When I read this I could not believe how fast Hollywood was working! I then found out that this movie was being made before the actual assasination of Bin Laden. Once the killing of Bin Laden happened in reality, the film-makers changed the direction of their film.
If you don’t remember, Disney applied for the trademark “Seal Team 6″ a mere two days after the operation that killed an unarmed Bin Laden. Weeks later Disney withdrew their application due to criticism.
The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee sought an investigation Wednesday into the Obama administration’s cooperation with award-winning filmmakers working on a movie about the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Rep. Peter King said too much information already has leaked out about the Navy SEALs raid that killed bin Laden in Pakistan in May, and Pentagon officials have cautioned against discussing details of the mission.
King asked the inspectors general of the CIA and Defense Department to determine what consultations occurred in the Obama administration about providing Hollywood with access to covert military operators and clandestine CIA officers.
Last time independent congressional candidate Lynne Torgerson had problems with photography, it was for using a stock image of the U.S. Supreme Court building — instead of the House wing of the Capitol where she’d serve if elected — on her website. This time, the Minneapolis attorney is using an iconic 9/11 image on her campaign site without the photographer’s permission.
Torgerson’s recently redesigned campaign site features a photo of firefighters at the World Trade Center following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The image is correctly identified as that of Thomas E. Franklin, although Torgerson also includes a copyright symbol and the identifier “Staff Photographer.” Contacted by the Minnesota Independent, Franklin says, “I did not give Lynne Torgerson permission” and indicated he’d contact her about the unauthorized use.
“I love Minnesota,” he added, “but I do not endorse her or any other candidate.”
There they are, the people who brought you every bit of the action in the WikiLeaks video and all of the other horrors flowing from invasion of Iraq. Madeleine Albright (far right, above), former Clinton Secretary of State, is a good place to start. From 60 Minutes:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it. –60 Minutes (5/12/96)
An exhaustive study found that 227,000 children under five (table 13) died during the George H.W. Bush – Bill Clinton regime of total sanctions against Iraq from 1990 through 2000.
Twelve-year-old war protester Frankie Hughes was arrested late Wednesday for trespassing after she allegedly refused to leave U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin’s Des Moines office.
On Thursday morning, the girl’s mother – who was standing outside Harkin’s office when Frankie was taken into custody – was ticketed for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Must a candidate for public office embrace the government’s official version of 9-11?
The recent scuffle between Glenn Beck and Debra Medina regarding her personal views of 9-11, while exposing Beck as a shill, also raises another question. What is acceptable for a candidate for public office to believe regarding 9-11? Are all candidates required to agree with the 9-11 Commission Report? Is it now a litmus test for all those seeking office? That would seem to be asking a lot, especially considering what the Commissioners themselves have said about the 9-11 Commisssion:
In a New York Times article dated 1-2-08, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, co-chairs of ther 911 Commission, said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation“.
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.
A reader asked whether the U.S. is still in an official state of emergency, and if so, what that means. The answer is yes, we are still in a state of emergency.
This article is more than a couple of years old. It was sent to me via my father, who see’s it as a good article because it is short and to the point. In the end, the article is right on in many ways. It does forget about a few other responsible people, namely us. The three braches of government are supposed to check and balance each other, but when this fails, the fourth brach must step in: That is us .We “elect” the officials, we pay the taxes, and we buy the stocks. This is a very official support leg for the policies that we don’t agree with. As always, the biggest changes happen within ourselves. Thanks Dad. Brian
(Date of publication unknown)– — - Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 235 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
A January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security established that US intelligence agencies stopped the State Department from revoking the US visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The Nigerian student, whom US officials suspected of being affiliated with the Yemeni terrorist group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, attempted to set off a bomb on Northwest Flight 253 into Detroit on Christmas Day. Revocation of Abdulmutallab’s visa would have prevented him from boarding the airplane.
The hearing was reported in a brief article posted January 27 on the web site of the Detroit News, headlined, “Terror Suspect Kept Visa to Avoid Tipping Off Larger Investigation.”
The revelation that US intelligence agencies made a deliberate decision to allow Abdulmutallab to board the commercial flight, without any special airport screening, has been buried in the media. As of this writing, nearly a week after the hearing, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have published no articles on the subject. Nor have the broadcast or cable media reported on it.
Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.
Their ruling has made it legal for foreign controlled corporations to flush unlimited money into our bloated political system to further corrupt something none of us trust and most of us fear. The “corporation/person” that the 5 judges, the “neocon” purists, have turned the United States over to isn’t even American. Our corporations, especially since our economic meltdown are owned by China, Russia and the oil sheiks along with a few foreign banks. They don’t vote, pay taxes, fight in wars, need dental care, breathe air, drive cars or send children to school. Anyone who thinks these things are people is insane. Anyone who would sell our government to them is a criminal and belongs in prison. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this “gang of five” bribe sucking clowns above the law. There is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions corporations much less gives them status equal to or greater than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.
The Supreme Court of the United States has no right to breathe human life into investment groups owned by terrorist sympathizers, foreign arms dealers or groups working for the downfall of the United States and everything we believe in, but 5 “justices” have done just that. We now have a new government above our government, above our people, one above any law. Five judges have created institutionalized gangsterism as the new form of government for the United States.
The Obama administration plans to ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of a record request for $708 billion for the Defense Department next year, The Associated Press has learned.
The administration’s Quadrennial Defense Review, the main articulation of U.S. military doctrine, is due to Congress on Feb. 1. Top military commanders were briefed on the document at the Pentagon on Monday and Tuesday. They also received a preview of the administration’s budget plans through 2015.
The four-year review outlines six key mission areas and spells out capabilities and goals the Pentagon wants to develop. The pilotless drones used for surveillance and attack missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a priority, with a goal of speeding up the purchase of new Reaper drones and expansion of Predator and Reaper drone flights through 2013.
Forget that the government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here).
Forget that the draconian Patriot Act was written before 9/11.
Forget that the Bush administration used its heightened powers granted under the state of emergency declared in 2001 (and continuing to the present day) to harass those who disagreed with its policies. See this, this and this.
Both progressives and conservatives question the constitutionality of the healthcare bill. Specifically, people from across the aisle say that the government cannot force people to buy private health insurance.
Posted by Brian 
