-
-
related tags:
- Revolutionary
- Egypt
- global uprising
- National Survival
- #jan25
- mubarak
- Loss Causation
- Adrian Baschuk
- korovo
- treason uncloaked
- Freedom
- Tunisia
- Wael Ghonim
- Nothing but the truth
- Anonymous
- promise
- revolt
- The Truth
- Anarchy
- Limited Government
- #Egypt
- Protest
- Liberty
- Anonymous Movement
- Arab Spring
- Democracy
- Ron Paul
- Libya
- Libertarian
- Government
- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
- Empowerment
- Dictatorship
- NOW
- Uprising
- Truth Matters
- occupy wall street
- Crisis
- Rocky Anderson
- Constitution
- rebellion
- Lenin
- anarchist
- communist
- shelter
- 2012
- situation
- Communism
- Fiat Money
- Egyptian protests
tagged w/ Revolution
-
Flashback: 1957 CIA-MI6 Plot to Terrorise Syria, Spark Fake Revolution and Assassinate Leadership
Same as Iran 1979, same Libya 2011, same as it ever was
*******
Ben Fenton
The Guardian
Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:49 CDT
Nearly 50 years before the war in Iraq, Britain and America sought a secretive "regime change" in another Arab country they accused of spreading terror and threatening the west's oil supplies, by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures.
Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.
The plans, frighteningly frank in their discussion, were discovered in the private papers of Duncan Sandys, Mr Macmillan's defence secretary, by Matthew Jones, a reader in international history at Royal Holloway, University of London.
Although historians know that intelligence services had sought to topple the Syrian regime in the autumn of 1957, this is the first time any document has been found showing that the assassination of three leading figures was at the heart of the scheme. In the document drawn up by a top secret and high-level working group that met in Washington in September 1957, Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus.Same as Iran 1979, same Libya 2011, same as it ever was ******* Ben Fenton The... more-
- maasanova
- added this
- 1 day ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Ron Paul: More Delegates than Guessed
Ron Paul has always had a cadre of supporters who have dedicated themselves only to him. These supporters are not “conservative” in the usual sense. They are libertarians. So, too, is Ron Paul himself. This page at OnTheIssues.org lists every place where Ron Paul stands on every issue today. Some might look “liberal” to a not-careful observer. Some look “conservative.” And some are well and truly radical, in the literal sense of that word. Ron Paul wants to tear out certain American institutions by their roots (Latin radix, radicis a root), because he holds them the greatest threats to human liberty. The Federal Reserve is his un-favorite bête-noire.
Ron Paul cannot explain, in thirty-second sound bites, why and how his radical plans would work better for the American people than the institutions he fights. He, and those who support him, know this. They also have run their campaign on a shoestring budget that simply does not allow the kind of advertising that a Mitt Romney could run. (Rick Santorum quit the race for that reason: he couldn’t raise the money.)
So Ron Paul decided to concentrate on States that chose their delegates in caucus, not in binding winner-take-all primaries. Thus far, The New York Times shows Mitt Romney leading with over 600 delegates, and Ron Paul with only 52. Two things are wrong with those numbers:
They show only the delegates that State parties say they have assigned thus far. Many of those States still haven’t allocated all their delegates.
The tallies that some State Republican authorities have released, are only guesses. As such they might be false or misleading.
Here’s why. The primaries in most States (other than Florida and other “winner-take-all” States) are mere beauty contests. After the primaries ended, the real work of choosing county delegates to State conventions began. So while supporters of other candidates left the room, not wanting to stay up all night to discuss “boring Party business,” the Ron Paul cadres stayed on. Under the rules, he who stays, votes. He who does not stay, may not vote, not even by proxy.
Ron Paul gets results
Over the weekend, reports came in from Examiner.com (Wilmington, DE and their National edition). They showed Ron Paul winning delegates in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota that everyone thought would go to Romney or Santorum. Santorum then quit the race last week, and never said how he expected “his” delegates to vote.
The two Examiners seemed to think that many of them would vote for Ron Paul and not for Mitt Romney. In any event, Ron Paul knew that caucuses would select delegates, because primaries were non-binding. Not only are those primaries non-binding; they have no influence on what caucuses do.
The Colorado results are most interesting. Caucuses chose 36 delegates. Sources did not seem to agree on how they would vote. But those who investigated the matter closely, realized what had happened. RealClearPolitics, for instance, says that Mitt Romney had the most delegates. In fact, he “won” 13 delegates, against 6 for Santorum. The caucuses chose 17 others who did not pledge their votes. But where do their loyalties lie? Tom Mullen at The Washington Times thinks he knows. Todd King of Lewis, CO, one of those “unpledged” delegates, told Mr. Mullen this:
13 unpledged delegates, including me, will vote for Ron Paul on the first ballot. One unpledged delegate will vote for Santorum. The remaining three unpledged delegates, also known as the ‘delegates at large,’ are the state GOP Chairman, the state GOP National Committeeman and the National Committeewoman. Those three will likely vote for Romney. They usually vote for the frontrunner so as not to make waves.
So Ron Paul can count on as many delegate votes as Mitt Romney can, or almost as many, depending on how the super-delegates vote.
Missouri Republicans changed their caucus rules, under pressure from many who felt that the Republican “establishment” wanted them to shut-up and let them do things their way. Ron Paul hopes to “dominate” in Missouri when Republican voters there meet in caucus this Saturday and in June.
The Ron Paul campaign flatly disputes the AP/New York Times delegate tally. In March they showed the true delegate strength as:
Mitt Romney: 425
Rick Santorum: 361
Ron Paul: 225
Newt Gingrich: 165
One commenter on that page explained how Ron Paul’s supporters get delegates:
This isn’t for sissies. You have to go to the meetings, meet people and tell them your name so they’ll remember you when it comes time to vote in delegates, etc. And frankly, it’s boring. I listened to a long speech tonight and there were a million other things I would’ve rather been doing (like reading on here or griping with my RP friends on Facebook).
If those who support the other three candidates are less willing to listen to “boring…long speech[es]” and forgo their “million other things [they'd] rather [do],” then of course they’re losing delegates. They leave the field to Ron Paul.
Summary
Ron Paul’s supporters have always made fun of those who dismiss Ron Paul and his campaign too soon. They might be correct. For centuries English speakers have warned one another:
Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.
Has the Republican National Committee made that mistake? Maybe.
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/04/16/news/ron-paul-delegates-guessed/Ron Paul has always had a cadre of supporters who have dedicated themselves only to... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 20 comments
-
-
If Ron Paul Were US President…
Imagine a possible future where Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination and goes on to beat Barack Obama come November.
Of course, all the establishment pundits tell us that’s implausible, if not downright impossible. And if Paul does win, do you think they’ll eat their words? No way: the papers, airwaves, and cyberspace will brim with grumbles, moans, and howls about the terrible fate that has befallen America and the West.
As usual, the pundits will be wrong.
Of course, Ron Paul has made a variety of promises to make dramatic changes including: abolish the Fed, bring all American troops home, end the war on drugs, get rid of the income tax, pardon all prisoners jailed for non-violent crimes, get the Feds out of the marriage law business, repeal Roe vs. Wade, and cut $1 trillion from the budget.
No wonder the establishment Republicans, Democrats, and foreign policy wonks have declared war on Ron Paul: it’s always hazardous to one’s health to threaten to take away somebody’s rice bowl.
As a candidate, a major attraction decidedly in Paul’s favour is that he appears to be a man who will keep his word. One only has to think of Barack “Dubya” Obama, Mitt “where does he stand today?” Romney or Newt “WTF did he just say?” Gingrich to realise how rare a quality that is in a politician. (Only Gary Johnson, the likely Libertarian Party nominee, has a similar quality.)
Since Paul has been saying pretty much the same thing since before he first ran for Congress in 1976, let’s assume he won’t change his spots if he’s inaugurated next January.
So in this possible (or impossible – take your pick) future, by the end of 2012 America and the world will be a totally different place.
Well…
…unfortunately for Paul supporters, probably not.
For example, come budget time President Paul will send his proposed budget, including spending cuts of $1 trillion, to…ah…Congress.
Congress in 2012 will be a slightly different place than it is today. Lacking Congressman Ron Paul in the House of Reps, there’ll only be one vote (instead of two) he can count on: his son’s, Rand Paul in the Senate.
Not enough.
Paul’s budget will go through the normal Congressional meatgrinders and come out the other end looking more like spaghetti that the document that went in.
President Paul will have to veto it.
So it will go back to Congress which, with enough votes to override Paul’s veto, will pass it unchanged just to spite him.
Many of his other promises will face a similar fate. Repealing the income tax requires a constitutional amendment – which has to be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress (or two-thirds of the state legislatures)! Then, three-quarters of the state legislatures must sign on. It’s hard to imagine all those “representatives” giving up their pork barrels. Altruism is something politicians recommend unto others, not something they practice themselves.
Alternatively, President Paul could include, as part of his budget, cutting the income tax rate to zero. Like his proposals to end the war on drugs, abolish the Fed, get the Feds out of the marriage law business, and repeal Roe vs. Wade, they all require an act of Congress.
Don’t Hold Your Breath
That said, there’s still a hell of a lot President Paul can do. After all, American presidents since Lincoln (if not before) have firmly established the precedent that presidents can rule by decree (ah…”executive orders” in politically correct speech) whether Congress or the Supreme Court likes it or not.
And: just because Congress authorises a budget of $X trillion in expenditure, it doesn’t follow that a president has to spend it; just because Congress passes a law, it doesn’t follow that a president has to enforce it.
So President Paul could repeal all the decrees he doesn’t like, bring all American troops home (along with the “drug warriors” around the world) – by decree. Congressmen can scream all they want: after all, most of those troops were stationed abroad without Congress’ direct approval, so how can they disapprove if Paul brings them back?
But Congress isn’t the only opposition President Paul would face. As president he could direct the bureaucracy to stop enforcing Roe vs. Wade, the drug laws – and he could even order the IRS to stop auditing tax returns. (Imagine that!)
In theory, that would mean if Californians all want to get stoned and cheat on their taxes, President Paul’s Feds won’t stop them.
But would all those bureaucrats follow orders?
They should. But in practice, every government bureaucracy has finely-honed skills directed to achieving its own ends despite the desires of its political masters.
One is the “go slow.” Everyone complains how slow government agencies are getting things done. Imagine how slow they could if they put their minds to it!
And one thing a president cannot do is order a court to do anything. While a law’s still on the books, a court can make a judgment which goes again a president’s expressed desires.
But a president has the power to pardon anyone convicted of a federal crime. How long do you think the police would bother prosecuting, or the courts trying, someone they knew would be pardoned immediately after they were convicted?
And then, while President Paul is doing his best to ensure that all those laws are not enforced, what will Congress do? Pass a law telling the president he must enforce the law? Go to the Supreme Court and seek a writ of mandamus (Latin for “we command”) ordering the president to enforce the law? (Would the Supreme Court rule that unconstitutional? These, days, who know?)
Whatever Congress, the bureaucracy, the Supreme Court, and the military-industrial complex do, it will be fascinating to watch.
One thing Paul will achieve if he wins: the nature of the policy debate in America will change dramatically and probably forever. For example, if the world doesn’t fall apart after four years without America as the world’s policeman and Californians (and God knows who else) all with their minds blown, the pundits’ prognostications of doom and gloom will look pretty stupid and won’t get much support.
And think of the alternatives. Without Ron Paul in the race, American voters face a hardly-inspiring choice of a Republican administration (Mitt Romney or whoever) or a Republican administration with health care (Barack “Dubya” Obama).
President Ron Paul would be a helluva lot more fun!
http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20120416/if-ron-paul-were-us-president.htmlImagine a possible future where Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination and goes on to... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Young People in the Recession - The War Against Youth
The recession didn't gut the prospects of American young people. The Baby Boomers took care of that.
Twenty-five years ago young Americans had a chance.
In 1984, American breadwinners who were sixty-five and over made ten times as much as those under thirty-five. The year Obama took office, older Americans made almost forty-seven times as much as the younger generation.
This bleeding up of the national wealth is no accounting glitch, no anomalous negative bounce from the recent unemployment and mortgage crises, but rather the predictable outcome of thirty years of economic and social policy that has been rigged to serve the comfort and largesse of the old at the expense of the young.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, human potential has been consistently growing, generating greater material wealth, more education, wider opportunities — a vast and glorious liberation of human potential. In all that time, everyone, even followers of the most corrupt or most evil of ideologies, believed they were working for a better tomorrow. Not now. The angel of progress has suddenly vanished from the scene. Or rather, the angel of progress has been sent away.
Nobody ever talks about generational conflict. Who wants to bring up that the old are eating the young at the dinner table? How are you going to mention that to your boss? If you're a politician, how are you going to tell your donors? Even the Occupy Wall Street crowd, while rejecting the modes and rhetoric and institutional support of Boomer progressives, shied away from articulating the fundamental distinction that fills their spaces with crowds: young against old.
The gerontocracy begins at the top. The 111th Congress was the oldest since the end of the Second World War, and the average age of its members has been rising steadily since 1981. The graying of Congress has obvious political ramifications, although generalizations can be deceiving. The Republican representatives tend to be younger than the Democrats, but that doesn't mean they represent the interests of the young. The youngest senators are Tea Party members, Mike Lee from Utah and Marco Rubio from Florida (both forty). Here's Rubio: "Americans chose a free-enterprise system designed to provide a quality of opportunity, not compel a quality of results. And that is why this is the only place in the world where you can open up a business in the spare bedroom of your home." He is speaking to people who own homes that have empty spare bedrooms. He will not or cannot understand that the spare bedrooms of America are filling up with returning adult children, like the estimated 85 percent of college graduates who returned to their childhood beds in 2010, toting along $25,250 of debt.
David Frum, former George W. Bush speechwriter, had the guts to acknowledge that the Tea Party's combination of expensive entitlement programs and tax cuts is something entirely different from a traditional political program: "This isn't conservatism: It's a going-out-of-business sale for the Baby Boom generation." The economic motive is growing ever more naked, and has nothing to do with any principle that could be articulated by Goldwater or Reagan, or indeed with any principle at all. The political imperative is to preserve the economic cloak of unreality that the Boomers have wrapped themselves in.
Democrats may not be actively hostile to the interests of young voters, but they are too scared and weak to speak up for them. So when the Boomers and swing voters scream for fiscal discipline and the hard decisions have to be made, youth is collateral damage. Medicare and Social Security were mostly untouched in Obama's 2012 budget. But to show he was really serious about belt tightening, relatively cheap programs that help young people like the Adolescent Family Life Program and the Career Pathways Innovation Fund were killed.
His intentions may be good — he may want to increase support for AmeriCorps — but the program shrunk last year. Three quarters of the applicants were turned away. He resisted Republican efforts to slash Pell grants by $845 per student, but then made other changes to the program that will save the government — or cost students, depending on your perspective — a projected $100 billion over ten years.
The youth vote still supports Obama, but in a chastened, conditional way. In hindsight, Obama's 2008 campaign looks like an indulgent fantasy in which the major conflicts in life simply don't exist. There may be no white America and no black America, no blue-state America and no red-state America, but one thing is clear: There is a young America and there is an old America, and they don't form a community of interest. One takes from the other. The federal government spends $480 billion on Medicare and $68 billion on education. Prescription drugs: $62 billion. Head Start: $8 billion. Across the board, the money flows not to helping the young grow up, but helping the old die comfortably. According to a 2009 Brookings Institution study, "The United States spends 2.4 times as much on the elderly as on children, measured on a per capita basis, with the ratio rising to 7 to 1 if looking just at the federal budget."
The biggest boondoggle of all is Social Security. The management of entitlement programs, already weighted heavily in favor of the older population, has a very specific terminal point that coincides neatly with the Boomers' deaths. The 2011 report by the Social Security trustees estimates that, under its current administration, the fund will run out in 2036, so there's just enough to get the oldest Boomers to age ninety.
Continued at: http://www.esquire.com/features/young-people-in-the-recession-0412The recession didn't gut the prospects of American young people. The Baby Boomers... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 15 days ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
An Open Letter to Ron Paul from Rocky Anderson
Dear Congressman Paul,
You have fought an amazing battle for what you believe in. Because of your passionate, deeply-held views, you have devoted yourself to inspiring millions of people who have looked to you for your tenacious, honest approach to governance.
Although you and I disagree on a number of matters, we agree wholeheartedly on certain fundamentals, concerning which we need to keep up our fight:
- That our nation has no business building an empire, with disastrous effects to our own nation and to others.
- That government becomes a major threat to individual rights and liberties when it engages in outrages such as indefinite detention and the assassination of U.S. citizens without due process.
- That private banks can not be allowed any longer to control U.S. monetary policy through the Federal Reserve.
Please continue speaking out on these issues and keep in mind that millions of people around the country – even those who disagree with you on certain issues – view you as a man of tremendous conviction and integrity.
Thank you for the sacrifices you have made – and for the example you have set for those who have been looking for real leadership and authenticity in our nation’s elected officials.
I wish you the very best and hope we can work together to bring about a healthier, safer, more peaceful world.
With gratitude,
Rocky Anderson
http://www.voterocky.org/letter_to_ron_paul Dear Congressman Paul, You have fought an amazing battle for what you believe... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 16 days ago
- |
- 5 comments
-
-
Ron Paul Can Win
(Excerpt)
We cannot see past a phase change. I don't know if the U.S.A. will have undergone one at the time of the 2012 election, but the necessary conditions for one are all in place, as far as I can tell.
One has to reach back a good way in American history for a time of such rapidly rising sentiment that not only are our leaders unable even to think of real solutions to the problems of greatest concern (rather than just making expedient changes at the margin), but also that the prevailing political and economic system is structurally incapable of delivering any long-term solutions in its current form.
The sheer range and interconnectedness of the problems that the nation faces are such that any permanent solution to any one of them will require profound systemic change that will necessarily upset many economic, political and cultural equilibria. And that is nothing more than a definition of a national phase change.
The average American may not know what is to be done, but she can sense when the system has exhausted all its possibilities. At that point, not only does the phase change become reasonable; it becomes desirable -- even if what lies on the other side cannot be known.
As anyone can find out just by talking to a broad cross-section of Ron Paul's supporters, his base is not uniform in its agreement on the standard issues of typical American party-political conflict. In fact, Paul supporters vary significantly even in their views of what in the old left-right paradigm were the "wedge-issues." Rather, they are united around concepts that could almost be called meta-political: whether left and right really exist, and, if they do, whether they are really opposed; whether centralized government should even be the main vehicle for political change, etc.; and whether there are some principles that should be held sacrosanct for long-term benefit, even when they will hurt in the short-run.
For those with eyes to see, such realignments and re-prioritization may even be glimpses of America after its next phase change.
If Ron Paul has committed support from 10 percent of the adult population, and most of that 10 percent support him precisely because they believe he represents a whole new political system, an entirely new political settlement, then we may be close to critical mass -- just a few grains of sand short of the avalanche.
Another piece of evidence that the nation is close to a phase change and a gestalt switch is the very fact that the prevailing paradigm (from which the mainstream media, established political class, etc., operate) has to ignore huge amounts of data about Ron Paul and the movement around him to continue to make any sense. The studied neglect of data as "irrelevant" is invariably indicative that the neglected data are hugely important. If information doesn't really matter, why go to all the effort of ignoring it?
Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.
First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.
To believe that Ron Paul's victory is a long shot in spite of all standard indicators that directly contradict this claim is to throw out all norms with which we follow our nation's politics -- and that is a huge thing to do. The only way it can be done honestly is to present another set of contradictory reasons or metrics that are collectively more powerful than all those that you are rejecting. I am yet to find them.
If it is true that the studied neglect of data to hold tight to a paradigm is the best evidence that the paradigm is about to collapse, then the massive and highly subjective neglect of all things Paulian is specific evidence that the country is moving in Paul's direction.
Of course, none of this means that Paul will definitely win. But it does mean that a bet against him by a politician is foolhardy and by a journalist is dishonest.
It is worth returning to Churchill's career for an even more delicious example: just days before he became the great wartime leader, his career had been written off as that of a kook, and he was being discussed as someone who had extreme ideas and whose thinking did not reflect the mood of the nation. The House of Commons was abuzz with his decline and imminent fall.
And then, rather suddenly, something he had been saying for many years -- that there was something rotten in the state of Germany -- became so obvious that it could no longer be avoided. Once the nation saw that he had been right all along, he became the leader of the free world in very short order. His career changed. Britain changed. The world changed. No one had seen that coming, either. In fact, everyone thought they knew what was coming: the kook was about to disappear into political backwaters, if not the political wilderness.
Do I even need to draw the parallel?
If Paul wins, it won't be because he is the kind of candidate Americans have always gone for. It will be precisely because Americans have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business -- a new political and economic paradigm -- and then he'll not only have ceased to be a long shot; he'll be the only shot.
Full Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-paul-can-win_b_939993.html(Excerpt) We cannot see past a phase change. I don't know if the U.S.A. will... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 7 comments
-
-
2012 Presidential Debate Of Alternative Parties
The Alternative Party Debate hosted by Maggie Phair Institute.
Featuring:
Rocky Anderson
Justice Party nominee
http://www.voterocky.org/
Roseanne Barr
Green Party candidate
http://roseanneforpresident.com/
Stephen Durham
Freedom Socialist Party nominee
http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/
Peta Lindsay
Party for Socialism and Liberation nominee
http://pslweb.org/votepsl/2012/candidates/lindsay.html
Dr. Kent Mesplay
Green Party candidate
http://mesplay.org/
Dr. Jill Stein
Green Party candidate
http://www.jillstein.org/The Alternative Party Debate hosted by Maggie Phair Institute. Featuring: Rocky... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 3 comments
-
-
Ron Paul "What If You Started Using Something You Grow & Stopped Buying Expensive Drugs!"
April 12, 2012 C-SPAN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJs9891ZUnI-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
V for Vendetta — A Consciousness Message
You cannot grant me freedom, it's what I am! I am freedom!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT6HNsmdGPQYou cannot grant me freedom, it's what I am! I am freedom!... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Where Do You Stand?
How familiar are people nowadays with the current political system?
Bills are being signed into law such as NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) with zero coverage from media. How important is it to become aware of the political world?
Continue reading on Examiner.com Where Do You Stand? - Jersey City Urban Art | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/urban-art-in-jersey-city/political-awareness#ixzz1rHSeuWyjHow familiar are people nowadays with the current political system? Bills are being... more-
- revo2485
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Paradise or Oblivion
Paradise or Oblivion: http://youtu.be/KphWsnhZ4Ag-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 2 comments
-
-
-
Tunisian 'Pirate Party' gets legal approval
Tunisian bloggers succeeded in getting permission to form the first anti-censorship party in Africa and the Arab world. ----- The Tunisian interior ministry just legalised Africa's first anti-censorship political party. The Tunisian Pirate Party, approved on March 13th, is a branch of the worldwide cyber-activist movement. The party consists mainly of bloggers, many of whom were active during the Tunisian revolution and were imprisoned under the former regime. Their goal is to protect the right of more than two million Tunisian internet users to access information without restrictions, according to the party statute. http://www.makeahistory.com/index.php/free-stuff/43057-tunisian-pirate-party-gets-legal-approvalTunisian bloggers succeeded in getting permission to form the first anti-censorship... more-
- worrg
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
The Sheeple are WAKING UP!
Maybe there is HOPE, The Sheeple are WAKING UP! http://youtu.be/niJnoLGRgyw-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Critical Turning Point
Founded in 2008, The Zeitgeist Movement is a Sustainability Advocacy Organization which conducts community based activism and awareness actions through a network of Global/Regional Chapters, Project Teams, Annual Events, Media and Charity Work.
The Movement's principle focus includes the recognition that the majority of the social problems which plague the human species at this time are not the sole result of some institutional corruption, scarcity, a political policy, a flaw of "human nature" or other commonly held assumptions of causality.
Rather, The Movement recognizes that issues such as poverty, corruption, collapse, homelessness, war, starvation and the like appear to be "Symptoms" born out of an outdated social structure. While intermediate Reform steps and temporal Community Support are of interest to The Movement, the defining goal here is the installation of a new socioeconomic model based upon technically responsible Resource Management, Allocation and Distribution through what would be considered The Scientific Method of reasoning problems and finding optimized solutions.
This "Resource-Based Economic Model" is about taking a direct technical approach to social management as opposed to a Monetary or even Political one. It is about updating the workings of society to the most advanced and proven methods Science has to offer, leaving behind the damaging consequences and limiting inhibitions which are generated by our current system of monetary exchange, profits, corporations and other structural and motivational components.
The Movement is loyal to a train of thought, not figures or institutions. In other words, the view held is that through the use of socially targeted research and tested understandings in Science and Technology, we are now able to logically arrive at societal applications which could be profoundly more effective in meeting the needs of the human population. In fact, so much so, that there is little reason to assume war, poverty, most crimes and many other money-based scarcity effects common in our current model cannot be resolved over time.
The range of The Movement's Activism & Awareness Campaigns extend from short to long term, with the model based explicitly on Non-Violent methods of communication. The long term view, which is the transition into a Resource-Based Economic Model, is a constant pursuit and expression, as stated before. However, in the path to get there, The Movement also recognizes the need for transitional Reform techniques, along with direct Community Support.
For instance, while "Monetary Reform" itself is not an end solution proposed by The Movement, the merit of such legislative approaches are still considered valid in the context of transition and temporal integrity. Likewise, while food and clothes drives and other supportive projects to help those in need today are also not considered a long term solution, it is still considered valid in the context of helping others in a time of need, while also drawing awareness to the principle goal.
The Zeitgeist Movement also has no allegiance to a country or traditional political platforms. It views the world as a single system and the human species as a single family and recognizes that all countries must disarm and learn to share resources and ideas if we expect to survive in the long run. Hence, the solutions arrived at and promoted are in the interest to help everyone on the planet Earth, not a select group.
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmeIMjsen28&feature=player_embeddedFounded in 2008, The Zeitgeist Movement is a Sustainability Advocacy Organization... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
RT: Outlaw Occupy: US set to strangle protests with jail threats
New York City police are investigating death threats made against staff through the phone and on twitter. This after officers forcibly arrested more than 70 people during an Occupy Wall Street protest. Since the start of the movement, nationwide protests have faced numerous cases of police brutality with batons and tear gas often used to disperse crowds. As the movement continues, so to does Washington's desire to silence the American public, as RT's Marina Portnaya explains.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4IySuIhU3ENew York City police are investigating death threats made against staff through the... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 6 comments
-
-
5 Freedom-Killing Tactics Police Will Use to Crack Down on Protests in 2012
Across America many cities and police forces are eyeing new ways to crack down on protesters.
March 16, 2012 | The First Amendment right to assemble and protest is going to get a black eye in 2012—as it has every time there has been an upsurge in America’s social justice movements.
Already in city after city, protesters and civil rights lawyers are troubled by proposed and newly enacted anti-protest rules, many of which are likely to be found unconstitutional if they have their day in court. In the meantime mayors, police and in some cases federal agencies are making detailed plans to thwart protests at local and national events.
In many cities, ordinances aimed at Occupy protesters are emerging to restrict protests and anything resembling camping on sidewalks, streets and parks. New fees are being drawn up to discourage large demonstrations. Anti-leafleting and postering rules are also muzzling people trying to spread the word about events. And all of that is being shepherded with a new pretext for using paramilitary tactics, replacing last year’s "health and safety" excuse for sweeping away Occupy sites with the rationale of protecting "national security" in a presidential election year.
“It looks to me like the law enforcement preparations are similar to what we have seen at most of the political conventions or other major events over the last dozen years, which is paramilitary policing against a civilian population,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund and co-chair of the National Lawyers Guild Mass Defense Committee. “This tends to be different than the way Occupy actions have been handed for the most part, although one can point to Oakland or the New York Police Department [as exceptions]. But I would stress that it is not new.”
Verheyden-Hilliard and her colleagues, including hundreds of volunteer attorneys across America who helped defend Occupy protests last fall, are not just continuing to litigate numerous instances of abusive policing—such as the trap-and-detain tactics used in mass roundups in New York, Oakland and the use of excessive force on university campuses. They are tracking the latest versions in a well-known policing playbook now being fine-tuned for 2012’s big events, such as Chicago’s NATO summit in May, the national political conventions in late summer, and the anticipated re-emergence of local Occupy protests when the weather warms.
“People do overcome,” Verheyden-Hilliard said. “But I think you have to have a fair and honest assessment of what the grounds are in front of you in order to be able to succeed. We think that people should know the hurdles they are facing. Yet at the same time, it is not all hand-wringing. There are a lot of people who go over the top and say fascism is here. Fascism is not here. We are still out in the streets.
“We still have democratic abilities to be out in the streets. It’s just that there are real problems that people are facing. People have to know what they are, but they can fight them and they can overcome them.”
What follows are the main pages from the anti-protest playbook being fine-tuned by municipal officials in advance of 2012 protests.
Tactic 1: Expanding Permit Requirements: Municipalities -- and not just Charlotte, South Carolina, where the Democratic National Convention will be held, and Tampa, Florida, where the Republican National Convention will be held -- are adopting local ordinances requiring protesters to apply for permits months or weeks in advance, even if they haven’t unveiled all of their rules for the events. That idea is not only to prevent spontaneous assembly, but also to create deterrents, leading to tactic two: charging protesters for exercising their rights.
Tactic 2: Charging Protesters for Municipal Costs: In supposedly liberal cities, such as San Francisco and Syracuse, New York, city halls have told protest groups they have to pay for the costs of (unwanted) police escorts and other fees to discourage marches. The fees—which can be challenged in court and thrown out if found to be selectively applied—are in Charlotte’s new rules for the Democratic Convention and include “hiring and paying off-duty law enforcement officers, or reimbursing the city for costs of providing on-duty law enforcement officers, to appropriately police street closures.” In Tampa, the new rules require protesters apply 60 days in advance for special permits and obtain insurance.
These fees are in addition to fines against groups if people put up their signs, posters or leaflet supporting their cause. New York City and Washington, DC, has versions of these anti-leafleting and poster rules. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, Public Citizen has sued over a new county rule forcing protesters to pay for its legal costs. “There’s hundreds of different rules about it,” Verheyden-Hilliard said, saying these fees were one of the “under the radar” trends and obstacles facing protesters in 2012.
Continued at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/154577/5_freedom-killing_tactics_police_will_use_to_crack_down_on_protests_in_2012Across America many cities and police forces are eyeing new ways to crack down on... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 2 comments
-
-
Living Without Money - Trailer
Is it possible to feel rich without possessions? Can you live happily without money? In the documentary Living Without Money, we meet the German woman Heidemarie Schwermer who made a deliberate choice to live without money 14 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzitB1xyocIs it possible to feel rich without possessions? Can you live happily without money?... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 2 comments
-
-
Ron Paul -- What Some Black People Think
YouTube mashup of what some black people really think of Ron Paul instead of how many in the media portray his followers.YouTube mashup of what some black people really think of Ron Paul instead of how many... more-
- JRBarilla
- added this
- 3 months ago
- |
- 5 comments
-
-
The New Revolution - 2012 Phenomenon
Brace yourself for The New Revolution, A 2012 Phenomenon. Nationwide Movement Igniting. Ron Paul is only the spark for the fire to come.Brace yourself for The New Revolution, A 2012 Phenomenon. Nationwide Movement... more
