Jullian Assange and WikiLeaks and We The People's Right To Know

Here is a good look into who and how wikiLeaks has been able to bring us a peek into the Shadow Government's workings. This report is interesting, considering it started long before the release of the US Embassy cables, called Cablegate.

One comment I wish to make is that Wikileaks is only revealing these cables. The acuracy of hearsay, or dis information within the cables are the responsibility of those who wrote the cables.

The second comment is that the US does have someone in Charge of the State Department, who should have made sure the cables were properly classified, and redacyed. They failed to do that. President Obama appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and she had the responsibility over policies at State department. NOT Jullian Assange, NOT WikiLeaks, and NOT Bradley Manning.

Doesn't the government have a right to have secrets/ My answer is yes, we all have a right to have secrets. private individuals, like you and me can keep secrets, but not plans to rob a bank. The Bank has a right to keep secrets, but not plans to implement a Ponzi scheme to defraud investors. The Federal Government has a right to keep secrets, but not is taxpayers money was raised to acomplish one thins, but was spent on a completely different activity. The Government does not have a right to break laws "In Our Name" and lie to us about it.

Does WikiLeaks, or any publisher, like the NYT and the Guardian have a right to publish this info? Yes, in the US the 1st amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no laws abridging free speech, free press and the right to assemble. I do believe that is clear enough. The question is, can the Shadow Government, or the President, by fiat or Order, make such laws to abridge Free speech and a free press?

Stau tuned, more to come...

Why Was Rick Sanchez Fired?

Rick Sanchez Fired by CNN! Why??

Last week CNN fired Sanchez, after firing his mentor, and 24 hours after making controvercial comments about Jon Stewart and raising the issue of who dominates MSM in America, and specifically at CNN. This week shows that the Rick Sanchez story has legs. Nothing, not even Stewart's ridicule of Sanchez has made this story go away, not even the apology, extorted from Sanchez, by Stewart. Why? Were the stories Sanchez did re the Israel/Palestine conflict, where he gave voice to the Palistinean narritive, the real reason why Sanchez has been a target of Jon Stewart and those who would limit what news Americans get to see?



The real problem here is the MSM has refused to report fairly, and without bias, the truth about what is happening in the Mid East. Here is an earlier post on this topic.
http://shoe08.blogspot.com/2009/01/palestinians-taken-hostage.html

Why does the MSM slant the news on this issue? Was Sanchez fired because he is right?
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jews-in-the-media-hollywood/

Do American's care that their news is slanted, buased and inaccurate?



If we did care, what could we do about it?



?V?V?V?

Don't buy the lie. For example, when Obama called Ahmadinejad's UN speech hateful and offensive, did you believe Obama?

http://gadebate.un.org/Portals/1/statements/634208557381562500IR_en.pdf

Or did you read a good translation of the spech, and make your own decision?

Demand the American MSM serve We the people, and not the interests on the Military Industrail Complex. What about the people's right to know? isn't that essential in a democracy?

Please folks, don't swallow what the MSM feeds you whole. It is high time we chew the media dis information over well, vet it ourselves, and digest it, before we become completely brainwashed and end up in WWIII, which will devestate most of the world, but make a tiny few ubber rich. We are a democracy, let's act like one.
.

Peace Without Hamas?

Aparently, the Obama administration is supporting "peace" talks between the Palestinian Athority and Israel. It is not clear that Hamas will be directly involved.



This raises the question of how peace can be negociated if hamas is not directly involved. It also raises the issue of the palestinian Athority being a puppet of the US, as revealed by this blockbuster story:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804





http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-direct-israeli-palestinian-talks-illegitimate-coerced-by-u-s-1.310013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/IB85066.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/17/palestinian-authority-israeli-puppet

It would seem, that those who do want peace, would include all the players in the talks. The problem is not peace between the Palestinian Athority and Israel, the problem is peace between Hamas and Israel's Zionist leaders.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/29/brilliant_op-ed_in_times_on_why_mideast_talks_with/?ref=c3



And here is an interview with Khaled Meshaal, head of Hamas' political bureau:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharmine-narwani/hamas-chief-interview_b_700324.html#comments

The door for a two state solution will not be open forever.

.

Manipulating Photography to Tell False Story

BP kills more than wildlife with their doctored photos of the Gulf oil spill, they kill the story...
http://www.americablog.com/2010/07/bp-fakes-another-oil-spill-photo-this.html



It would seem that the recent BP oil spill is a good opportunity to study how PR can use photography, or lack thereof, to lie, or mislead folks as to what actually happened.



White House blames BP for fake photos?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/white-house-on-bps-photoshopped-photos-on-the-stupidity-side-of-the-transparency-scale.html



In the competition to get the truth out, the MSM continues to fail to get the photos for the story. here is another story most of have not seen a photo of. And I always thought a photo was worth a thousand words?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295235

Israeli's Celebrate Massacre of Turks bringing Humanitarian Aid to Gaza

Video at Ben Gurion University and other universities.
It is important to mention that in principle all political activity on this campus is forbidden, and that leftist activists demonstrating outside of the campus during the war on Gaza last year were arrested. This demonstration was held with collaboration of the University authorities and contrary to these same authorities
regulations.




Once again, western MSM blackouts the real story. Here is a taste of the truth.

And while some western media dutifully reported Israeli government words of
being sorry for the deaths and their verbal attack on the ships' passengers
(calling them terrorists or terrorist sympathizers), no media reported on
Israeli fascists celebrating the massacre in front of the Turkish embassy in
Tel Aviv

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a3_1275348204

Hellen Thomas Gets Real About Israel's Siege of Gaza

Raw video from AP shows helen Thomas in an act of courage.

We need more reporters like Helen, and the Shoe Thrower.

News reporters should report the news, and not allow themselves to be the vectors of propaganda from one side.

By the way, is Israel a real country? I mean, do they even have a constitution?

And from democracy Now we have...

"JAMES ABOUREZK: Now, that’s an offhanded remark. I mean, the guy caught her unawares. She probably hadn’t thought that much more about it. But I understand what she really meant: they’re taking the place of Palestinians who cannot return to Palestine, their home. That’s basically what she was trying to say. And I don’t think she ought to be hammered because of that. Look, she lost her job. She lost her position in the Press Club. She lost her position in the White House press corps. That’s punishment over-the-top for what she was really intending to say there."
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/8/veteran_white_house_reporter_helen_thomas

"James Abourezk, former Democratic senator and congressman from South Dakota. The first Arab American in the Senate, he’s also the founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee."

Farewell Helen Thomas:
http://warincontext.org/2010/06/08/farewell-helen-thomas/comment-page-1/#comment-12523

.

If MSM Goes Belly-up, What Will Be The Next Vector Of Propaganda?

Is Internet Freedom A Human Right?

Cedric Moon and Dana Loesch discuss the impending demise of the MSM.



Surprise, surprise, the web is the second source of information for Americans. They discuss how many Americans are concerned about opinion being presented as news, and of course, propaganda being diseminated daily. Many see the "Internet," read the world wide web, as "Freedom guarenteed," and may not be aware that when on line, one is not annonomous as one believes, that using Google sets one up for "rigged" search results, which usually bring one to MSM news, and that spying on private individuals is the name of the game.



Today, we learn that the Obama administration is considering taking China to the WTO for unfair trade practices by sensoring Google. Is the US confounding Human Rights with the right to supervise, and impose standards on internet "providers" of content, like Google? Do countries have meaningful sovernty, and do they have the right to limit propaganda and spying that is pushed on them thru the new "free" web companies. What is internet freedom, and is it a value, a human right or a trade barrier issue?

H Clinton has been the most outspoken on the issue: "Properly, she did not hide the fact that communication over the Internet can be used for good (human rights activists) and evil (terrorists)." But one must remember that one countries human rights activist may be another countries terrorist. This "freedo," can be turned against the US in no time at all. Beware of what you wish for, you may get it.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9165140/Internet_freedom_and_security
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9165140/Internet_freedom_and_security

The attempted "Twitter Revolution" in Iran should be a cautionary tale. Rather than jump on the "internet freedom" bandwagon, based on perceptions generated by a known to be biased MSM, one should consider what "internet freedom" is really about.

What is really behind the Google-China-US internet freedom issue?

http://news.discovery.com/tech/internet-freedom-and-human-rights-20.html


But is Internet freedom itself a human right -- an entitlement that no just nation could infringe upon?

First, let's define Internet freedom, which really incorporates two ideas: access and privacy.
...........................

China may have the most extensive Internet surveillance and enforcement apparatus in the world, but they're not alone in censoring content or targeting users for political reasons or otherwise.

Furthermore, although authoritarian governments, including China, are typically accused of being the major players in the censorship game (and they often are), the fact is: democracies do it, too.

The French government, for example, was recently engaged in a campaign to combat copyright infringement by targeting users on peer-to-peer networks.

It could be argued that China and France have the same justification for restricting Internet access: Both countries were simply enforcing the law. For both nations, the restrictions they choose to impose are simply a matter of priorities. China probably cares as much about enforcing copyrights as France does about limiting political discourse online. As in, not at all.

For a more direct comparison of the kind of censorship seen in China, let's take a look at India or South Korea (both democracies and U.S. allies).

India, the second most populated country in the world behind China, and the largest democracy, has taken an active role in censoring content from radical religious groups. India's Constitution dictates that free speech restrictions can be imposed for the purpose of maintaining "public order, decency or morality," so the government's right to censor other kinds of content can and has been applied to other situations. The nation even plans to step up its Internet surveillance and enforcement efforts.

South Korea, which has the highest percentage of connected citizens of any nation, has actively taken measures to curtail Internet privacy, imposing laws in 2008 targeting online anonymity.

If government restrictions on content are such an issue, why hasn't Google similarly pulled out of India, South Korea or other such countries? (For a list of other countries that have some kind of restrictions on content, click here.)