RSSCategory: Censorship

Amber Lyons reveals how CNN “news” coverage is bought

October 11, 2012 | By | Reply More

Amber Lyons recently lost her job as a reporter for CNN. The problem is that she is a reporter who simply reports what she sees, and lets the chips fall where they may. This is much too inconvenient for CNN, which allows subjects of news reports buy favorable coverage. Let that sink in.

Here is an eleven minute video where Lyons reveals the extent of the problem, referring to the censorship of her reports regarding the regime in U.S.-ally Bahrain. Her message is even much broader, however, and applies to the willingness of the lapdog media to encourage needless war against Iran. This is really eye-opening information. This story also points to the incredible importance of preserving net neutrality, because you won’t hear about this mainstream media corruption on the mainstream media.

Share

Read More

Excluded issues and excluded candidates: The charade we call our presidential debates

October 6, 2012 | By | Reply More
Excluded issues and excluded candidates: The charade we call our presidential debates

How the Democrats and Republicans manage to keep excluding third-party and fourth-party candidates from the debates, even after the corporate media has excluded them from the entire campaign? Amy Goodman of Democracy Now discusses this topic with the Green Party’s Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. These two candidates also offer their own views on the issues, views not considered by Mr. Romney or Mr. Obama. Goodman calls her exploration of this issue “Expanding the Debate.”

Share

Read More

Leaking information to the public now appears to be a federal crime.

September 27, 2012 | By | Reply More

Glenn Greenwald comments on some disturbing information recently obtained pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request.

It seems clear that the US military now deems any leaks of classified information to constitute the capital offense of “aiding the enemy” or “communicating with the enemy” even if no information is passed directly to the “enemy” and there is no intent to aid or communicate with them. Merely informing the public about classified government activities now constitutes this capital crime because it “indirectly” informs the enemy.

The implications of this theory are as obvious as they are disturbing. If someone can be charged with “aiding” or “communicating with the enemy” by virtue of leaking to WikiLeaks, then why wouldn’t that same crime be committed by someone leaking classified information to any outlet: the New York Times, the Guardian, ABC News or anyone else? In other words, does this theory not inevitably and necessarily make all leaking of all classified information – whether to WikiLeaks or any media outlet – a capital offense: treason or a related crime?

Share

Read More

Unjustified take-downs in the news

September 15, 2012 | By | Reply More

Good article by Public Citizen’s “Consumer Law & Policy Blog” regarding recent unjustified take-downs. This is going to be a more and more prominent issue.

It is one reason I have my own blog, because I don’t trust private for-profit companies like Facebook to give me (or anyone) free rein to express critically important political ideas.

Share

Read More

Oops. We cut away for the Romney/David Koch handshake

September 1, 2012 | By | Reply More

Hidden handshake between Romney and David Koch. Amy Goodman reports.

Share

Read More

The verdict is in on Pussy Riot

August 17, 2012 | By | Reply More

As reported by the NYT, the verdict against Pussy Riot is in, and the three young women have been sentenced to two years each. The verdict has been commemorated by cartoonist Ray Gregory.

While a guilty verdict against the three women, members of a band called Pussy Riot, was widely expected, suspense had built over how severe a punishment they would receive. . . . But the judge, Marina Syrova, showed little sympathy for the trio, and it was not immediately clear whether the sentences would prompt a reaction on Moscow’s streets.

“Who is to blame for the performance at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour and for our being put on trial after the concert? The authoritarian political system is to blame. What Pussy Riot does is oppositional art or politics.”

Share

Read More

Military Voting Philosophy

August 16, 2012 | By | 3 Replies More

I remember the presidential election of 2004, during which the armed services were flooded with the message that it was seditious to speak out against your Commander in Chief, and certainly bad to consider voting against your own commander. Luminaries of the time like Ann Coulter published the principle that anyone who casts doubt on ones president is a traitor. This was a solidly accepted conservative plank.

But the message fed to members of the armed forces has changed for the 2012 election:

Not My President

This image has been going around on Facebook, among other sources. I suspect that the message they receive about their Commander in Chief is different than before. There also is a busy meme insinuating that Democrats are busily working to deny military members their right to absentee vote.

Does this mean that the military is a Republican organization? Or does it cleave to one of the Three Tea Party branches?

Share

Read More

Time to declare war on the war budget

August 15, 2012 | By | 1 Reply More
Time to declare war on the war budget

Mitt Romney says we can’t afford to support PBS, National Endowment for the Arts or Amtrack. This is a disgraceful lie. These three programs add up to barely more than $2 Billion/year. Let’s put that number in context. How much are we now spending on the militarization of America? $1.2 Trillion per year (carefully count the zeros and make sure you add it ALL up, like Tom Dispatch has done). That comes out to $600 Million per working HOUR (assuming that there are 2,000 working hours per year) to militarize the United States (don’t call it “Department of Defense,” because this is largely a lie).

In other words, with FOUR HOURS of our warmongering budget, we could afford all of the things Romney says we need to cut.

[More . . . ]

Share

Read More

Judge Baltasar Garzon to lead WikiLeaks legal strategy

July 28, 2012 | By | Reply More

The following update is from Justice for Assange:

The Spanish judge, lawyer, and international jurist, Baltasar Garzón, will lead the legal team representing Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The jurist met with Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in the United Kingdom recently. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the new legal strategy which will defend both WikiLeaks and Julian Assange from the existing abuse of process; expose the arbitrary, extrajudicial actions by the international financial system which target Julian Assange and WikiLeaks specifically; and show how the secret US processes against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have compromised and contaminated other legal processes, including the extradition process against Mr Assange. Despite been imprisoned, fiscally blockaded, and placed under house arrest for over 650 days, Mr. Assange has not been charged with an offense in any country.

Baltasar Garzón revolutionized the international justice system two decades ago by issuing an international arrest warrant for the former Head of State of Chile, Augusto Pinochet. His actions spearheaded the fight against impunity in Latin America and in the rest of the world. The judge has expressed serious concerns regarding the lack of safeguards and transparency whith which actions are being taken against Julian Assange, and the harassment he is being subjected to which has irreparable effects on his physical and mental wellbeing. The threats against his person are further aggravated by the complicit behaviour of the Swedish and U.K. governments, who are wrongfully abrogating his rights.

Share

Read More