unconstitutional private apparatuses of the government that have a stranglehold on the American people. Now, these same million dollar media spin-doctors, are having Ron Paul on their shows weekly to speak about the Fed and the 12.8 trillion looting that has occurred over the last year.

The partisan press cycle has picked up on these recent Tea Party events since they are organized by the establishment right as opposition to the left, leaving out the non-partisan Constitutional issues at the forefront of the Ron Paul Tea Parties. The groups organizing the Tea Party takeover are asking for tens of thousands of donations to cover the costs of limiting your free speech. The San Antonio Tea Party, which will feature the front man for Tea Party takeover Glen Beck, states what type of signs are acceptable. This blatant hijacking of the patriot, truth and liberty movement, should be further confirmation that the majority of Americans are waking up and shaking off the two-party propaganda tool that is used to divide and conquer. New counter measures had to be taken by the ruling oligarchy to prevent any further movement outside their control system. The current financial crisis has lifted the veil just enough for some light to pass through, so they need to apply a new layer of filters to conceal the truth behind the veil.

Several bills have been introduced by Congressman Ron Paul that would audit the Fed and abolish the private non-federal bank and return the monetary system back to the people through the Constitution. It’s also imperative that in the midst of this controlled demolition of our financial system, that we factually point out those who are responsible, and call for the arrest and punishment for their crimes.

The usurpers are now corralling this new group of truth seekers that we can reach, planting truthseeds, that will unlock their minds from the false reality pushers of the New World Order. We have the documentaries, books, declassified documents, think-tank policy reports, verifiable government documents to show the past, present and future goals of the New World Order. So now is the time to take action, get involved again and begin reaching out to these new minds before they get duped into the false revolution being perpetuated by the mainstream media.

Countless activists in the movement are impeding this infiltration by using the digital printing press, and burning videos that show the creation of the Fed, IRS, and the New World Order agenda for a global currency, enforced by global government run by private international bankers. We now have a chance to breakaway from the staged political system and grow the movement by reaching the newcomers to events such as the Tea Party, End The Fed and July 4th events that are occurring over the course of the year.

by JGT

Source: JustGetThere


Tea Bag left a bad taste in my mouth. (rant)

MSM Tea Bag left a bad taste in my mouth.

The media killed the tea party for me. I should be happy they put their cameras on it a bit….but the media sucked the damn spirit out of it
– maybe before it even started.

The ‘left’ made it a joke, and the ‘right’ acted like they owned the damn party…and to an extent they did.

They hosted it too.

It’s like… “we” organize a whole event together – then “they” step in and take credit for it….and HOST it.

But where were they during the Bush years?!
They are full of shit. This isn’t the first Tea Party! (nor the last.)

They are already thinking about the next election.They are going to spend the next 4 years convincing you that they “are on the side of the people” blah bah baaaaaah…

It’s the new GOP strategy,
because they probably realize in hindsight
that maybe they could have won if they hadn’t thrown Ron Paul under the bus….
and then put the bus in reverse and ran him back over…again & again….

(Remember the FOX debates?! They were pitbulls on Dr.
Paul -though he kicked Ghooliani’s and McCain’s asses in funds AND polls!)

Yeah – the “right” will try to sucker “We the People” in because they’re on “our side” now.

The “left” made the tea party a joke – while they should have celebrated that the people were participating in democracy.

The media shone their twisted light on it – and made it look bad -either way.

The “good” light was coming from FAUX’s Glenn Beck?! So yeah – it was BAD.
(Did he cry again tonight?) 😦

I’m not dissing the peeps of course. I give YOU all many KUDOS and THANK YOU’s. Thank you for participating, while I worked my ass off today….

to pay the IRS.

YOU deserve ALL the credit – not FAUX & the rest of the phonies!

I’m dissing ‘the spin’ and the hosts.


*crickets chirp*

Oh yeah – King George II reigned…..

It’s a catch 22….I want the media there….OBSERVING.

I just don’t want them taking it over and hosting it. Those FAUX bitches were part of the problem that got us here to begin with – in the first place. Though the US mainstream media as a whole, is guilty, if nothing else but by Omission of information & softball questions over the last few years…..

BUT-as long as the media shows up to these events…WORK those muthaf**kin cameras & MAKE GOOD SIGNS.

It’s important that they’re not “right” or “left” oriented….since they’re almost all on the same team:




That’s how I see it anyway.

jerm: rant in j-minor

Glenn Frey – The Heat Is On

Tea Party – Murfreesboro TN 4-15-09

Posted on

A couple of thousand people came out for the Murfreesboro Tea Party. It was a mix of good folks concerned about our country.

The event was organized by Republicans and featured speakers from the party. Marsha Blackburn, congresswoman from Williamson County and lieutenant governor Ron Ramsey were two of the more well known. Anyone who wanted to speak was allowed to and several local people took the opportunity.

A couple of people even stood up and called for auditing and even abolishing the Federal Reserve. That was a pleasant surprise.

Several speakers asked Homeland Security to take their names and put them at the top of their list. It was a common theme among the crowd that we are considered ‘domestic terrorists.’

I was disappointed that none of the speakers came right out and called the two party system a sham. I did hear some calls from the crowd for independent candidates. My feel is that there are many who don’t trust any politician of any party.
No one called the politicians by their rightful name…..criminals.

At the end of the rally many of the folks, at the urging of a speaker and some in the crowd, marched on to the local office of congressman Bart Gordon and sent the message that as an enabler of the bailout and as an entrenched career politician with blatant disregard of his constituents that his days in Washington are numbered. That would be change we can believe in as all incumbents, both Democrat and Republican, need to go.

Bye Bye Bart

OK…these ‘Tea Parties’ have brought out people who have not been inclined to participate in any activism or protest in the past. The numbers greatly exceed those of any anti-war protest that has ever occurred in the middle TN/Nashville area. I guess it says that people get more upset over their money than they do about their government lying us into wars for their profit and empire building.

Hey, it could be start. Once folks become aware of some lies, it opens them up to possibly considering all of the lies. That could really intensify the anger against the liars.

Or maybe it’s just a media creation? A controlled opposition made for TV?

We’ll see if there is a follow-up.

Tea Parties and Blinders

Posted on

Take the blinders off of a work horse and he can see the whole field. This creates a tendency for him to not walk a straight line.

The tax protests of today are being organized and hyped mainly by the right wing repubs who for the last eight years never took any steps to speak out against the crimes of the Bush Administration. They are correct in bashing Obama’s policies but if you look closely at his actions, they are only a continuation of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush destruction of our country. What should be a bipartisan protest has essentially turned into a media event to further polarize those who still insist in participating in the false left/right paradigm.

Local conservative Nashville talk radio is having full time coverage. One of these gung ho tea party radio hosts has continuously called for the bombing of Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons if necessary. He is also a major shill for Israel, praising their bloody actions against Gaza and never questioning the untold billions ‘we’ give them each year in cash and weaponry. These ‘talkers’ also never mention the Federal Reserve except in passing. It’s off limits to discuss the Fed’s role in the theft of trillions of dollars.

A guest on one of the shows this morning was warning that plain clothes cops will be everywhere and that even some homeland security personnel will be watching the Nashville protests. Looking for those ‘domestic terrorists’ as stated in a new DHS report sent out to police all over the country?

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” saying the economic recession, the election of America’s first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says.

“The purpose of the report is to identify risk. This is nothing unusual, the Homeland Security Department did this “to prevent another Tim McVeigh from ever happening again.”{more}

Will Grigg has a good analysis of this DHS propaganda in Revenge of the ‘Waco Gene.’

Not everyone has the blinders on. The tea parties should not be a one issue protest and a great number of people agree with that. Just not enough.

War is missing from the tea parties. The Fox News klan will blast away at Obama’s financial policies and the next minute praise his perpetuation of false wars against ‘terrorists,’ the surge in Afghanistan and sanctions against Iran. Not a mention that the biggest military budget in history for 2010 and the untold costs of the wars of bank and military/industrial profiteers and for Israel over the last eight years may have a bit to do with our economic mess. And they certainly don’t mention that civilians in their native countries are being killed for their ‘freedom.’

There’s never a discussion of how the bank bailouts relate to the intelligence services and the false flag of 9/11. See Greg Bacon’s The CIA front AIG’s Connection to 9/11 and Chris Bollyn’s The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis for some background.

Of course the whole truth won’t be told. That might result in more than just a few tea parties. Propagandists use the same tools as they always have. Tell a little truth, divert and cover-up the real stories, lie and play on the emotions of the gullible. Continuously repeat ‘the Republicans will save you,’ or ‘the Democrats will save you’ but never say that the whole system is a corrupt criminal enterprise.

The tea parties are needed. Perhaps they will morph into a more all encompassing activism that will fight against the real enemies of America.

First the blinders have to come off.



It’s Always Darkest just before it goes Black