Tuesday, June 26, 2007

GOP candidate Ron Paul's dream: To restore the Republic

"At first glance, he looks like every other congressman in the Canon Building. His suit is dark. His tie is striped. He is convivial with his colleagues, who genuinely like him. But there is something different about Ron Paul.
You can hear congressmen when they walk down the hall, strutting their own importance. After all, there are regulations to be implemented, special interests to serve, a teetering American Empire that would collapse without their management. They wear black or cordovan leather shoes -- captoes, wingtips and brogues -- clacking down the hall, their bellies full of medium-rare steak from Capital Grille. They are surrounded by ambitious interns and legislative aides. They fiddle with their BlackBerries. You can't miss them tromping out of the elevators.
Ron Paul is easy to overlook. He takes the stairs; he does not have an entourage. You can't hear him coming because he's wearing plain black tennis shoes. In a bag he carries a can of soup that he will heat for himself in the microwave in his office. Beneath pictures of Austrian economists Frederick Von Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises, he will eat his lunch alone and in peace.
What is the purpose of Ron Paul's candidacy for the presidency of the United States? Some longshots run because their egos demand it. Others want to raise their lecture fees. Some run because they have plenty of money and nothing better to do. Following a flood of viewer requests, the Texas congressman recently appeared on Fox News to explain himself. His answer was buoyant though laconic: "I want to be president because I have this dream. I'd like to reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic." His answer was also revolutionary.
Paul's doggedness in advancing the causes of individual responsibility and limited government could intimidate almost anyone who clings to the label "conservative" or "libertarian." Perhaps that is why he avoids those abused designations and calls himself a "constitutionalist." His philosophy is simple: "no government intervention, not in personal life, not in economic life, not in affairs of other nations."
Naturally he opposes almost everything Congress does. The physician cum congressman earned the nickname "Dr. No" early on. His opposition to what he considers unconstitutional spending even earned the grudging respect of GOP leaders. When Newt Gingrich cracked the whip on party members to support a messy budget compromise, he excused Paul from the duty to support the budget, and the "Ron Paul exemption" entered the congressional vocabulary. What did it take for other members to earn this privilege to buck the party? A voting record that opposed all unnecessary federal spending, even in their home district. No one else has been granted the exemption.
When Paul does propose legislation, it is simple, direct and radical. He's compiled an impressive list of bills that remain ignored to this day. HR 1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations. HR 776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception. HR 1658: To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.
His cheerful consistency doesn't end there. Paul not only votes against nearly all government spending, he has refused to be the beneficiary of it as well. As a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He accepted no money from Medicare or Medicaid, often working for free for needy patients. With his support, his five children finished school without subsidized federal student loans. He has refused a congressional pension."

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Paul’s profile on the rise

" After two decades of standing in his own rhetorical realm in Congress, Ron Paul is finally gaining some attention.

AP photo
Republican presidential hopeful U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, talks to reporters June 5 after the Republican presidential primary debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. Paul is in Kansas City this week for the National Right to Life Convention.

Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, is making an impact in his second bid for the U.S. presidency. The combination of a rabid Internet presence and appearances on nationally televised debates has raised Paul’s profile.

The attention hasn’t translated into traction in polls, though. Paul usually registers in the single digits against other Republican contenders. He’s a long shot to win the nomination.

Paul is among a number of presidential candidates, including Democrat John Edwards and Republican Mitt Romney - who have visited Missouri in recent days. Paul is in Kansas City this week for the National Right to Life Convention.

The Tribune interviewed Paul by phone, asking him about his popularity on the Internet, his stance on foreign policy and his chances for pulling off the upset of a lifetime in the race for the White House.

Q: Your presence on the Internet has been a prime topic of conversation. You’re a 71-year-old physician from Texas, but on one site you’ve become a more searched-for name than Paris Hilton. How did that come about?

Coming Sunday

Ron Paul’s comments have hit a nerve among opponents but also struck a chord with the public. Read more about the polarizing presidential hopeful
this weekend in Perspectives, Page 1D.

A: I think the ideas of liberty are very young historically. It really had a burst of enthusiasm with our revolution. If you look at all of history, the notion that government should be minimal in size and that individuals should rule their own lives - it’s a real modern idea. And I think young people just naturally go in that direction. What they’re realizing is that they’re being delivered a horrendous deal and a lot of obligations. And all of a sudden, when they hear someone say something what they’ve been thinking about, I think they respond very favorably. I’m really happy about it. So I think the age of the individual delivering the message is irrelevant if the message is young and exciting. In contrast, the ideas of big government and controlling other people’s lives and invading other countries - that’s been around for thousands of years. And it’s old and ancient, and it fails. And young people are more idealistic, and I think that’s one of the reasons they are looking at our campaign really carefully.

Q: You ran as the Libertarian Party’s nominee in 1988, and you still possess a lot of Libertarian tendencies. On the issue of Iraq, you favor a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do you think it could be feasible to implement this if you were president?

A: If you take some sort of entitlement program in this country that’s well entrenched and people are very much adapted to, that would require changes in the law. But if you had a president with a different attitude about foreign intervention, that individual could start backing away. The president is in charge of the Navy - we wouldn’t have to have our Navy in the Persian Gulf and near Iran, threatening Iran to behave the way we want or else. So there’s a lot of things you can do as commander in chief of troops. You could start bringing troops home. How long do we expect our people to pay for protecting the borders between North and South Korea while avoiding the borders between Mexico and the United States?

Q: You support returning the country’s currency back to the gold standard. Is that correct?

A: Not exactly. I’m for supporting the Constitution, and the Constitution still says only gold and silver can be legal tender. … The reasons I don’t like to say "go back" is because there were shortcomings in the original gold standard. What I reject, and the founders totally rejected, was a paper standard - creating money out of thin air. Spending money you don’t have. Printing it up. Causing inflation. Causing bubbles. Causing recessions. And wiping out the middle class. The middle class is getting poorer as the wealthy class is getting wealthier.

Q: As president, what would you do to change course in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Especially when the United States has become so active in the regional disputes?

A: Well, I think we shouldn’t be involved. I don’t think we should tell Israel what to do, and I don’t think we should finance all of Israel’s military activities. We just get blamed for if they get involved and Palestinians get mistreated. It’s our fault because we gave the money? At least all of the Palestinians and the Arabs will blame us. So I would say that the founders were correct. I think Ronald Reagan was absolutely correct when he pulled the troops out of Lebanon. He said he didn’t realize how irrational they were in their politics over there, and he said we had to change our policy. So he intervened, the Marines were killed, he said it was a mistake, and he left. I support his position on that and the founders’ position. And I just think that our interference hurts Israel.

Q: Despite some interest in your campaign, few political observers think you have a serious chance of winning the Republican nomination. Are they wrong? And if so, why?

A: I don’t think anybody knows. I don’t know what the future will bring, and neither do they. They don’t know if I will, and I can’t say that I know I will. But, all I can say is so far, so good. I mean, six months ago, if you would have said to me, ‘Well, Ron, if you do this, we’re probably going to have a million people visit Web sites and look into and inquire about your candidacy.’ And if you add up all the hits on all the Web sites, I’m sure it must be that many. Because we see tens of thousands of people and hundreds of thousands of people getting involved. I would have said, ‘No, that doesn’t sound likely.’ But it turned out it is. And every day it’s more. So, I would say that only time will answer that question."


Ron Paul, as usual, gives a good account on these interviews.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Photography of cops is not a crime, but filming of cops is a felony?

"Filming a traffic stop doesn't fit felony category
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Brian D. Kelly, 18, of Carlisle likely isn't the only the person around central Pennsylvania who was unaware that recording a police officer during the commission of a traffic stop constitutes a felony criminal act.

Kelly, who says one of his hobbies is making movies, had his camera rolling last month when the pickup truck he was riding in was pulled over by a Carlisle police officer for traffic violations. About 20 minutes into the police stop, the officer noticed that Kelly had a camera pointed at him and told him to turn it off, which he did. Kelly was then charged with felony wiretapping, which carries a penalty of up to seven years in state prison. The young man spent 26 hours in Cumberland County Prison before his mother posted her house to bail him out.

The logic of interpreting the wiretap law to make it a felony to record police carrying out their duties escapes us, given that increasingly police themselves record traffic stops. In addition, police are regularly recorded by the news media with their acquiescence or permission. And some notable incidents of police using excessive force have been recorded on video.

Even Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed seemed to concede that there was some ambiguity in the law, that "often these cases come down to questions of intent." There were also suggestions that a solution might be to allow Kelly to plead to a lesser charge, an all-too common gambit when an arrest is over the top, as is this one surely is.
This young man's life should not be permanently tarnished by this incident, one that hardly rises to the level of criminality. In any event, it is time for the Legislature to fine tune the law to prevent future miscarriages of justice. "

By: Eric M. NoonanAssistant Executive Deputy Attorney GeneralOrganized Crime & Narcotics
The general rule in Pennsylvania is that electronic surveillance is illegal.

For the purposes of this article, "electronic surveillance" shall include the interception (to include recording) of electronic (digital pagers, computers/e-mail, fax machines), oral (face-to-face conversations where there is an expectation of privacy/non-interruption) and wire (telephone conversations) communications. This general rule, and certain limited exceptions thereto, appear in Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701, et seq.

Some 41 other states nationwide have their own wiretapping/electronic surveillance statutes. These statutes follow either a "one party consent" or "two/all party consent" rule. The former creates an exception to the foregoing general prohibition if one of the parties to the intercepted communication is aware of, and has consented to the interception. The latter reflects a more restrictive rule -- that being that both, or all parties to the intercepted communication must be aware of and have consented to its interception. Pennsylvania falls into the latter, more restrictive category.

In addition to the various state statutes, the federal government has its own wiretapping/electronic surveillance statute at 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. The federal statute is of the less-restrictive "one party consent" variety. This federal law is what authorizes the various states to enact their own statutes. Generally speaking, in order for state statutes to be deemed lawful, they must comport with the constraints of the federal statute. The state statutes can be even more restrictive than the federal statutes, however, they cannot be less restrictive. In addition, there must be compliance with the constraints of the United States Constitution and the respective state constitutions.

There are certain limited exceptions to the general prohibition against electronic surveillance. The exceptions exist for so-called "providers of wire or electronic communication service" (e.g., telephone companies and the like) and law enforcement in the furtherance of criminal investigative activities. With the limited exception of telemarketers, there is no sweeping exception for the private sector absent all parties' awareness and consent to the interception of the communication.

As to the providers' exception -- this generally relates to ensuring the proper operation of their facilities and protection of themselves and their customers from fraudulent or illegal use of their facilities. As to the law enforcement exception -- interceptions can only be undertaken in the furtherance of a criminal investigation. Further, the police do not have an unfettered ability to do interceptions. Their authority is tempered in situations where one of the parties has consented to law enforcement's eavesdropping by the fact that they must get the prior approval of a designated prosecutor.

Further, in the event the conversation is expected to take place in a home, a probable cause-based court order is required in addition to the attorney's approval. In the event the interception proposed by law enforcement is without any of the participants' knowledge or consent, then a court must issue an order based not only on a finding of probable cause, but also a judicial finding that the technique is necessary -- that more traditional/less intrusive investigative techniques would fail or would be fruitless to continue, or would be too dangerous to try. As to the telemarketers' exception -- interception can only be undertaken for training, quality control or business monitoring purposes.

The majority of the Act is devoted to the law enforcement exception. In that regard, the Act provides law enforcement with five investigative techniques: 1) consensual interception of electronic, oral or wire communications (where one of the parties to the communication is aware of, and has consented to law enforcement's electronic eavesdropping); 2) records/information access (i.e. toll records/long distance billing information subscriber information, etc.); 3) mobile tracking devices (electronic tracking of the movement of a vehicle, parcel, etc.); 4) pen register/trap & trace device and telecommunication identification interception device (devices that provide law enforcement with the outgoing numbers dialed from a targeted telephone facility, source of incoming calls to a targeted telephone facility and the electronic serial number/mobile identification number assigned to a cellular telephone facility, respectively); and

5) nonconsensual interception of electronic, oral or wire communications (where none of participants in the communication are aware of or have consented to law enforcement's electronic eavesdropping).

As to 1), consensuals -- the technique must receive the prior approval of the District Attorney, Attorney General or an Assistant DA/Deputy AG before being undertaken. Further, if the technique is to occur in the "home" of anyone other than the consenting party, then a probable cause-based court order is also required. As to 2), records/information access -- either a subpoena, search warrant, court order or the consent of the customer/subscriber to the facility in question must be obtained before law enforcement can access the material. As to 3), mobile tracking -- a court order is required before the technique may be undertaken. As to 4), pen register, etc. -- a probable cause-based court order is required. As to 5) nonconsensuals -- a probable cause-based court order is required finding not only that certain crimes have been, will be or are being committed, but also that there is a need for law enforcement's use of this technique.

Disclosure/use of contents of communications obtained hereby is authorized only in extremely limited circumstances. For criminal investigative purposes, an investigative or law enforcement officer who, pursuant to the proper performance of his/her duties has acquired knowledge of the contents of a communication, may disclose such contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer so long as such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the duties of both the disclosing and receiving officer. Likewise, such investigative or law enforcement officer may use such information (which may implicitly include further disclosure) as appropriate to the proper performance of that officer's duties (such as disclosure to a judge in an affidavit for a search or arrest warrant). Such contents may also be disclosed while giving testimony under oath in any criminal proceeding or in quasi-criminal, forfeiture or professional disciplinary proceedings. Beyond the foregoing parameters, disclosure/use of intercepted communications is prohibited with both civil and criminal penalties.

A person's (private citizen or law enforcement) violation of this statute can arise in the following four general areas: 1) he/she can unlawfully intercept or procure another to unlawfully intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication; 2) he/she can unlawfully disclose the contents of an electronic, oral or wire communication; 3) he/she can unlawfully use the contents of an electronic, oral or wire communication; and 4) he/she can unlawfully advertise, sell or possess an "electronic, mechanical or other device(s)" which, by its design renders it primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of electronic, oral or wire communications. The violation of any of these provisions constitutes a felony of the third degree (and yes, this includes the prohibition of a private citizen from tapping his/her own phone and/or bugging his/her own home).
As noted above, law enforcement personnel cannot electronically eavesdrop without proper authority (i.e. prior independent review by either a designated prosecutor or the judiciary). In addition to the criminal sanctions for violating the Act, other sanctions that can be brought against law enforcement for violating the Wiretap Act which consist of: 1) suppression of evidence gained as a result of any unlawful interception (or evidence derived therefrom); 2) a civil suit brought by an "aggrieved person" (one whose communication was intercepted or one against whom the interception was directed) for reasonable attorneys fees and money damages; and 3) A civil suit brought by an aggrieved person to have the investigative or law enforcement officer who allegedly violated the Act removed from their law enforcement position.
In summary, Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act is all about privacy -- the expectation of privacy we have in our communications. However, it recognizes law enforcement's periodic need to intercept communications to obtain critical evidence in criminal investigations to protect the public. In that regard, the Act strikes a balance by imposing certain requirements on law enforcement via the prior review by a prosecutor and/or judge as explained above. In protecting privacy, the constraints of the Act apply to everyone, law enforcement and private citizens alike."

In addition to the above, here is the actual wording of the ACT
§ 5701. Short title of chapter.§ 5702. Definitions.
§ 5701. Short title of chapter.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act."
§ 5702. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Aggrieved person."
A person who was a party to any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.
"Aural transfer."
A transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception.
"Communication common carrier."
Any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in intrastate, interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or in intrastate, interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy; however, a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, while so engaged, be deemed a common carrier.
As used with respect to any wire, electronic or oral communication, is any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
The Superior Court. For the purposes of Subchapter C only, the term shall mean the court of common pleas.
"Electronic communication."
Any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical system, except:
The radio portion of a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit.
Any wire or oral communication.
Any communication made through a tone-only paging device.
Any communication from a tracking device (as defined in this section).
"Electronic communication service."
Any service which provides to users the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications.
"Electronic communication system."
Any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo-optical or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of electronic communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications.
"Electronic, mechanical or other device."
Any device or apparatus, including an induction coil, that can be used to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication other than:
Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business, or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business, or being used by a communication common carrier in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties.
A hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal.
"Electronic storage."
Any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof.
Any storage of such a communication by an electronic communication service for purpose of backup protection of the communication.
"In-progress trace."
The determination of the origin of a telephonic communication to a known telephone during an interception.
Aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device.
"Investigative or law enforcement officer."
Any officer of the United States or of the Commonwealth or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offense. The term shall include, but not be limited to, employees of the Pennsylvania Crime Commission, authorized to investigate crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire or oral communications).
When referring to a judge authorized to receive applications for, and to enter, orders authorizing interceptions of wire, electronic or oral communications pursuant to this chapter, any judge of the Superior Court.
"One call system."
A communication system established by users to provide a single telephone number for contractors or designers or any other person to call notifying users of the caller's intent to engage in demolition or excavation work.
"Oral communication."
Any oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. The term does not include any electronic communication.
"Organized crime."
The unlawful activity of an association trafficking in illegal goods or services, including but not limited to, gambling, prostitution, loan sharking, controlled substances, labor racketeering, or other unlawful activities; or
any continuing criminal conspiracy or other unlawful practice which has as its objective:
large economic gain through fraudulent or coercive practices; or
improper governmental influence.
"Pen register."
A device which records or decodes electronic or other impulses which identify the numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted, with respect to wire communications, on the telephone line to which the device is attached. The term does not include a device used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communication service provided by the provider, or any device used by a provider, or customer of a wire communication service for cost accounting or other like purposes in the ordinary course of business.
Any employee, or agent of the United States or any state or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust or corporation.
"Readily accessible to the general public."
As used with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not:
scrambled or encrypted;
transmitted using modulation techniques of which the essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of the communication;
carried on a subscriber or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;
transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone-only paging system communication; or
transmitted on frequencies allocated under 47 CFR Parts 25, 74D, E, F or 94, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under Part 74 which is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio.
"Remote computing service."
The provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system.
"Tracking device."
An electronic or mechanical device which permits only the tracking of the movement of a person or object.
"Trap and trace device."
A device which captures the incoming electronic or other impulses which identify the originating number of an instrument or device from which a wire or electronic communication was transmitted.
Any person or entity who:
uses an electronic communication service; and
is duly authorized by the provider of the service to engage in the use.
"Wire communication."
Any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communication by wire, cable or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception, including the use of such a connection in a switching station, furnished or operated by a telephone, telegraph or radio company for hire as a communication common carrier. The term does not include the radio portion of a cordless telephone communication transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit."
Now, it is CLEAR from the above, that the wiretapping and electronic surveillance was never meant to cover actual events happening in real time in which a policeman is making a traffice stop and is being filmed by a citizen. Number one, the above scenario does not constitute the interception of electromagnetic communications in the manner covered under the statute.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Activists Confront Giuliani Over 9/11

Activists Confront Giuliani Over 9/11

Notice how long he pumps the hand of the gal asking the question.
I've never seen a handshake last that long, or involve such pumping ,
Heck, with that much pumping, I expected an oil stream to shoot out of her hand.

Lieberman Backs Limited U.S. Attacks on Iran

Faux democrate, NeoCon wannabe, Lieberman Backs Limited U.S. Attacks on Iran .
What the hell is wrong with Lieberman ?

From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/washington/10cnd-policy.html?hp
"WASHINGTON, June 10 — Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent who strongly supports the war in Iraq, said today that unless Iran stops training Iraqis to carry out anti-coalition attacks, the United States should launch cross-border attacks into Iran.
“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Mr. Lieberman said in an interview on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”
This could be achieved mostly with air attacks, Mr. Lieberman said, adding, “I’m not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran.”"
WTF is wrong with you Lieberman?

This is the kind of NeoCon crap I would expect from William Kristol or other NeoCons in the PNAC (Project for a New American Century), but, for God's sake, you used to be a Democrat
supposedly. Why aren't you up on the stage with Too Much Rouge Rudy and the rest?


Over at the Daily Kos site, there is a breakdown of the events displayed and documented in the YouTube video, in which, for no good reason, Infowars.com reporter, Matt Lepacek of Wearechange.org, is arrested, ostensibly at the behest of Ed Goeas, or others in the Giuliani crew.


Sue Goeas, Arrest One Goffstown Cop
by davefromqueens
Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 09:15:19 PM PDT
Although this is a couple of days old, we can't let this story go away.
I've broken down the video where Giuliani's Press Sec. Ed Goeas has reporter Matt Lepacek arrested for asking a question along with the reaction of ONE Goffstown cop who committed several torts and I believe a crime in handling the situation. http://infowars.com/...
The major points are this:
Goeas should be sued for every penny he's worth.
1 police officer overstepped his bounds while 2 other police officers who were next to Lepacek did their jobs professionally.
davefromqueens's diary :: ::
About 20 seconds into the video Goeas is asked a question he is u
50 Second mark - Goeas says to Lepacek "give me your documentation or back off." Lepacek explains his media credentials WITHOUT walking toward Goeas. It is Goeas who approaches Lepacek, not the other way around. Lepacek explains he's a reporter asking questions.
From the 50 second mark to the 1 minute and 30 second mark, two police officers are by Lepacek hearing the whole exchange. There is no problem, no crimes. And these 2 police officers deserve credit for doing their jobs properly at this point.
At the 1:40 second mark, Lepacek turns away when some Giuliani supporter yells out, "You should ask your own candidate these questions sir."
At this point Lepacek WALKS AWAY.
That's when the 3rd officer states, "You can go, you're leaving now. You're leaving right now."
Remember Lepacek was WALKING AWAY before the 3rd officer spoke. The 3rd officer at the 1:45 mark assaults Lepacek on his arm and at the 1:52 mark pushes Lepacek. This is clearly a case where an officer BROKE THE LAW and should be terminated for cause ASAP. (Again, 2 other cops did their jobs properly and these 2 cops were the ones closest to the situation. This cop came out of the blue and acted like a Brownshirt.)
Goeas then laughs about it with his pie in the face comments.
We then see Lepacek being taken out and another gentleman explaining cogently in one minute what happened.
Tags: Rudy Giuliani, Ed

What's in a Name- Don't Pillory Hillary or "Iraq" Barack

People react and respond to names. For politicians, this can be good or bad.
For the democrats, they have an uphill struggle.

Hillary (Formerly known as Rodham) Clinton had two things against her, well, maybe three. Hillary sounds silly. Rodham (which she dropped), said fast, sounds like ROTTEN, and then, Clinton, well some people are still dumb enough to be pissed off about the "blue dress affair" with Monica Lewinsky ("It's an ill wind that blows no good").

And then, there's poor Barack Obama. His first name SOUNDS like Iraq, almost like someone at the North Pole (brrrrrrr) trying to say Iraq while they are shivering from cold . Brrrr-Iraq.

Then there's the middle name "Hussein" . That tied with the first name, is just damn unfortunate at a subconscious level. On top of that, the last name is OBAMA. For God's sake, the only way to make his name worse would be just to say
to Hell with it...and change it slightly to IRAQ HUSSEIN OSAMA. That's a buzzkill if there ever was one.

By comparison, John Edwards is almost American Pie itself. He may as well be named John Doe or Joe Smith.

Now , on this name topic. think about this.

If we elect Dr. Ron Paul, we would say mucho bucks on ink and toner.

Ron Paul has the shortest name of any candidate. I think, if he were elected, it would be AS SHORT or SHORTER than any president ever elected. When you think about the ink and toner used in newspapers, magazines, reports, official documents, letterheads, you name it, that could save thousands over a 4 year period counting both governmental and private sector articles, memos, documents, et.

So, there's yet ANOTHER great reason to vote for RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008.

Mitt Romney - Make a Moroni and Cheese for me

Mitt's nickname as I understand, is "Catcher's" as in "Catcher's Mitt". There are many insinuations that can be drawn I guess, such as, he likes baseball.

I think it should be MORONI and CHEESE Romney. Why?

Well, Romney is a proud member of the LDS church, and the church was founded when allegedly, the Angel MORONI (

The angel Moroni [mɔr'ounai] (also referred to in early Mormon histories as Nephi) is an angel that Joseph Smith, Jr. said visited him on numerous occasions, beginning on September 23, 1823. The angel was the guardian of the golden plates, which Smith said were buried in a hill near his home in western New York, and which he said were the source material for the Book of Mormon. Moroni is an important figure in the theology of the Latter Day Saint movement, and is featured prominently in Mormon architecture and art. Three Witnesses besides Joseph Smith said they saw Moroni in 1829 visions, as did several other witnesses who each said they had their own vision.

Moroni is said to be the same person as a Book of Mormon prophet-warrior named Moroni, who was the last to write in the golden plates. The book says that Moroni buried them before he died after a great battle between two pre-Columbian civilizations. After he died, he was resurrected, became an angel, and was tasked with guarding the golden plates, and with eventually directing Joseph Smith to their location in the 1820s. According to Latter Day Saint movement theology, Moroni still has the plates and several other Book of Mormon artifacts in his possession. -from Wikipedia ).

Thus, he can put the MORON back in MORONI.

The CHEESE part is that he is just so damn cheesy.

So, make a MORONI and CHEESE Salad for old
Catcher's Mitt.

Tell him it's fine to "go on a Mission" for two years for the LDS church, AT HIS EXPENSE, but we don't want him "Going on a Mission" FOR FOUR YEARS in WASHINGTON, for the USA at OUR expense.

have you heard the new joke about GIULIANI ?

The new joke making the rounds about Giuliani goes like this :

-Hey, do you know the difference between "Too Much Rouge" Rudy Giuliani and a DogCatcher ?

(Pause for them to think, after which they say "No, what is it?")

Answer- A dogcatcher already HAS a job.


Since BUSHY loves to hand out his pet nicknames, I have suggested here,
some possibles

Sam "Brokeback Mountain" Brownback

John "Methusaleh" McCain

Rudy "Too Much Rouge" Giuliani

Duncan "Earmarks4me" Hunter

"Catcher's" Mitt "Golden Tablets and Magic Spectacles" Romney

Mike "Used2B-A-Fatty" Huckabee ( alternate names include Mike "I KNOW GOD PERSONALLY" Huckabee or Mike "HUCKSTER" Huckabee )

Tom "No Immigrants Allowed" Tancredo

Tommy "My Middle Name is Terrific" Thompson

Jim "The Invisible Man" Gilmore
and last, but certainly not least

Ron "The Doc" Paul , aka Ron "The Winner" Paul

Saturday, June 9, 2007







Edwards says Giuliani carbon copy of Bush

Washington, D.C. - John Edwards said former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani can't win the presidency if he stays too close to Bush ideologically.
Criticizing the current administration's policies on handling terrorism and the war in Iraq in a speech in New York City Thursday, former North Carolina Senator Edwards said "If Mayor Giuliani believes that what President Bush has done is good and wants to embrace it and run a campaign for the presidency, saying I will give you four more years of what this president has given you, then he's allowed to do that."
Edwards added. "He'll never be elected president of the United States, but he's allowed to do that."

Interesting article at RENSE -DOT-COM


Photography is not a crime; so why are police hassling people for it ?

I find this topic useful to show how our rights are being abridged on a daily basis.

I am quoting from another blog, the one of Carlos Miller.

" Photography is not a crime; It’s a First Amendment right
June 7th, 2007
Freelance reporter/photographer arrested for asking the wrong question about Rudy Guliani
In an incident that has received absolutely no coverage from the mainstream media, freelance journalist Matt Lepacek was arrested at a New Hampshire press conference Tuesday after asking a Rudy Giuliani staffer about the ex-mayor’s prior knowledge of a collapse of a World Trade Center building.

On this video, Lepacek is surrounded by a sea of reporters when he starts firing off questions to Giuliani pollster Ed Goeas. Seconds later, a group of police officers move in to arrest him as several photographers snapped away. Two days later, the incident has only been reported by a handful of alternative news websites.

Lepacek was on assignment for www.infowars.com, a site that has raised some controversial theories about the government’s involvement with 9/11. But he was reportedly carrying CNN credentials at the time of his arrest, insinuating that perhaps he has worked for them in the past.
Lepacek was charged with criminal trespass and there was talk that he would be charged with “espionage” despite the fact that he was holding the camera in full view and that the incident took place after a GOP debate attended by hundreds of photographers.
Luke Rudkowski, another Infowars reporter at the scene, said police physically assaulted him and Lepacek, destroying the camera in the process. "

From Carlos, May blog post, apparently he was hassled for taking pictures, or at least, having a camera...
"May 25th, 2007
A Coral Gables police officer asks me for a permit after I photograph him
I was standing on a sidewalk on Miracle Mile Thursday night carrying my Canon 5D with a 50 mm f/1.8 lens, a combination that works excellent in low light situations.
The officer was across the street standing on one of those motor scooters that police have nowadays that enable them to walk their beat without actually walking their beat.
As the officer was zipping across the street on the scooter, I took a few shots as I think it is hilarious that police have resorted to a child’s toy for law enforcement efficiency.

“Do you have a permit to take photos?” he asked as he reached the sidewalk I was standing on."

But, it is a widespread topic on the Net, i.e., this issue of cops hassling people taking pictures.

Thomas Hawk has an interesting article on his experience, he calls it the Right to Bear Cameras
"Tonight Flickr pals Ropeboy, Aqui-Ali, Ranjit and I all went down to Oakland's warehouse district to shoot. No sooner had we begun than we were stopped and confronted by Sheriffs. They required each of us to turn over our IDs and then proceeded to detain us for about 20 minutes. Admitedly there is a small power plant and trains down in the district but ask yourself this, should carrying a camera result in this kind of harrasment? Should the police be able to randomly stop you and run your ID for warrants or a background check merely for being in the wrong place with a camera? There is a chill in the air in this country right now but I'm not sure that taking it out on the rights of photographers is the correct answer. We were committing no crime and peacefully assembling for the purpose of our passion, photography and it's pursuit in a group that we call Flickr.This particular cop asked that I not take his photograph. I took this shot anyway when he wasn't paying attention. As I understand it, freedom of the press involves the ability to photograph law enforcement and what some might view as an abuse of power."

But, there are lots more blogs talking about this disturbing trend.

Stopped for my 6th time!
Today (9/6/2004 - Labor Day) I was kind of in the wrong place at the wrong time while doing some night photos, but the story is interesting at the same time. I was on the dirt back roads of Laurel Park in Secaucus, NJ and while leaving a Hudson County Police Officer drove up to me and politely said "Parks' closed." As I normally would, I agreed with him and packed up my stuff and walked back towards my car.

Although (which I should have realized anyway) he wasn't done talking to me (because they never are, they always have more to say). He had to come back about 30 seconds later to ask me "Where you taking any pictures back there?". Not to lie or anything, I told him yes. He then started to tell me how those back roads are private property and that I was trespassing (He wasn't yelling at me, more just informing me).

This is what I don't understand. I have been on those back roads plenty of times and sometimes police even came back there to see what I was up to. Although, they always leave me be because I'm open and show them the photography I did and they don't see that I'm causing any harm. Also, there are also no signs stating "Private Property: Keep Out" or "No Public Access". The only sign visible is a yellow diamond saying "End of Pavement".When I told him that I was doing some photography he asked me of what. I told him truthfully that I was photographing the city lights of Newark & New York from the Meadowlands, especially the "Towers of Light", the World Trace Center memorial that is erected around September 11th every year.While talking to him, I noticed a New Jersey Transit off-road police unit drive by and head up the dirt roads I just came out of. The officer said "I don’t think NJT would appreciate you taking photos back there in a vital area. Especially along the Northeast Corridor Train line, because you might be trying to blow the trains up."Bullshit my ass. If I was a terrorist and I wanted to blow something up, I could easily do it without photos. No terrorist attack in the United States has ever relied on photography. "

I COULD POST MORE AND MORE AND MORE...YOU CAN LOOK THE BLOGS UP YOURSELF. In fact, watch the Michael Moore film, FAHRENHEIT 9/11. He and his crew were peacefully filming the Saudi Arabian headquarters in DC from a distance, and while he is narrating, Federal Secret Service officers come up to hassle him about filming.

It is not rocket science why cops are especially aggressive about people filming or photographing them. It is evidence that can be used against them in court when they are found guilty of wrongdoing. People who are doing wrong, or who don't want dirty secrets exposed, can get physcially aggressive, even violent when someone starts filming or photographing them.

Look at the videotaping of the beating which Rodney King received. In that case, even though the video was clearly depicting Mr. King getting the hell beat out of him , due to the venue of the trial (Simi Valley), where lots of cops live, the cops were found not guilty, but without the video, the nation would never be shown first hand evidence of what appeared to be police brutality to most of us (almost everyone NOT living in Simi Valley).

To that point, read this from REASON.com
"You Thought That Was Police Brutality?
May 29, 2007
Angel Rodriguez says he was videotaping police making a drug arrest from his window in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, when he saw what he thought was police brutality. Then, he says, the police spotted him videotaping them. He says several police officers rushed into his home, knocked him to the floor, beat him and tore the videotape out of his camera."

And more
"Friday, July 12th, 2002Police Brutality On Videotape Across the Country: The Videographer Who Captured Footage of Police Beating An Unarmed Teenager in Inglewood Is Arrested; Police Investigate An Oklahoma City Police Beating of Another Unarmed Black ManListen to Segment Download Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
Police Thursday arrested Mitch Crooks, the man who videotaped the scene of a white officer smashing the head of a handcuffed black teenager into the trunk of a car. The arrest came on the same day Crooks was supposed to appear before a grand jury. He was approaching CNN for a television interview, when plain-clothed officers drove up to the building and hustled him into a van with tinted windows. A CNN surveillance camera caught the scene on video. It shows Crooks struggling against the officers, screaming for help as the van drove away.
The Los Angeles District Attorney's office says Crooks was arrested on warrants for petty theft and driving under the influence with a hit and run. The DA also served him with a subpoena to testify before the Los Angeles County grand jury. Crooks had been expected to appear before the grand jury Thursday morning but failed to show up.
Crooks had repeatedly told reporters he was afraid officers would be "coming after" him for videotaping the beating of 16-year-old Donovan Jackson Chavis from a nearby motel room. Speaking on a radio program Wednesday Crooks said: "I fear for my life. They're going to kick my ass in a cell and take turns on me, probably." Crooks also told reporters the four officers involved in the beating approached his motel room moments after he shot the video, demanding the tape.
Jeremy Morse, the officer seen beating Donovan Jackson Chavis, has yet to be charged with a crime. He was suspended on Monday with pay. On Thursday, his attorney said the 16-year-old developmentally disabled Jackson took action that "required that he be punched." Morse has been the subject of repeated complaints to the Inglewood Police Department.
Meanwhile, authorities in Oklahoma City asked the FBI to look into the actions of two officers who were videotaped striking an unarmed African American man 27 times with batons. The police also sprayed him with pepper spray. They said they were trying to arrest the man, Donald Pete, for trying to conceal marijuana by swallowing it.
Oklahoma City Police Chief M.T. Berry said the Inglewood incident prompted him to contact the FBI. But he said he does not believe the Oklahoma case rises to the same level of seriousness as the California case.
The Police Chief initially defended the officers, saying they acted correctly while handling the arrest on Monday."

Cameraman Videotaping Police Beating Arrested in California
"The man who shot the amateur video of a white police officer beating a black teenager in suburban Los Angeles was taken into custody Thursday afternoon by the Los Angeles County district attorney's office

The man who shot the amateur video of a white police officer beating a black teenager in suburban Los Angeles was taken into custody Thursday afternoon by the Los Angeles County district attorney's office. Michael Crooks, 27, was arrested outside CNN's Los Angeles bureau where he was scheduled for an interview.

He was screaming as he was driven away by plainclothes officers, the CNN quoted witnesses as saying. The district attorney's office said Crooks' arrest was unrelated to the videotape case and he was arrested on at least two previous charges from Placer County, northern California.

The charges include petty theft and driving under influence of alcohol. The surprise arrest came when the videotape taken by Michael Crooks has been played repeatedly on television, in which police officer Jeremy Morse of the Inglewood police department was slamming a handcuffed teenager boy, 16-year-old Donovan Jackson, onto the back of a police car before punching him once in the face.

After the disclosure of the tape, the Los Angeles grand jury started investigating the violent case, which prompted an outcry reminiscent of the response to the 1991 beating of black motorist Rodney King.

The grand jury hopes to get the original videotape shot by Crooks. Rejecting the district attorney's subpoena, Crooks did notappear before a grand jury investigating the police beating Thursday morning, citing he feared for his life after he shot the video last Saturday in Inglewood in southwestern Los Angeles suburban.

A question that hasn't come to a conclusion is what took place at the Inglewood gas station Saturday before Crooks started taping. ¡¡ The video has caused public furor over police brutality and racial discrimination. Jackson and his father Coby Chavis, who was stopped by police while driving a car with expired tag, filed a lawsuit on Wednesdayin a federal court, seeking unspecified damages from the city of Inglewood, the Los Angeles County and seven officers from two police departments. Many compared the incident to the Rodney King case in 1991, in which black driver King was beaten up by four white police officers in Los Angeles at the end of a traffic pursuit. The acquittal of the police officers sparked the worst riots in modernUS history, leading 54 people dead and 1 billion US dollars in property damages. "

The Lower 9th: Documenting police brutality
"Common Ground Relief has never been a big fan of the NOPD. From the first days of the relief effort in Algiers Point, cops have been adversarial towards volunteers and organizers.
For a while, volunteers were doing "Copwatch," or videotaping and documenting police/citizen interactions, much to the chagrin of the officers, who occasionally saw fit to arrest the Copwatcher on some trumped-up charge or other. If the Copwatcher was black, then the attention of law enforcement was consistently more inclined to arrest first, and ask questions later.

Common Ground is still engaged in police accountability, offering legal assistance and documenting allegations of police harassment or brutality. On their website, Common Ground has posted a map of New Orleans overlaid with icons that marking various places throughout town where reported harassment or brutality has occurred. The map shows dozens of incidents, based on phone calls to the legal hotline, reports taken at the CG legal clinic, and some exit interviews with OPP inmates.

By the looks of the map, the worst places in town for police misconduct are the French Quarter -- particularly Bourbon Street -- and a section of Mid-City around the Courthouse. Over two dozen allegations of police theft, abuse, illegal searches, or abusive or inappropriate conduct are reported in that vicinity. On Bourbon Street, where officers famously beat up retired schoolteacher Robert Davis a month after Katrina, there are five reported beatings (one of which resulted in the death of the arrested suspect from being hit twice by a taser), and two police thefts."

Who would you want YOUR kids to pattern their life after...Dr. Ron Paul MD or Too Much Rouge Rudy ?

The Repubs have , for around eight years, made a big deal about moral issues,

Let's examine which candidate appears to be the more moral of the two.

Dr. Ron Paul, MD has been a medical doctor, delivering babies, easing suffering,
and doing what he can for the health and welfare of his fellow Texans for decades.

Rudy is a cross dressing , multimillionaire lawyer, who has been accused of adultery,

and, from another site, here is what they list.

"-Married his cousin (and divorced her)-
Affairs -- Divorced his second wife (in a very ugly way)-
Mob ties (his Dad and uncle)- Wears Women's Clothing (in a very ugly way)

Nasty, Mean-Spirited and Small-Minded Cuss-
Bernie Kerik- Business Links-
Authoritarian tendencies-
9-11 Mistakes-
Farmersville, NY Scandal-
Harding scandal-
Lack of Security"

Not convinced ?

Below are actual pictures of both men.



Gingrich Forecasts Ron Paul Nomination?

Take a look at the following and tell me if Ron Paul isn’t the only nominee that Newt describes…
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican Newt Gingrich, in a jab at President Bush, warned on Friday that the GOP will lose the White House and Congress in 2008 if the nominee is perceived as a continuation of the Bush presidency.
Addressing a conservative organization, the former House Speaker never mentioned the president by name, but his political point was clear.
“If the Republicans run a stand-pat presidential candidate who ends up being on defense for all of September and October and who is seen by the country as representing four more years, the fact is that Republicans are not going to” win, Gingrich told the American Enterprise Institute.
Newt probably thought that “being on defense” meant apologizing for Bush’s missteps, but I think those words could speak to something far more interesting. Because, honestly, what Republican is going to back down from Bush’s post-9/11 defense stance? Anybody you can think of?
And furthermore, who will back down from his spending habits? Who will take positions that are consistent with true conservative ideology?
I can think of only one candidate, and oddly enough it isn’t Newt.
Want more proof?
In a glimpse of what his candidacy might look like, he said he would shut down public schools that aren’t performing and offer a $20 billion reward for the first private company that successfully completes a Mars mission.
“Somebody would be there and back about 40 percent of the way into the NASA process,” he said.
Yeah…those are big ideas.
In any event, for those who read this site on a regular basis know, I’ve been talking a lot about Ron Paul lately. It’s not becuase I necessarily endorse the man, but I certainly think he’s one of the most exciting things to happen to the Republican party in the last 20 years.
In any event, keep talking Newt. You may just predict the future yet.

He Hates Us For Our Freedom- Not Osama, RUDY GIULIANI

Rudy, Rudy , Rudy....you really need to buy an enema.

You are impacted.

When Rudy and his buddy, King George the Cowardly say that the Islamic "Fascists" (actually, they are closer to Fascism than the Islamic fundamentalists, if you read up on the definition of the term) "hate us for our freedom", I think they are projecting.

If we look back to when Georgie Porgie was the "gubernator" of Texas, when environmentalists were exercising their rights to peacably assemble and protest on public property OUTSIDE the governor's mansion in 1999, Bushy changed the rules and sent police, plain clothes law enforcement, and very tall Department of Public Safety troopers to harass, and ultimately, arrest them.

This arrest spawned an ACLU lawsuit which named Bush among others, as a defendant. My understanding is he and the other defendants lost the case, with each of the arrested getting around 100 grand a piece.

But this was just a taste of things to come.Bush has gone out of his way to abridge and even suspend the civil rights of regular citizens.

In point of fact, there are so many outrages and abuses, documented well in documents availabel on line, I don't have the space here to outline them, but just do a Google search and you will be astounded.

And that is only the material that has made its way to sunlight. Who knows how much has been covered up.Whether we are talking about the "Free Speech Zones", the warrantless wiretaps, or any of a zillion other draconian efforts, Bush has shown he does not like Americans to have too much freedom.Well, now, "mini me", aka Too Much Rouge Rudy, aka Nosfergiuliani, aka Drag Queen Rudy, has tried to show he is presidential in the line of Bushy, by having a reporter named Matt Lepacek, arrested and charged with a bogus charge after the GOP debates, because the reporter had the nerve to exercise his freedom of speech and ask one of Il Duce's stooges, Ed Goeas, some hard questions.

Look folks, when God sent lightning to kill Giuliani's mike during the debate, that should tell you something.The little fart is going to lose both the election, AND the nomination. Put your prom dress back in mothballs Rudy, you're not going to the ball as the Queen of the Prom.

Note to Rudolph Giuliani, read up on BLOWBACK

During one of the debates, in what has become a much publicized encounter, Dr. Ron Paul rightfully identified why the US had been attacked on 9-11. Mr. Giuliani protested that he had never heard anything like that, and asked Dr. Paul to retract his statement, or, really, more , DEMANDED he take it back.

Well, not only should Giuliani watch the movie WHY WE FIGHT by Eugene Janecki, but he should read what BLOWBACK means.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson "The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not "attack America," as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders who then became enemies only because they had already become victims. Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. The United States deploys such overwhelming military force globally that for its militarized opponents only an "asymmetric strategy," in the jargon of the Pentagon, has any chance of success. When it does succeed, as it did spectacularly on September 11, it renders our massive military machine worthless: The terrorists offer it no targets. On the day of the disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were attacked because we are "a beacon for freedom" and because the attackers were "evil." In his address to Congress on September 20, he said, "This is civilization's fight." This attempt to define difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values--as a "clash of civilizations," in current post-cold war American jargon--is not only disingenuous but also a way of evading responsibility for the "blowback" that America's imperial projects have generated."
What IS Blowback?

" Blowback is an unpleasant, unintended consequence of a military or paramilitary operation. The operation is often covert and the consequence usually only manifests itself over a significant time-period so that what seemed like a good idea at the time is revealed in retrospect, and in the long-view of history, as profoundly damaging.

An example often quoted is America's support for the Islamic extremist militants who fought against the Soviet Union following its invasion of Afghanistan. America and its allies provided funding, training and equipment for the jihadists who travelled from all over the world to wage war on the hated Soviets. When the Soviets withdrew in 1989, and the puppet regime they had left in place was defeated a few years later, an intolerant regime of religious extremists, the Taliban, was able to take power. In addition, militants from all over the world had received vital training and experience in the almost decade-long conflict, assets they were able to later put to deadly use, against America itself, in other parts of the world."
and...CAN YOU READ ?


The Arrest of Matt Lepacek, and the MILGRAM EXPERIMENT

People, ordinary people like you and I, can and will do, horrible things when they are "just following orders". The danger of the fallout of people "just following orders" is magnified exponentially when those "following orders" have guns strapped on their hip, handcuffs on the back of their belt, a star on their uniform, and are operating "under color of law".

People sometimes point to the horrors inflicted on people by the Third Reich in World War II, by Nazi soldiers and henchmen of Hitler , and during the Nuremburg trials, they said they were "just following orders", but the sad but true truth is, you don't have to be a sadistic monster in order to do horrible injustices to your fellow citizens. All you have to be is someone who has a job, or is part of something that has a chain of command, and someone in authority who tells you to do it. It happens in corporations, and yes, even in police departments. If a cop is told to arrest and rough up a reporter like Lepacek, it certainly can happen.

For proof of this, just look at the Milgram Experiment.
"The Milgram experiment was a seminal series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,[1] and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.[2]

The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiments to answer this question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"[3] Or, put another way, why were there so many "Good Germans"?

Milgram summed things up in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.[4]"

Milgram's obedience experiment was replicated by other researchers since then, and has interstudy applicability and authentication.

"Stanley Milgram answered the call to this problem by performing a series of studies on the Obedience to Authority. Milgram's work began at Harvard where he was working towards his Ph.D. The experiments on which his initial research was based were done at Yale from 1961-1962.

In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, an individual turns up to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. He is introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject. The experimenter explains that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher" and one will be the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that the individual who answered the ad will become the "teacher."

Your co-subject is taken to a room where he is strapped in a chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his arm. Next, the "teacher" is taken to an adjoining room which contains a generator. The "teacher" is instructed to read a list of two word pairs and ask the "learner" to read them back. If the "learner" gets the answer correct, then they move on to the next word. If the answer is incorrect, the "teacher" is supposed to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts.

The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each is labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also has a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches are labeled "XXX". The "teacher" automatically is supposed to increase the shock each time the "learner" misses a word in the list. Although the "teacher" thought that he/she was administering shocks to the "learner", the "learner" is actually a student or an actor who is never actually harmed. (The drawing of lots was rigged, so that the actor would always end up as the "learner.")

At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, teachers seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so.

Today the field of psychology would deem this study highly unethical but, it revealed some extremely important findings. The theory that only the most severe monsters on the sadistic fringe of society would submit to such cruelty is disclaimed. Findings show that, "two-thirds of this studies participants fall into the category of ‘obedient' subjects, and that they represent ordinary people drawn from the working, managerial, and professional classes (Obedience to Authority)." Ultimately 65% of all of the "teachers" punished the "learners" to the maximum 450 volts. No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!

Milgram also conducted several follow-up experiments to determine what might change the likelihood of maximum shock delivery. In one condition, the touch-proximity condition, the teacher was required to hold the hand of the learner on a "shock plate" in order to give him shocks above 150 volts.

The most amazing thing to note from this follow-up experiment is that 32% of the subjects in the proximity-touch condition held the hand of the learner on the shock plate while administering shocks in excess of 400 volts! Further experiments showed that teachers were less obedient when the experimenter communicated with them via the telephone versus in person, and males were just as likely to be obedient as females, although females tended to be more nervous."
So, will people do horrible things, even up to and including perceived homicide under the "just following orders" scenario ? Yes. Is it possible for security guards, police, secret service, and others, to violate people's first amendment and civil rights pursuant to being told to do so by someone perceived to be in authority?
Yes, it is possible.



There is a movie that has been out for two years (2005 release) by filmmaker Eugene Janecki, which is entitled WHY WE FUGHT that Too Much Rouge Rudy Giuliani needs to see.

His remarks during the debate to Dr. Ron Paul questioning Dr. Paul's statement about why we were attacked on 9/11, are shown to be part and parcel of the spin machine of the military industrial complex, a complex which includes so-called "think tanks" with NeoCons like Richard Perle and WIlliam Kristol in organizations such as PNAC (the Project for a New American Century).

If you want to know WHY and HOW we went to war with Iraq, if you want to know what "blowback" is, watch the movie or rent it and watch it. It is currently playing on the STARZ movie channel.

It shows, absolutely, that RON PAUL IS RIGHT.

Friday, June 8, 2007


You might think I would talk about Bush and his "mouthpiece", as lawyers are often called, but I just wanted to share a little picture to show that, the voices Bush hears may not be from God, but more from Karl Rove (who may BE Bush's god). Notice the picture WITH THE EAR PIECE and without the ear piece. The ear piece is pinker and lighter in color than the surrounding skin.

We don't usually see Rudy from the side during these debates, so it may be that Too Much Rouge Rudy, is wearing a wire too.


I don't know, but they look like those "twins separated at birth" pictures.
Rudy tends to bend forward, hands together, in the typical Nosferatu, the undead posture, and he always has that slimy grin. Very odd if you ask me. Also, God intervened to shut his mike during the debates.

Others have noticed the similar appearance between Nosferatu and Giuliani.

" Fred Thompson bears an uncanny resemblance to the Creature from the Black Lagoon
Some people have been struck by Giuliani's resemblance to Nosferatu. I say: That's nothing compared to the similarity between Fred Thompson and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. "

"Home » blogs » krislopresto's blog
by krislopresto on June 6, 2007 - 5:22pm.
...Also on the show will be Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone Contributor to discuss the Republican Debates and Nosferatu himself, Rudy Giuliani."

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Tax Protestors Ed and Elaine Brown

Ed and Elaine Brown were sentenced in absentia for allegedly not paying income taxes for nearly ten years, and allegedly owing a quarter million. They were sentenced to 5 years in prison. I believe Elaine Brown is actually Dr. Elaine Brown, a licensed dentist.

Apparently, the FEDS are now moving on them with armored vehicles and helicopter support, ala WACO or Ruby Ridge.

Here is a live feed from the area

Las Vegas Odds on Ron Paul slashed from 200-1 to 15-1 and continuing to improve

The mainstream media, GOP bigwigs, and everyone else, continues to be frustrated as Ron Paul is winning hearts and minds. Las Vegas odds were 200 to 1. They are now down to 15 to 1 and it will be continuing to get better.


Apparently, this was reporter Matt Lepacek's crime, actually asking a serious question of

pollster Ed Goeas, tool/toadie of "Too Much Rouge" Rudy Giuliani.

Do "Too Much Rouge" Giuliani's Own Kids Hate Him?

"Republican primary voters were thrilled to learn Rudy Giuliani’s kids hate him as much as his many ex-wives, because what self-respecting GOP voter doesn’t despise his loathsome children and wives? The ex-New York mayor and neo-fascist, famous for standing around after terrorists crashed planes into New York buildings, is suddenly the super front-runner."

"Giuliani - “Lying, so easy a caveman could do it!”
It couldn’t be more clear how Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly lied to the public about what really happened 9-11. Here we have the entire N.Y. Fire dept saying hes a liar and yet Giuliani pushes forward claiming to be a hero when nothing could be further from the truth.
I guess for the current administration and supporters like Rudy Giuliani lying is a way of life and will be until Americans call him and the current administration on their absurd lies. Let’s not forget that even though we have a republican president that the democratic side aside from a very few (of which Hillary and obama are not part of) are calling people out on the things that really matter to all of us. His kids wont talk to him, his ex-wives hate him, the NYFD calls him a crook and liar, he has to pay for his debate audience applaud him and were supposed to believe this guy?"



Section 635:2

635:2 Criminal Trespass. –
I. A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place.

II. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor for the first offense and a class B felony for any subsequent offense if the person knowingly or recklessly causes damage in excess of $1,000 to the value of the property of another.

III. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor if:
(a) The trespass takes place in an occupied structure as defined in RSA 635:1, III; or
(b) The person knowingly enters or remains:
(1) In any secured premises;
(2) In any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person; or
(3) In any place in defiance of any court order restraining him from entering such place so long as he has been properly notified of such order.

IV. All other criminal trespass is a violation.
V. In this section, ""secured premises'' means any place which is posted in a manner prescribed by law or in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, or which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.
VI. In this section, ""property,'' ""property of another,'' and ""value'' shall be as defined in RSA 637:2, I, IV, and V, respectively.
Source. 1971, 518:1. 1979, 377:7, eff. Aug. 22, 1979. 2005, 125:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.


"Too much rouge" Rudy Giuliani, tried to promote himself as
"America's Mayor", but it turned out that crossdressing Rudy, is "America's Failure".

Well, we do have an American that we can call "America's Reporter", Matt Lepacek of WeAreChange.org. Matt Lepacek had the "huevos" to ask the Giuliani "tool" Ed Goeas (is that "GO ASS"?) the pollster for Too Much Rouge Rudy, tough questions.

Apparently, Goeas had nothing to answer his questions, and I think he said something like "back off" or some macho crap. The next thing you know, police are taking Matt away, and apparently,
have charged him with, what on its face appears to be a bogus, felonious criminal trespass charge, when, the elements of criminal trespass appear to be lacking.

So, if Too Much Rouge Rudy got elected, he apparently would be having people arrested and charged with bogus charges and roughed up by the police right and left.

The question is simple. When did the law enforcement of New Hampshire start being Giuliani's "crew" and do his bidding, if that is indeed the case.

Contact numbers to protest bogus arrest and violation of First Amendment Rights of Matt Lepacek at GOP debates

From a post at YouTube on the video of the arrest...
by nevesis 17 hours ago

Contact the New Hampshire state police Director’s Office:
(603) 271-2450
Or any of the following individual NH police stations may have responded, so contact them directly:
Troop AEpping, NH 03042
Phone: (603) 679-3333
Troop B
Milford, NH 03051

Phone: (603) 672-3333Troop D
Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 271-3333
Various Goffstown, NH (where the arrest took place)

town e-mail address:

City selectman e-mail ..
or call them directly at (603) 886-6024

David French, oversight committee contact

Contact Rudy's 2008 campaign directly:
Official contact number: 212-835-449rudy@joinrudy2008.com
Finally... contact the media in outrage!
Let's see if we can't get some mainstream media attention
for their fellow jailed reporter.


First hand eyewitnesses say that there was talk of charging Matt Lepacek with "espionage".Apparently, he was charged with criminal trespass. The elements of criminal trespass, as defined in New Hampshire, do not seem to be existing in this case.

"635:2. A person is guilty of criminal trespass under these circumstances if(b) [he] knowingly enters or remains:(2) In any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person . . ."

Number one, on the video, certainly, the owner of the venue (i.e. the "Spin Area") does NOT appear to be present, and does not appear to communicate to Matt that he was to leave.

It is not clear that Ed Goeas ever says directly to Matt that he is now trespassing or is unwanted, and directly asks him to leave. Goeas talks to other people. But, even if Goeas did, it is not clear he is an "authorized person" under the statute in New Hampshire. In fact, I don't believe Ed Goeas would be such an authorized person.

In fact, Goeas tries in an asshole manner, to talk to others about Matt, as if Matt were trash he wanted to have taken out. Thus, I did not hear any direct statement to Matt from either the owner of the premises nor from an authorized person, that he should leave, and then he refused. In fact, it appeared when the law enforcement personnel asked him to leave, he was very compliant and did so.


Views: 41,903
Infowars' Matt Lepacek arrested after GOP debate
Infowars' Matt Lepacek confronts Rudy Giuliani pollster Ed Goeas in the spin room after the 6/5/07 Republican debate in Manchester. He is arrested; Infowars' Matt Lepacek confronts Rudy Giuliani pollster Ed Goeas in the spin room after the 6/5/07 Republican debate in Manchester. He is arrested; later, his colleague Luke Rudowski is led outside by police. Rudowski is let go and explains what just happened. (more) (less)
9/11 truth alex jones rudy debates gop
Added: 1 day ago in Category: News & Politics From: daveweigel81
Views: 41,903
468 ratings