The Rubicon was crossed last Sunday toward a fascist economic onslaught against the U.S. population when the U.S. Congress caved in to Obama. Not one Congressman, Democrat or Republican, had the guts to tell the truth about Obamacare. That Obamacare is a fascist economic assault on the U.S. population and is the precursor to eliminating any "general welfare" resistance in the population to a corporativist dictatorship that will have no restraint in looting, murdering and throwing the U.S. and world population on the scrap heap.
For those who capitulated to this fascism, knowing it was fascism, like Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a now crushed soul, there is no way of going back to being whoever one was before. The primary elections that are going to be occurring in various States, and the general elections in November will cause a mass sweeping out of the U.S. Congress of the crushed souls and corrupt capitulators replacing them with people who, for the most part, are now unknown. What will these people do?
Today, Obama pulled the same stunt at a University that George Bush did on that Carrier after the Iraq war, declaring victory and telling his opponents to in effect "bring it on." The incredible visible euphoria of Obama being exhibited at this moment is the mirror image of depression and suicide that will likely overtake Obama as the U.S. population goes into increasing full revolt to crush him and all those who capitulated to him.
As a result of what happened last weekend the U.S. political situation has gone over the edge to never return. There will be no going back to anything that was before. We've entered an entirely new terrain where ideas, or their lack of, will shape what emerges from the revolution that is now beginning. We have now entered a revolutionary situation as revolutionary as any we have seen in world history.
Never before have the U.S. population been lining up at our political tables, to "help us throw Hitler out of the White House!" A "Pearl Harbor" type effect is now occurring in the U.S.
Multi- national private corporations that set policy and law in Canada are raping our provinces of natural resources without paying much if any tax, that could be used to fund our hospitals, schools, old age facilities, infrastructure and more. More and more the working class is being expected to pay increased taxation as the economy slides into an orchestrated free fall. Under the current socio political archetype in Canada it is imposssible for conditions to improve ultimately and in the long term for most Canadians. I, Douglas M Schapira propose A Declaration of Freedom for the People’s Republic of Canada. Please join me live on the worldwide web- to discuss this pressing issue- I encourage all to call in and discuss this concept with me and make recommendations on how it can be improved. Tune into www.theREALpublicradio.net = The Inside View From Canada Radio Program - Saturday March 27, 2010 5:30 pm to 7:00pm Eastern time —- See homepage of the above website for instructions on how you can call in and particpate in this live internet radio program
To Listen To The Radio Program
When logging on to the radio show- initially some music will play by the artist Don Maclean “Starry, starry night.” See the window that says “Music On/Off” turn the initial music “off’
Click on to the “Live Call In- Click To Listen ” window- the radio program will download to “winamp” ensure the volume is turned up on the left hand side of the viewing page of the program and/or your computer in general or any speakers you have attached to it.
To Call Into The Radio Program
To call into the program to share your concerns, ask questions and share ideas- please follow this procedure…. (Those without highspeed internet or internet at all, can listen to the program on the phone also in the following manner) DIAL: 712-432-8773
When you are prompted by the automated attendant please key in the following…. CONFERENCE ID: 179441#
Please indicate your intentions to particpate in the program by keying the following on your phone: ”*5″
Please avoid cell phones, speaker phones and internet phones with poor connections. Please ensure you speak loudly and clearly. We are welcoming Free Speech on the Free America Radio Network- please use it in an “Ethical Manner”
Kevin Kelso of British Columbia has written this brilliant article that will be presented on the program- Kevin will be joining us LIVE http://owensoundfreepress.com/?p=2430 Also…. Little’s Corner- Youth Perspective Radio Program - 16 year old Alex Heck- The Youth Perspective Journalist for the Owen Sound Free Press will feature an hour long program devoted to “Dissecting United Nations Agenda 21″ The World Government’s all inclusive policy to micro manage all our lives into total slavery. Join Alex for her weekly internet program at www.theREALpublicradio.net Saturday March 27 4:30 to 5:30pm Eastern
We met last week in front of the Art Gallery last Thursday. We had a long discussion about various things, Vaccines, 911 (of course) and Global warming debate.
You challenged me to do some fact checking and data mining about 2 topics, if you are serious I found the 2 items that we discussed and you wanted feedback on.
1. I had a hard time explaining why CO2 is not as important of a Global climate changer as other factors.
This is a series of video's I would suggest that watching all of them, would be important as he does a way better explaining everything than I ever could.
2. Vaccines question: We have never seen any un-vaccinated individual gets autism:
unconfirmed, I am looking into a real scientific study that shows one way or the other. Most I see is people's opinion. However there have been a lot of court cases these days showing a failure to convince a court of law that there is a connection.
As always I keep an open mind, looking forward to the discussion.
Damon Hebner
Kevin Kelso :
Thanks for sharing this, I still think everything therein was thoroughly refuted by this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647# it doesnt make sense to me that a small change in temperature will tip the scales to a new ice age.. there is a small change in temperature every day. i still dont think they are being honest with how they collect temperature data, whether it is from near a city where all the concrete insulates and causes a warming effect, sattelites, or inconsistent spacing of temp instruments in buoys in the ocean (most are near first world nations) see: climategate manipulation of data from my estimation, humans contribute nearly 1% to the greenhouse gasses. the earth regulates itself, always has, and always will. yes the climate will change, glaciers will melt and ice ages will ebb and flow.. but when it gets too hot, more water will evaporate, more clouds will form and more solar radiation (prime cause of temp) will be reflected away from the earth. a volcano emits more CO2 in one eruption than all humans put together. the temp data shows we have peaked in tempurature (which is not as high as the medevil warm period) and we are headed towards an ice age. this happens, but there is little we can do about it. always nice to have an informed and stimulating conversation, even in disagreement.
Oh come on Kevin. If you hadn't been approached in any way before you started the video, then what happened? You ran up to a police officer, with no prior incident, and demanded to know on what authority he had --- (question trailed off) -- WHAT? Was that REALLY the start of it? On what authority WHAT? He REALLY hadn't asked you to leave, and neither had the parks guy? What had he asked you to do, then, that you questioned the authority of?
It sounds like you were being asked to leave because either you or others in your gropup were drinking in a public place. The officer does reference someone there not being able to stand up, but I have no idea whether he's drunk because the camera never targets him. You don't sound drunk but if you were allying yourself with the guy it's not surprising you were asked to leave. Even a public place isn't completely open to all members of the public at all times. You know this. And whether you had anything to do with the allegedly drunken person or not, getting involved at that time would be called obstruction of justice. You know this too. I am sure the whole thing got started because the parks guy was being a dick and he called the police. Sure you'd be right if you said that. But SOMETHING must have been going on before you got that video going. Finally, a police officer in uniform is not required to show you his identifaction in order to arrest you. The reasons for this should be obvious, but if not, consider the public safety issues if police could neither arrest nor pursue anyone until AFTER they had fully identified themselves, in writing. It would be literally impossible to arrest anyone. I think that our laws on public consumption of alcohol are puritanical and stupid. I think our laws regarding controlled sunstances are a violation of personal freedom (and in many cases of common sense). But I don't agree that the best way to advance or at best maintain a free society is to moan and whine about everything all the time, to perpetually question every move made by those in authority. If a cop asks me to leave a park, and I know he's a cop, not some friend of the parks guy's who happens to have a Village People costume, I know it's time to leave. This isn't some blind obediience to authority; it's common sense. I recognize that until the laws about public consumption of alcohol change, I am breaking the law for drinking in the park, or in this case for picking a fight with a cop in defence of someone else who's been drinking in the park.... See More If you continue to believe that it is illegal for a police officer to arrest you without showing written proof that he is a police officer, even now after you must have spoken with a lwyer about this, you must have a reason. I would like for you to cite a statute defending your belief. Because if you can, I will admit that I am mistaken. But until then I am sure you are moaning about nothing important. And when you do that, any other comments you may make about society will be compromised, and you will lose credibility
Jon:
"Police officers must tell you who they are and show you their badge number."
Michael, thanks for the well thought out response, which makes sense given the limited information you have. i will proceed to tell you 100% truth, believe it or not.
My friend was too drunk to walk (and i actually think thats a great reason to ask someone to leave, because he could have fallen over onto a kid.. hell my son was there..) the parks people came to check on him to alleviate their liability, and make sure he did not wind up with an injury in the park. they brought him to a bridge where i knew the cop patrol would be returning to very soon. i told the parks people that i didnt want to have a confrontation with the cop. they said they had no intention of involving the police. since the bridge was the only way for the cop to pass thru, the event was inevitable. when the officer arrived, my plan was to take the initiative in the situation and demonstrate to the officer that i understood my rights, and would not stand for an illegal search or any unnecissary orders which breached my rights. he and i are on equal footing lawfully speaking until he witnesses me breaching the peace. i was not drunk, not a threat to public safety in any way. i was with my friend, but we are seperate individuals. it was my plan since before (Canada day) began that i would assert my rights and not allow another violation of my personal freedom (bag searching for beer) the situation that this culminated in was not at all what i had planned, but i had made up my mind that i was gonna test my (and the cop's) knowledge of the system.... See More
a cop doesn't have to show id in the process of an arrest, but there was no need to arrest anyone. and when he arrived, i took the initiative so he could not start making ultimatems. i was not protesting public intoxication laws or prohibition, i was trying to take control of a situation which involves someone that expects power and control 100% of the time. not an easy thing to do when they have guns, but if he abided by the law he was pretending to uphold, it would have just been a friendly conversation. i would see his id, we would talk about all the violations of rights going on, and he would see he has no power over someone who knows their rights and has not breached the peace and move on to easier prey, all the while learning a lesson.
instead, we all learned a lesson, i learned humility and how to accept something that is frustrating but unchangeable, the cop learned a bit about himself far he is willing to go to retain power and deny his ignorance of his own laws.
Mike:
Jon, even according to your linked page, the police officer has to show you ID, but not BEFORE or even DURING the arrest. Even Kevin admits this. He can easily give you this information in the drunk tank, or on the paperwork he gives you during processing. Reading that page the way you have chosen to, one would imagine also that a police officer... See More cannot arrest you until AFTER he has allowed you to contact a lawyer. I put it to you that you have not read it correctly. There is a genuine error on that page though: you are not required in all cases to show a police officer ID when asked. The example they given, of a driver having to show proof of a licence to drive, is correct, but does not satisfy the general case they try to make, being that a police officer can ask anyone for ID at any time. He cannot. There are times he can, but generally he cannot. Kevin, before the cop asked you to leave, which you acknowledge was ALL he was going to ask you to do, you began interfering with his efforts to get the drunk removed, ie obstructing justice. He could arrest you just for that, but your behaviour frankly gave him probable cause to assume you were also drunk (in the company of a pisstank, acting beligerant and paranoid, generally = drunk). He might have assumed you were stoned as well, and even if you were neither, probability was on his side. You admit in the paragraphs above that you went in with expectations beyond what the officer intended: you imagined some form of illegal search and violation of your rights, so you started to demand something of the officer that you know he had no responsibility to offer. You tried to "take control of the situation" by demanding that the police officer give you MORE than he had to, not what was within your rights. And from the video, ALL he asked you and your friend to do was to leave the park. If he wanted to arrest your friend, he had cause, so talking to him might have convinced him otherwise, but making demands and waving a camera around would not. You demanded his ID, which you know he didn't need to show you, before you would comply. If your purpose was to end the incident with no more than a "friendly conversation," and you had planned to comply with his request that you leave the park, then why were you demanding ID before you would leave? Why were you shoving a camera in his face? Kevin, you were not looking for a friendly conversation, you were picking a fight. Wrong time and place for that. I know you have plans to make certain political points on a public stage, so some advice, which I know you really don't need: if you go around screaming "police brutality!" at every possible chance, then you will look like one of "those guys," and you know who I mean. You will not be credible even when you speak the truth. Try to avoid getting arrested over stupid bullshit, and limit getting arrested to when it matters to make a genuine point. I'm not saying cops don't turn into dickheads when someone starts filming them; they do. According to a police superintendant that I know, anout 70% of cops are on a power trip trip all the time. That's anecdotal, but given the source and my my own experience I like to believe it. But here you were picking a fight in order to avoid something you admit you were supposed to do. You should not be surprised that you were arrested, and no, it was NOT for "asking a cop for ID." It was for suspicion of drinking in a public park and for obstructing justice. I'm sure that's what it said on the paperwork before they dropped the charges. If arresting you was they only way he could move on to remove the drunk, then I guess the public was served. If you had made it easier for him to ignore you, then maybe he would have.
Jon:
You practice belligerence in your arguments, and it appears that your purpose in debating is to belittle Kevin's actions. The notion that an enforcement officer is not required to provide ID upon request (when asserting his authority) is absurd. I recommend checking with your local RCMP detachment if you have any doubts. It's more than clear that you do not agree with Kevin's behaviour. I understand your points: Kevin's friend was drunk, Kevin was associated, he was in a public park. Kevin refused to move without asserting himself with the police officer.
All-in-all, I sharply disagree with your conclusion. Kevin was not given the opportunity to obstruct justice. He requested ID to verify the authority of the officer to remove Kevin and his friend from the park grounds. Had the officer complied, Kevin would have (arguably) left the park without further resistance.... See More
I also disagree with your point that there was "reasonable cause" for Kevin's arrest due to his association to his intoxicated friend, or for his behaviour by requesting identification of the officer. Kevin was articulate and coherent, generally not symptoms of intoxication. I cannot see Kevin's behavior behind the camera but it seems clear enough that Kevin is not intoxicated. Regardless, he was not detained for public intoxication, rather obstruction of a peace officer.
We can speculate all day about the events which occurred prior to the video, but ultimately they are inconsequential to the results of this encounter. The police officer abused his privileges and had no right to arrest Kevin in the instant he did. Kevin's actions may be read as "impolite" but by no means did he exceed the bounds of his rights.
Kevin:
i would have left the park only to help my friend get home who was justifiably a danger to the people around him and not welcome there. the officer should have complied with the request as he was lawfully required to, then calmly assessed the situation and asked the individual who was a non immediate threat to public safety to leave, at which ... See Morepoint i would have escorted him under my own free will.
i was detained for public intoxication and trespassing, but this was a false arrest, and his duty was to show id before anything else if there was not an immediate threat to public safety.
Nicole: I actually contacted the police about this to clear this up. They are required to provide either a last name or a number but it's up to the officers discretion as to when to provide that information. But it does have to be provided at some point. The officer I spoke with said that the officer Kevin was interacting with should have provided that information unless .. how did he put it let me look ... " If it was considered a safety concern for the officer to display his ID he or she might not choose to show it." However if there is no safety concern, and no immediate threat he would have to provide that information. Jon: I didn't expect Nikki to do the research.... I conclude that Nikki's source meant that if there were any immediate risk posed to the officer or those that were standing by that the officer may chose to provide his ID at a later time. Mike: I believe Kevin did not pose an immediate risk and his purpose was to verify the officer's authority to remove Kevin and his friend, thus although I am not 100% right, I still hold my opinion that the unnamed officer should have provided ID to Kevin. Thanks to Nicole for doing further research. Seems according to her source that it is up to the officer to determine when he should provie his badge number; so apparently at the station house is fine. Too bad Jon decided to drop out of the discussion for personal reaons. He might have found that interesting. Nicole: I don't think he did drop out he just felt it was pointless going back and forth the way we all were. As you can see there were other posts ;) And yes it is up to the officer but a good question to ask ourselves is what if Kevin wasn't arrested or detained? How would Kevin have gotten the officers information then? He clearly wasn't about to give it to him. Jon: I learned yesterday from Kevin that the officer *never* during their interaction provided ID to Kevin. Regardless, Nikki has only bolstered my and Kevin's claim. The officer is required to provide ID unless there is an immediate risk to the officer or public. You're taking this out of the debate forum and turning it into banter. I don't know what you're trying to prove Michael but maybe you should try sticking to facts rather than rubbing your manlyhood all over my face. See I can do it too! Mike: Again you're getting personal; I don't know why. Ok. None of us here has any legal backing. Nicole has gone to the effort of speaking with the police, and while they more or less backed what I believe (and what I believe is common sense), whatever they told her still is not a legal source. I am sure that the police believe and act on legal ... See Moremisinterpretations all the time (see: bag searches for booze). So still we don't have an answer. If the officer is required at some point to give I'd and he did not, even after the arrest, then he did wrong. I clearly heard the words "you are under arrest," along with a stated charge. So if he is required to identify himself at some point, and I believe he is, then he is at fault ultimately. I don't believe he is at fault at the time of the events in the video. As for "immediate risk," we've been told that that assessment is up to the officer. He clearly didn't take charge of the situation as he would have liked to, but his reasons could have been as simple as not wanting his ID to be filmed and broadcast on the internet. But I'm speculating, and I'm sure there are numerous counter-speculations to be made. My feeling is that were he to have said to Kevin "I'm not going to show you anything until you turn off that camera," then there might have been an even longer argument about a series of other perceived rights. We do know from Kevin's own words that there was no incident before he turned on his camera and started one, so the officer may have had reason to believe (from past experience with people who start fights with cops when there was no prior incident of any kind) that Kevin was not going to leave the park on friendly terms no matter what he did. I think either he saw ahead to that and decided to ignore the camera and refuse to show his ID, or (more likely IMO), he got flustered and decided "ah fuck it, this guy's obstructing justice and refusing to leave the park; I can remove him on those grounds." None of this speculation has gotten us any closer to an actual legal answer, but the business of discussing it can often be interesting. More interesting of course when parties involved aren't taking everything personally and making crude sexual insults. I'm other news, apparently Corey Haim died. That's kinda sad. Nicole: Michael he's taking it personally because you're being rude and condescending towards anyone with an opinion different than your own. If you're going to continue debating you can't just pick out the parts that you like and disregard everything else. You never did answer my question. When would the officer have given Kevin his last name or badge ... See Morenumber if he'd simply complied and left the park? (And I am not saying that I support the events that took place that day because I don't but even I can separate emotion and logic) Kevin: i'm not saying i am entirely proud of what went swn, or completely in the right, but he has an obligation to show id upon request before doing anything. its a simple request that did NOT obstruct justice.. nobody was getting away while i politely asked him. a camera is nothing to be afraid of if you do nothing wrong. cops have guns and cameras for their protection, the camera is for mine. if you dont want to be on youtube dont take and oath as a PUBLIC officer. something is wrong with society when people think its not ok to film a cop, or that he can change the rules because i want to test him within the law. GJ NIKI... See More at no time did the word 'obstruction' come into play, and at no time did the officer volunteer his actual name or badge number.. which is very serious. he cranked the radio for the car ride to the station so his partner couldn't hear about how he handled the situation
Nicole: It's the way of the world :/ It seems the general population is a lot more concerned with getting things done quickly and as inefficiently as possible. Everybody in that video could have handled that situation a little bit better but facts are facts. Police officers are required to give a badge number or a last name to identify themselves. The Officer that I spoke with said that the officer in this video should have given that information UNLESS he felt it could be a threat to his safety. So, it's entirely up for debate and we'll never know for sure what was going through this person's head when this all went down. Perhaps he did feel it would be unsafe to give out that information for the whole world to see in case there was backlash. Who knows ... In a situation where the officer didn't feel any kind of threat however he does have to provide that information. If an arrest is taking place he doesn't have to provide it on the spot, he'd have many opportunities to get that information to you but in this case as he had no original intent to arrest Kevin he should have provided that information on the spot (unless there was a safety risk).... See More What are we still debating? :P Kevin: there was never a need to arrest me. i was not drunk or obstructing or a threat to public safety.
Youtube viewer comment:
I find this subject fascinating and extremely important. You were asserting your rights. I don't know why they asked you to leave, I wasn't there. That cop could have been anyone though. They all act like they are above the law. Why couldn't that police officer just show you his badge? What's so hard about that? Is it reasonable for me to assume that had he done that you would have complied with his offer? Again, I don't know why they asked you to leave, but they had the right to do it, they didn't need a reason, It looked like a set up to me, Still, you weren't rude, you weren't acting out, you were peaceful and respectful, and the cop did not play by the rules. This world is becoming a police state. Thank you for standing up for truth and justice.
Kevin:
UPDATE: COURT CASE WAS EPIC THIS WEEK!!
When I first saw my arresting officer, he was in the hall, waiting for our court session to begin. There were 4 cops and about 25 defendants waiting for the same courtroom. I walked right up to him and said; "I see you're wearing your name tag now! Does that thing have a velcro backing?"
Some of the people around took notice. He told me that he was only there to ask for an adjournment because his partner wasn't there, and his partner (who witnessed nothing) was the one who signed the ticket. I said; "oh, did he sign it because you didn't want me to find out your name?" He was getting visibly upset, and he told me we could only talk about the ‘drunk in public’ charge because that was what was being disputed (that was the only charge he laid).
He said that if I wanted to do something about his failure toidentify himself, I would have to file a complaint with his higher ups. I said, "I absolutely will, unless you want to APOLOGIZE." I made sure to say it nice and loud so everyone could hear. A few more heads turned as I stared him right in the eye, like I was expecting nothing less than a sobbing confession of guilt. He was pretty pissed, but managed to control himself enough to walk away without tazering me.
When it was our turn in front of the judge, he moved for adjournment, and the judge asked me how I felt about it. I told her that it would cost me more to come back to court a second time than the ticket was worth. My objection was sustained, and she told the cop he would have to present what evidence he had "today."
The cop was then asked to take the stand, and swear on the bible that he was going to tell the truth. He then proceeded to lie no less than 6 times. He said that I refused to identify myself; he said that someone else was holding the camera, that I refused to leave the park, that I reeked of alcohol, he said that my 'associate' was passed out on the ground drunk, and my behavior was "100 % improved" on that day, in comparison to the day in question. All lies, some purposely deceptive.
I was patiently waiting my turn to grill him on the stand under cross-examination. I knew I was going to force him to contradict himself and he knew it too. I could hear his voice wavering.
Unfortunately, the judge paused before it was my turn. She reviewed some text from her law books, and said she was going to dismiss the case.
The reason the case was dismissed was because, by the cop's own admission, he was unable to personally and directly establish the link between me, and my corporate (legal fiction) person.
She used the word identity often, and mentioned the precedent of a case involving someone named 'Shriver.' She told the officer where he could learn the rules that he failed to abide by, and he wrote it down. She specifically said that it was not a technicality, and that there was an important reason why she made this ruling and that he needs to understand it.
The judge picked up on something that the officer will probably never be aware of. What he pretended was 'drunk talk' was actually my careful and strategic handling of the situation to make sure I never admitted to having a 'corporate person' attached to me, which his citations can be applied to.
Here’s part of what I did: When he asked me my name, I told him “my family name is X, and my friends call me Kevin." For my birth date, I said, "I'm told it was X." Although he didn't know what I was doing, and didn't properly explain my actions on the stand, it came through in his testimony because he was so ignorant of this part of the law, that he didn't know he had to lie about it.
So, I was vindicated, and I thanked the judge for her 'thoughtful decision.' I caught up with the cop on my way out of court, and said, "So I guess it came down to identity after all, eh?"
He replied sarcastically, "well played." I picked up on his sarcasm, and I told him he was never going to get it.
He saw my son in the hall, and tried to make some sort of lame insult, starting with "It's too bad your son looks like..." but I cut him off and said "I think you need to look harder at what happened today. I am going to make sure you think long and hard about it."
Rather than retaliating how he wanted to, he walked away, and I collected my high fives.
As one would imagine, I am very happy with the result. My original goal was to teach an officer that he could not just walk all over people and make up his own rules as he went along just because he had a gun. I think that cop will think twice the next time someone questions his actions, instead of insisting that he's right because he has a uniform. I also hope I will inspire others to find the courage to question authority figures instead of blindly submitting.
If you do so, make sure you know what you’re doing, and choose the right battle. I did not, but after 8 hours in solitary and 9 months of waiting for court, I got a positive result. I guess that’s the price for justice in a police state. But we’ll change that.
We are proud to present: Axiomatica.org - The next step in the information revolution!
The time has come... for every one of us to come together and rally the force of good. At this turbulent and crucial point in history, we must seize our opportunity to change the tides. Let us join forces to create a better future for the next generation, and reclaim the power that belongs to free humanity.
In this rapidly changing world, a decade of history can happen in a month's time. If you aren't paying attention, you may get left in the dust. Axiomatica is designed not only to help you to keep up on the trends, but to take your destiny into your own hands. From the confusion that comes with the inevitable collapse of the Monetarist Empire of today, we must emerge as the leaders of tomorrow, offering hope and big ideas to dispel the fear and suffering of those around us.
As we know the visions of our fellow activists are as various and unique as snowflakes, we know too that our commonalities can supersede our differences. When we all move in the same direction, gaining mass and momentum along the way, we become an unstoppable snowball, rolling over what were once insurmountable obstacles, assimilating them as we go.
Our goal is to create a community where ideas are shared and discussed openly and constructively; where good people help each other to make change with the betterment and wellness of humanity at heart. We've tried to provide something for everyone:
For the truther
It's easy to post articles, videos, blogs, and pictures. Rate and discuss other contributions. Collaborate and network with like minded people and put your ideas to the test with alternate viewpoints.
Because of the advent of instantaneous communication, a new revolution of learning and knowledge is taking place worldwide. This is the new renaissance. What was once esoteric knowledge, is now exposed and increasingly accepted as self evident truth. This is the definition of Axiomatica. A movement of humanity now unified by technology, uncovering the reality of the matrix we live in. This rapid influx of information is revolutionizing the way many view themselves, the world in which they live in and the universe itself.
The liberation of our minds will set us free in the only way we can truly be free. Now that this process has begun, our job is to perpetuate it into mankind's inevitable destiny. It is time to ascend into a new renaissance of freedom, creativity and prosperity. The new Renaissance is here. Welcome to Axiomatica.
And with record levels of household debt and middle-class families working harder to make ends meet, Budget 2010 was an opportunity for Stephen Harper to make sure Canadians like you benefit in the economic recovery.
But instead, he chose to increase payroll taxes that you and your employer pay by $19 billion. At the same time, he announced $5 billion in new spending to further cut corporate taxes, a third of which will go directly to the big banks and big oil companies.
Earlier this week the Royal Bank announced a $1.5 billion 3 month profit. And TD reported they doubled their profit to $1.3 billion.
Do these sound like the people who need our help most right now?
Jack Layton and your New Democrat MPs believe the priorities right now should be creating jobs, protecting pensions and tackling climate change – not the banks.
With new ideas, all Canadians can benefit in the economic recovery.
I invite you to be a part of it.
Brad Lavigne National Director Canada's New Democrats
Thank you for sending me Barrie's reply. I highly respect Mr Zwicker and all his fine work over the years. it was nice to see him recognize that we were merely posting a rear guard for our beautiful city and coming to our defense. We had mainstream news in Vancouver discussing a false flag, Troll Brinkman's argument is that we stated for 2 months "that Vancouver is going to be attacked during the Olympics" total and utter nonsense. By NOT talking about potential false flags we open ourselves up for more of them . Because of our efforts of discussing a potential False Flag we had mainstream news reporting on it, this is the worst thing any potential attackers would want to hear or read. I proudly stand by our efforts and while we knew we would be open to some ridicule if nothing happened , we thought it was worth the risk. We just didn't expect it to come from someone who pretends to be for 911 Truth. Barrie's A+B+C points are exactly why we made the video. Now we have Brinkman emailing people a story from Jan 7 where the media reported that Kinder Morgan says they found the missing ammonium nitrate http://www.theprovince.com/news/Kinder+Morgan+says+missing+explosive+chemical+found+RCMP+confirm+claim/2447926/story.html
Brinkman fails to mention that the story was quickly ammended by the RCMP who WERE NOT SATISFIED with KM's accounting and kept the investigation going for weeks longer. If this is the depth of research Brinkman does before slandering fellow patriots then he really is a sad and pathetic man. There were many details that we did not release in the video like the security camera problems at one of the venues and Canadian Customs freaking about letting in 2 known AL Qaeda operatives and much , much more. Instead of contacting me and expressing his concerns Brinkman made a pathetic hit piece video based on lies. http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100119/bc_nitrate_investigation_100119/20100119/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome
Tuesday Jan. 19, 2010 6:05 PM PT
RCMP officials have intensified their investigation into two tonnes of an explosive chemical compound that went missing, CTV News has learned. RCMP officials have intensified their investigation into two tonnes of an explosive chemical compound that went missing, CTV News has learned.Last month, pipeline and energy storage company Kinder Morgan contacted the RCMP to say that it couldn't account for two one-tonne bags of ammonium nitrate that had been part of a 6,000-bag shipment. About a week later, the company said that the discrepancy was simply due to a clerical error, and RCMP officials said they were "satisfied that no product is missing."
However, this past weekend, RCMP officials said they couldn't confirm if a clerical error had, in fact, occurred and were still investigating.
Brinkman has viciously attacked us for 3 years now. His motives are very suspect in my opinion. He spends more time attacking myself,Luke Rudkowski and WeAreChange than he does fighting for justice for the victims family members. His latest slanderous video hit piece on MTL 911 Truth,Jack Blood,The Truther Girls and myself is ridiculous. He pulls out and cherry picks one hypothetical statement i gave out of dozens of hours of interviews. I'm on record repeatedly stating emphatically, "i believe it's low probability but if we are to be attacked that we WILL DEMAND A REAL AND PROPER INVESTIGATION unlike 911" I find it very peculiar that he sends out an email quoting Bush after he bets on the Americans to win GOLD before ambushing drunk hockey fans with loaded questions based on lies. Anyway, enough of the most divisive troll in Canada's Truth and Peace movement. He's wasted hours of my time now with this garbage. We have some of the best 911 Bannering i've ever seen and the video is coming soon. It will bring inspiration and a smile to everyone's face (except Brinkman). WeAreChangeVancouver and Vancouver 911 Truth were very busy over the olympics. While peacefully bannering CTV everynight to millions of people across Canada with 911 Truth, and getting assaulted by drunk goons and provacateurs , Richard "COINTELPRO WANNA-BE Troll" Brinkman was sitting in the comfort of his Edmonton basement producing another dogshit video based on lies.
I would ask that you "investigate" Brinkman's lies before you pass judgement on all of us.
Thank you Barrie.
(a) that I thought – on the basis of a whole raft of data that Van people submitted – that it was just possible that such an outrage would be attempted (3-billion or so people as a built-in audience), and
(b) that to alert people to the possibility, if the alert was widely enough distributed, could actually make the planners of such an outrage (if there were such planners) to take second thoughts, because
(c) the advance prediction of the possibility would become serious news –-- post-outrage.
DJ BALL WeAreChangeVancouver.org
BARRIE ZWICKER COMMENTS!
Greetings Richard !
First, thanx for your continuing great activism, on and off line.
Usually I don’t chip in my two cents’ worth, since I try to restrict my online presence in the interest of my time and everyone else’s.
Want however to just enter a comment about your latest post here. I was one of those who “signed” the petition about a possible false flag op during the Olympics. But I probably contributed the most qualifications, in the longest comment, attached to any signature. I guess you can look it up. (I don’t’ have much time here and also am unsure how to go about finding and checking the petition.)
The drift of my qualifications was
(a) that I thought – on the basis of a whole raft of data that Van people submitted – that it was just possible that such an outrage would be attempted (3-billion or so people as a built-in audience), and
(b) that to alert people to the possibility, if the alert was widely enough distributed, could actually make the planners of such an outrage (if there were such planners) to take second thoughts, because
(c) the advance prediction of the possibility would become serious news –-- post-outrage.
In other words, when there are sufficient reasons to suspect a false flag op may be in the works, the very reporting of the possibility can contribute to the thing being cancelled. In other words again, it’s like a self-fulfilling prophesy of a negative type. Which would be a most positive outcome.
Hope my thinking and explanation are not too convoluted.
Best always to you and the other great Edmonton acitivists.
Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories; malicious lies that attempt to shift the focus away from learning the truth behind the attacks of September the 11th, away from the guilty.
Once again another false flag/ terror attack prediction by a few fear mongering individuals comes and goes without incident. This reminds me of several quotes relating to fear and fear mongering like Albert Camus saying "nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear and " and Barry Glassner author of the book The Culture of FEAR, Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things: There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it" said the ultimate master of terror, Alfred Hitchcock. Fear mongers regularly put his wisdom to use by depicting would be perils as imminent disasters.
Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge and
The Consortium for Peace Studies at the University of Calgary are Proud to Host
Cynthia McKinney
Ms. McKinney served a constituency in Georgia for several terms in the US Congress. She was the Green Party’s candidate in the most recent US presidential election. Currently she is the only juror from the United States on the Russell Tribunal on Palestine.
Ms. McKinney has been invited to Calgary to serve as a witness in a trial beginning on March 8. The trial emanates from the Crown’s criminal charge against Mohawk activist, Splitting The Sky, for obstruction of justice in his attempt to conduct a citizen’s arrest of the former US president, George W. Bush. Credibly-accused war criminal George Bush addressed a business audience at the Telus Convention Centre in Calgary. Ms. McKinney will comment on the case some have dubbed:
Splitting The Sky versus George W. Bush
Ms. McKinney will help introduce and contribute to a people’s juridical process aimed at articulating a new legal protocol to be known as
The Calgary Principles
In the tradition of the Nuremberg Principles, the Calgary Principles will address the rampant criminality that tends to immunize from criminal prosecutions those who commit the highest order of international crime. Among those who will also contribute to the proceedings will be Splitting The Sky and Anthony J. Hall, Professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge.
Tuesday March 9, 7:30 pm at the University of Calgary, Professional Faculties Building, Room 4259. Media Contact: Jason Divine, humanguerilla@hotmail.com
A Survey of Internet Links Illuminating Aspects of the
Case of Splitting The Sky versus George W. Bush
Recent Overview article on Splitting The Sky versus George W. Bush
Different Versions of Hall’s, “Should George W. Bush Be Arrested in Calgary Alberta and Charged With International Crimes.” Delivered on March 6, 2009 at the University of Winnipeg
CANADA PROVIDES SAFE HAVEN FOR SUSPECTED WAR CRIMINAL; CHARGES CITIZEN ENFORCING WAR CRIMES ACT
(March 1, 2010) Calgary - According to legislation enacted in 2000, the Crimes Against Humanity & War Crimes Act bans all who are credibly suspected to have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity from entering Canada or, if they have managed to get in, to arrest them on the spot. This law is supported by international laws to which Canada is signatory. Yet on March 17th 2009 George W. Bush was in Calgary, Alberta, Canada for a speaking engagement at the Telus Convention Centre which was sponsored by the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.
George Bush stands credibly accused and internationally condemned for war crimes committed, during his reign, in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay as well as in numerous CIA black sites stationed around the world. As Commander-In-Chief of the United States military, George Bush meets the definition of both 'military commandar' and superior' of the Crimes Against Humanity & War Crimes Act (2000) (sec 7) and thus should have been prevented from entering the country or arrested upon entry.
Splitting the Sky, a Mohawk activist from Six Nations, evoking international law and Canada's own war crimes legislation, requested Calgary police officers to arrest ex-US-president G.W. Bush.
When police refused his demand to uphold the law, Splitting the Sky attempted to carry out a citizen’s arrest of Bush, moving through the police line with his hands over his head yelling, “I am not touching anyone.” He was then arrested and beaten, sustaining a concussion and painful soft tissue injuries.
Splitting the Sky was charged with obstruction of justice and released on $500 bail after being held in jail for 24 hours. All this, in his words, for his attempt “to do MY civic duty, to arrest the credibly suspected war criminal George W. Bush.”
He now faces the possibility of 6 months in jail and a $5000 fine. His trial begins on Monday, March 8, 2010.
There will be a rally to support Splitting the Sky on Monday, March 8, 2010 at 9 am at the Calgary Court House, 601 5 Street S.W.
