Daily Archives: April 5, 2007

O’Reilly’s America: Who Is The Real “Hater”?

Infowars.net | April 3, 2007  

oreilly_spewing_hate

A place where the right to disagree = the right to be locked up

 Bill O’Reilly’s torrent of attacks upon Rosie O’Donnell, Charlie Sheen and Mark Cuban over the past few days in regards to their outspoken views on 9/11 is a prime example of why the First Amendment should never be presided over by those in power.

In what has been described by many as a crude attempt to piggyback on the spiking of viewers to O’Donnell’s show The View, O’Reilly has gone on the extreme offensive, suggesting that O’Donnell has “crossed a line” and should reprimanded for being a “hater”.

In two separate broadcasts on Fox News yesterday O’Reilly mentioned the word “hate” close to one hundred times when talking about O’Donnell. Here are a few samples:

Under the graphic Helping the enemy – “Americans Always turn away from haters, that’s exactly what Ms. O’Donnell has become.”

In segment with Michelle Malkin – “You go over a certain line in America, you can’t come back from it, you start to sympathize with the enemy, Iran, there’s no coming back.”

“She’s not interested in the truth, this is about hatred and that’s why I think Disney’s got a big problem here. This woman now has crossed the line into the hate territory, there has never been a successful media person in the history of this country that has crossed the line into hate, there are niche people on talk radio, very few on television here, they’re wiped out, but on her blog, in her demeanor of television, she is now a hater and Disney is gonna have to deal with it somehow, I think”

In a segment where O’Reilly explains to us what media fairness and balance is all about – “We think we have crossed a line into the hate arena… The problem is once you get into an area where you are spreading propaganda, which is where she is with the 9/11 conspiracy and the British government set up its own people to be kidnapped, once you get into that absurd area, the company you work for has to say, this is her opinion, but here is another opinion to balance it out that may be sane.”

On ratings – “I’m not interested in numbers, I’m interested in protecting Americans from hateful comments and protecting our forces overseas. When someone does what O’Donnell is doing, this is used by our enemies all over the world because her transmission goes all over.”

“Rosie O’Donnell has now crossed into anti American territory, she hates this government, the Bush administration, and she is using that hatred, she is venting her venom, for whatever reason, I am not a psychiatrist, and she is damaging the country in doing so…. Surely you can’t allow someone to come on the air everyday and vent hateful dishonest propaganda, you just can’t do that.”

On debating O’Donnell – “I will never go on the View while she is there because I will not go up against a hater like her.”

O’Reilly also had some choice words for Charlie Sheen – “If Charlie Sheen puts his name on a 9/11 conspiracy documentary, that will be used by every American hater in the world to tell uninformed people, ‘you see Al Qaeda didn’t carry out the attack on 9/11, the Americans attacked themselves, the Jews did it, OK, that kind of stuff.”

In a concluding moment on The Factor , O’Reilly stated: “No one has control over O’Donnell, and that’s what ABC’s conundrum is”. That is not a conundrum Bill, that’s called living in a free country.

O’Reilly also reminded viewers of his recent “radical” “far left” guests, Sunsara Taylor and Rocky Anderson (whom he also throws into the “haters” category with O’Donnell) showing clips of each telling absolute truths that are unflattering to the Bush administration. O’Reilly is so afraid that his viewers might actually further research these foreign viewpoints that he spent considerable time after each appearance misquoting and slandering his guests, a real coward’s technique of debate.

O’Reilly’s standpoint is that O’Donnell et al are not merely exercising their unalienable right to free speech, they are preaching hate. O’Reilly believes that O’Donnell and “her radical pals” are telling the world the USA is a criminal nation and are somehow “aiding the enemy” whomever that may be this week.

O’Donnell, Sheen, Anderson, Taylor, and myriad others are doing no such thing, they are in fact doing the exact opposite in taking on a provably corrupt and criminal Bush administration by encouraging the American people to question their government in an effort to protect American values and further prevent the spread of anti American hatred elsewhere.

O’Reilly waxes lyrical about how two sides of any issue should always be presented but in O’Reilly’s America, he would have O’Donnell taken off the air immediately and he would have Mark Cuban ” thrown in jail “.

In O’Reilly’s America anyone who calls into his radio show in disagreement would receive a visit from Fox security and have their information turned over to local law enforcement agency.

In O’Reilly’s America anyone grabbed, labeled an enemy combatant detained without trial at the government’s behest should be immediately executed .

In O’Reilly’s America there would be no academic freedom Any professor in disagreement with the US government would be ” investigated by the FBI” or “followed 24 hours a day by the CIA” as Sammy Al-Arian and the 9/11 Scholars have found out.

In O’Reilly’s America anyone who criticizes the espoused pro-torture policy of the government is unpatriotic.

This is Bill O’Reilly’s America, a place where the right to free speech and protest is the right to be reported to the authorities, publicly branded a “hater” and locked up.

Iran ends standoff with Britain, crew released

CTV | Apr 4, 2007

british_sailors_iran

British personnel wave to the media after their meeting with the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at the presidential palace in Tehran, Iran on Wednesday, April 4, 2007. (AP Photo)

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has welcomed news out of Iran that 15 seized sailors are free, while Iran’s president called the crew’s release a “gift to the British people.”

Reports from Iran suggest the crew will be flown out of the country Thursday at 8 a.m.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confirmed at a press conference earlier in the day that he had freed the British crew captured March 23 in disputed Gulf waters.

Blair thanked allies in Europe, at the UN Security Council and friends in the Mideast region for their help throughout the negotiations.

“I know that their release will come as a profound relief not just to them but to their families who have endured such distress and anxiety over these past 12 days,” Blair told reporters.

He said Britain succeeded by taking a “measured approach” that was “firm but calm… Not negotiating but not confronting either.”

Blair also said he hopes that diplomatic routes taken to solve this crisis can help to set a precedent.

“We respect Iran as an ancient civilization, as a nation with a proud and dignified history,” he said, addressing that part his message to the Iranian people.

“The disagreements we have with your government we wish to resolve peacefully with dialogue. I hope, as I’ve always hoped, that in the future we are able to do so.”

‘Talking’ CCTV Cameras to Be Installed Across England

Fox News | Apr 4, 2007

shouting_cams

CCTV cameras fitted with loudspeakers that shout orders at criminals and people behaving badly are to be installed across England, the government announced Wednesday.

The “talking” spy cameras were being set up in 20 areas after a successful pilot testing in the northeastern city of Middlesbrough.

During the test project, operators told vandals to stop what they were doing and litterbugs were ordered to take their trash with them.

Council workers in a control center monitored pictures from 12 cameras in the town and communicated directly with people on the street.

The scheme has been criticised by opponents as “Big Brother gone mad.”

But the Home Secretary insisted it had been shown to work and would benefit the communities sharing roughly $900,000 in grants to adapt existing cameras.

“The new funding for Talking CCTV is aimed at the small minority who think it is acceptable to litter our streets, vandalise our communities and damage our properties,” John Reid said.

“We all pay council tax so in the end we all pay when our communities are disrespected – both in our pockets as well as in our daily lives.”

Competitions are being held at schools in many of the areas for children to become the “voice” of CCTV cameras, he added.

There are an estimated 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain, even though it has been shown better street lighting is seven times more effective at cutting crime.

A recent study from the Government’s privacy watchdog, the Information Commissioner, warned Britain was becoming a “surveillance society”.

The commissioner, Richard Thomas, said excessive use of CCTV and other information-gathering was creating a climate of suspicion.

Who Killed JFK? Famous Spook Outs the Conspiracy

Wired | Apr 3, 2007

E. Howard Hunt, the country’s most notorious spook who later served time for his role as one of the plumbers in the bungled burglary that later toppled Richard Nixon, gave a near-deathbed confession to his long-estranged son, naming then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and a handful of CIA spooks as the cabal behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy, according to a story in Rolling Stone.

That time in Miami, with Saint [his son] by his bed and disease eating away at him and him thinking he’s six months away from death, E. Howard finally put pen to paper and started writing. Saint had been working toward this moment for a long while, and now it was going to happen. He got his father an A&W diet root beer, then sat down in the old man’s wheelchair and waited.

E. Howard scribbled the initials “LBJ,” standing for Kennedy’s ambitious vice president, Lyndon Johnson. Under “LBJ,” connected by a line, he wrote the name Cord Meyer. Meyer was a CIA agent whose wife had an affair with JFK; later she was murdered, a case that’s never been solved. Next his father connected to Meyer’s name the name Bill Harvey, another CIA agent; also connected to Meyer’s name was the name David Morales, yet another CIA man and a well-known, particularly vicious black-op specialist. And then his father connected to Morales’ name, with a line, the framed words “French Gunman Grassy Knoll.”

So there it was, according to E. Howard Hunt. LBJ had Kennedy killed. It had long been speculated upon. But now E. Howard was saying that’s the way it was. And that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the only shooter in Dallas. There was also, on the grassy knoll, a French gunman, presumably the Corsican Mafia assassin Lucien Sarti, who has figured prominently in other assassination theories.

The full story, which includes the lines: “They sure don’t make White House bad guys the way they used to. Today you’ve got flabby-faced half-men like Karl Rove, with weakling names like “Scooter” Libby, blandly hacking their way through the constraints of the U.S. Constitution, while back then, in addition to Hunt, you had out-and-out thugs like G. Gordon Liddy, his Watergate co-conspirator and Nixon’s dirty-tricks chief, who would hold his own hand over an open flame to prove what a real tough guy he was,” is more than worth your time.

For the record, 27B clings to the single shooter, magical bullet, officially-approved story line.  To believe otherwise is to tumble into ontological uncertainty, so deep and dark, as to make us never believe another government press release again.  And we can’t have that now, can we?

Shouting Big Brother Cameras To Use Child Voices

Infowars.net | Apr 4, 2007    

shouting_cams

Psychological warfare to shame dissenters into obedience
 
A previously localized trial of CCTV cameras that allow local government officials to monitor people in the streets and shout orders at anyone they deem to be acting in an anti-social manner is to be enforced nationwide across the UK. In a bizarre psychological move the cameras will speak in a child’s voice.

In an incredibly Orwellian move, loudspeakers are to be fitted to surveillance cameras throughout major cities, allowing CCTV operators to bark commands at people who drop litter, act in an aggressive manner or loiter.

Last October we reported on the trial scheme of these cameras in Middlesbrough. At the time we predicted “The voice of Big Brother has already echoed across several major cities and the program will no doubt be unfolded nationwide once the salivating control freaks in council offices have their way.” Now this has indeed come to pass.

Council workers in a control centre can monitor pictures from 12 talking cameras in the town, and communicate directly with people on the street at the flick of a switch.

Communities are being coerced into adapting existing cameras with the offer of nearly £500,000 in grants.

Home Secretary John Reid has denied that the plans were “Big Brother gone mad”, stating “This is a hugely popular scheme in Middlesbrough and the vast majority of the people here are right behind it.”

Sadly it seems Reid is right as once again the simpering jellyfish-like people of the UK have not reacted in protest to a control freak’s dream come true scheme that surpasses any methods that were ever employed by the state in the Soviet Union or currently in Communist China.

In an even more frightening and conniving move it has today been revealed that the bureaucrats behind the cameras will use recordings of children’s voices to discourage any adult they target from dissenting and shouting back at the cameras.

As tech web site The Register today put it:

Using recordings of children’s voices will make it harder for those in opposition to the surveillance society to be defiant of the talking cameras. Moonies and rude gestures will most definitely be a no-no.
Children will be recruited from schools to take part in the scheme and will be shown round CCTV operating rooms on school trips, learning how wonderful the big brother state is and how forcing people to behave in a certain way in public is the essence of a free society.

The use of children’s voices to control adult behaviour is all out psychological warfare when you consider that it constitutes a total reversal of social norms. The government knows this full well and justifies it by suggesting that some people in the UK are now so devoid of morality that there is no way of setting that right other than by ritualistic public isolation and humiliation.

Keith Richards ‘snorted father’s ashes’

Telegraph | Apr 5, 2007

keith_richards

“I’ve been trepanned. That’s quite an interesting experience, especially for my brain surgeon, who saw my thoughts flying around in my brain. I’ve got pictures of it, mate. They cut my head, brain, skull open, went in and pulled out the crap, and put some of it back again.”

Rolling Stones wildman Keith Richards claims he snorted his own father’s ashes during a drugs binge.

Richards made the extraordinary admission in an interview with NME magazine.

“The strangest thing I’ve tried to snort? My father. I snorted my father,” he said.

“He was cremated and I couldn’t resist grinding him up with a little bit of blow. My dad wouldn’t have cared, he didn’t give a s***.

“It went down pretty well, and I’m still alive.”

Richards’ father, Bert, died in 2002 aged 84.

The 63-year-old rocker also recounted his worst drugs experience.

“It was when someone put strychnine in my dope. It was in Switzerland. I was totally comatose, but I was totally awake. I could listen to everyone, and they were like, ‘He’s dead, he’s dead!’, waving their fingers and pushing me about, and I was thinking, ‘I’m not dead!’,” .

But he said: “I’ve no pretensions about immortality – I’m the same as everyone else – same as you, same as everybody.

“I was number one on the Who’s Likely To Die list for 10 years. I mean, I was really disappointed when I fell off the list.

“Some doctor told me I had six months to live and I went to their funeral. The obit columns are of quite an interest to me these days. I don’t trust doctors. It’s not to say there ain’t some good ones, but on a general level, no, I wouldn’t trust ’em at all.”

Richards predicted that Pete Doherty could be the next drugs casualty – and told him to leave supermodel Kate Moss alone.

“My advice for Pete Doherty is that he should shut up and leave her,” he said. “I don’t know the man, all I know is he’s pushing his luck and there it is, but so is Kate, who I know very well.

“Kate wants to play with bad boys, and she’s done one, and then another one, and then another one. Badabing, badabang, badaboom. She’ll live, the boys will die.”

And he warned rock stars not to emulate his fabled drug-taking.

“I did it because that was the way I did it. Now people think it’s a way of life,” he said.

The Rolling Stones will kick off the European leg of their A Bigger Bang tour in June.

Last year their touring was interrupted when Richards reportedly fell out of a palm tree while on holiday in Fiji.

But Richards said: “I wasn’t climbing a tree. I was sitting on a shrub. I was sitting on that shrub again today, but I happened to fall off it the wrong way that day.”

He underwent brain surgery after the accident and revealed: “I’ve been trepanned. That’s quite an interesting experience, especially for my brain surgeon, who saw my thoughts flying around in my brain. I’ve got pictures of it, mate. They cut my head, brain, skull open, went in and pulled out the crap, and put some of it back again.

Future of war demands futuristic flying machines

Physorg.com | Apr 3, 2007

Close-up views well within the reach of UAVs

UAVs promise more comprehensive surveillance in urban areas

While no one can predict where, when or why countries will fight future wars, experts are already creating war technology that may play a deciding factor in the outcome. Perhaps it’s a bit bold to say scientists can write history before it occurs, but only future historians can decide that. In any case, scientists, militarists, and governments are currently investing large amounts of resources in an intriguing, futuristic technology—fleets of small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Actually, as scientists Tariq Samad, John Bay and Datta Godbole write in Proceedings of the IEEE, UAVs are not all that new, although interest in these small fliers has spiked recently due to current world circumstances. The scientists’ invited paper analyzes current UAV technology and suggests untapped research areas. Also, the group presents a concept of operations for a coordinated fleet of different types of UAVs, which are defined as powered aerial vehicles that use aerodynamic forces for lift, and which can either fly autonomously or be piloted remotely.

“A particularly exciting development in UAVs over the last few years has been the emergence of (by now several) small, often portable, relatively low-cost vehicles,” Samad told PhysOrg.com. “These new UAVs, unlike their traditional counterparts, are especially well suited for urban operations and they promise to allow safer, easier, and more comprehensive surveillance and reconnaissance in urban areas.”

The major impetus for investing in UAV technology lies in the replacement of the traditional, open battleground with the urban theater of war. Urban environments—with their mazes of tall buildings, parked cars, residences, alleys and tunnels—create a three-dimensional challenge for invading troops unfamiliar with the city. UAVs, however, armed with imaging technology, signals and sensors, could provide surveillance and reconnaissance operations for soldiers. Live video coverage, close-up views, and tracking moving objects are well within the reach of UAVs, based on recent demonstrations.

Another role that UAVs could serve might involve filling in the gaps in GPS or cellular infrastructure in the limited line-of-sight regions common in urban areas. A fleet of UAVs equipped with radio or cell technology could sense and follow a unit moving through a city, providing uninterrupted communication service.

This intelligence aspect of the UAVs represents an area that the authors suggest has yet to be investigated, but has great potential for advanced applications. For example, truly autonomous UAVs would have to communicate with each other, and therefore possess a certain knowledge of their surroundings and reasoning to make decisions. Samad, Bay and Godbole describe the complexity of UAV intercommunication, and the complexities of mutual and reciprocal knowledge, beliefs and actions.