Rosie O'Donnell vs. the weasels in the corporate media

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Cheney to be Impeached?

On April 17, 2007, Rep. Dennis Kucinich informed his congressional colleagues by letter that he was filing articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a timely step in the right direction, in an attempt to rid this nation of the cabal of thugs and crooks occupying the White House, Cheney being the junta's head honcho.

Thankyou Rep. Kucinich. And while you are at it, it is imperative that Cheney be required to testify, under oath, about the status of US air defenses on the morning of 9/11. He must also disclose the full details of the numerous drills and wargames under his command that morning which effectively took a large proportion of the US air defense capability North into Canada and Alaska, and East out over the North Atlantic, allowing four rogue airliners to fly freely across US airspace, unhindered and unchallenged, for up to an hour and a half, in flagrant violation of all standard procedures and protocols. Furthermore, Cheney should be required to provide details as to his whereabouts on the morning of 9/11; Norman Mineta informed the 9/11 Commission, under oath, that Cheney was in the PEOC under the White House at 9-20, corrobrated by other witnesses , whereas Cheney lied to the Commission, saying that he didn't arrive there until about half an hour later.

This is just the tip of a very ugly iceberg. We the people are his bosses, and he needs to be accountable to US.

Unfortunately, the weasels in the Democratic Party leadership, who shall remain nameless, are not lending their support. Apart from having both Cheney and Bush impeached (implying a "President Pelosi", which would appear a somewhat engineered situation), it makes me wonder why the leadership of the "opposition" is taking the extraordinary step of supporting Cheney, a true enemy of the State.

In the meantime, some timely advice for Rep. Kucinich: Remember what happened to the unfortunate Senator Paul Wellstone (MN), who was killed in a light plane "accident" (!) shortly before the Iraq war started. Some of those in recent history who have done the most work for the most worthy of causes, have paid the ultimate price for their patriotism and humanity.

Love me, love my gun.

How many people have to die in a firearms attack, in order to classify it as a act of terrorism? 100? A million?

Or is it a case that in the US, no amount of firearms deaths could ever be classified as "terrorism" because ...

(1) we have a dysfunctional 230 year addiction, and love affair with guns.. and
(2) we are fighting a war against terrorism.

That would be shooting our culture in the foot.

Does anyone honestly think that we won't see a repeat of this kind of violence, all because we wrung our hands for a couple of weeks, shed some crocodile tears and said "oh how sad, oh how tragic", before the collective amnesia sets in and the story disappears from the headlines?

"The definition of insanity is the repetition of the same action expecting a different result." John Laroquette. In cases involving terrorism by the gun, just substitute "action" for "inaction".

Idiotsville, anyone?

VA Tech tragedy. :(

Every time there's a horrible multiple shooting incident like this, there's a few weeks of heated discussion over what to do about it, and how to prevent the next one. Each time, it's all hot air and no action, apart from the predictable investment in more security and more surveillance (which any determined shooter can evade). The causes of what triggers some people to "lose it completely" remain in place, unaddressed. Subsequent newsworthy events then cause our memories to blur, and then we forget... until the next time. Repeat cycle.

Because 32 people were killed in one incident, it makes the national headlines (as well it must, it's a ghastly tragedy. But what about all the 100 people who die by the gun every day in the U.S. whose deaths usually go unreported in the national media (unless its a celebrity of course)? Our society is not only sick, but in denial. It reminds me of the strange feel-good ritual we go through each year by acknowledging (on the media) the plight of the homeless at Christmas.. and then for the rest of the year, pretending the problem doesn't exist....

GM foods, bees, DNA patents, cronyism, and disaster in the making.

Bee populations throughout the US and the industrial world are dying off at alarming rates, with some nations reporting losses of up to 80%, and nobody is really sure why. Last night, I watched the documentary movie "The Future of Food" It's probably one of the scariest and most sinister documentaries of recent times, and shows Monsanto (etc) for what they really are: "planetary terrorists". But nobody in the mainstream media is talking about it. If it can be shown that GM foods are related to this bee population decline, then the reasons for the media staying mum about it are obvious. The three government agencies responsible for making sure that the food reaching America's dining rooms and restaurants is safe to consume, namely the USDA, EPA and FDA, are stacked with Monsanto board members. They probably play golf and sit on the same boards as other major players in the media as well; there is only one degree of separation in the world of the corporate elite. Hence, the nefarious activities of Monsanto and other major agribusiness and chemical/GE corporations are not only immune from mainstream media coverage, but also immune to any form of legal challenge. Monsanto is attempting to patent life itself, and soon these patents may extent to the DNA sequences of higher animals and even humans, if they get their way. And from the conduct of US senior judges involved in making legal decisions (100% behind Monsanto etc), do not be surprised if the very worst happens.

The case of Josh Wolf.

Read this link here.

Every journalist is political. And the mainstream media journalists are bound, not by their personal political convictions, but by the policies set in the boardrooms of their corporate employers. We all know that, or at least *should*. Violent beatings by police on protesters greatly outnumber violence committed by protesters; I have attended hundreds of protests in the last 6 years since the Bush regime started, and I have never once seen a bona fide protester deliberately engaging in violence against police officers *without provocation*. Those are the key phrases: "bona fide" and "without provocation". I have witnessed numerous attacks on protesters by police, and if someone defends himself, as opposed to the recommended "going limp", he will be charged with assaulting a police officer. A count of all the hospitalizations and wrecked cameras wrecked by "overzealous policing" (read mindless thuggery protected by the blue uniform), especially since the Bush regime's onset, would be spectacular.

Violence committed by stooges, however, is commonplace. An prime example of this was in the 1999 when the mainstream media were led by the nose to the downtown area, where masked thugs in the guise of "black block anarchists" were deployed by parties unfamiliar to the organizers of the demonstration, for whom a peaceful action was of an obvious and paramount priority. These individuals, with the mainstream media TV cameras ready on site with cameras rolling, threw rocks and bricks at the windows of many downtown Seattle businesses, including McDonald's and other high profile institutions. The scenes of mayhem and destruction, faithfully recorded to videotape, were duly broadcast on prime time television, and repeated over several days, effectively branding the entire demonstration as a violent affair run by rowdy and criminal elements. The mission was to trash the "anti-WTO" image in the minds of the general public that the "globalists" were "the good guys" and the demonstrators were all a bunch of out-of-control hooligans. Mission accomplished, with the aid of the Seattle Police Dept?

It is plain that urban police departments have deliberately engaged in unconstitutional activity, in alignment with the causes that attract popular demonstrations. The anti-FTAA protests in Miami 2003 was a prime example such of police tactics characteristic of tinhorn dictatorships. From the Save Our Civil Liberties website, comes the following sinister revelation:
"For almost 2 years, the Miami Police Department has desperately been trying to ensure that the 2003 FTAA police operations plan remains a secret, even from the city's own Civilian Investigative Panel which is charged with investigating the large scale police brutality that took place on November 20-21, 2003. MPD has finally revealed it's reasoning for the secrecy: releasing the plan could "jeopardize future operations nationwide" because "authorities THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY have adopted the plan". This is a stunning, yet frightening admission, as it confirms the deep suspicions of political activists who have personally witnessed the same repressive tactics travel from city to city, protest to protest. This also lends further support to the ominous statements made earlier by Miami Police Chief John Timoney, that the FTAA was "the first big event for Homeland Security...the first real realistic run-through to see how it would work."

In this case, Miami Police Chief John Timoney authorized state sponsored terrorism on US citizens peacefully going about their constitutional right to freedom of assembly and expression.

Question: How often have you, the reader, watched on mainstream television news, unprovoked police violence upon protesters? Here's your answer: Probably never, because of the unwritten rule. But the reality is sadly very different. Even if Wolf's actions could be construed as "biased", the balance of bias in mainstream media reportage towards "the status quo" and conservative or corporate causes, remains stunningly lopsided, for a so-called "democracy".