Western Media Blackout of Libyan Rebel Atrocities

What the fuck are we really doing in Libya? That's the big question. But this article also reveals how the propaganda machine works, how Americans are being lied to, and how the real news is being blacked-out even from alternative sources.

Check out the article including graphically violent video at this link:

http://msmreview.blogspot.com/2011/04/western-media-blackout-of-libyan-rebel.html

Western Media Blackout of Libyan Rebel Atrocities

With the U.S. and NATO forces now actively engaged in supporting Libyan rebels it is little surprise that Western media would do their best to spin the story in a manner that supports the mission of Western forces. Whatever that mission might actually be, with Libyan rebels openly admitting ties to al-Qaeda and committing atrocities worse than anything the Quaddafi government was ever seen to be guilty of. All major U.S. publications are pushing for support of the rebels, and justifying rebel atrocities as being the result of a lack of armament.

Thankfully, we here at the MSMR and our readers do not rely solely on corporate mainstream media news sources for our information. Recently however, we were disturbed to find that even alternative news sources were having their information blocked and deleted. Last week, the Business Insider published an article titled "LIBYAN REBEL WAR CRIMES: The Videos America Doesn't Want You To See." Included in that article was a letter, presumably by a Libyan national, accusing the western media of lieing to Americans. The letter included a long list of YouTube videos showing atrocities committed by the rebels.

Since that article was published, YouTube had removed all but one of the videos linked in the letter/article, and states that the users account has also been removed. Now it is true, that some extremely graphic videos are sometimes deleted by YouTube. This however, is a legitimate news topic that is being systematically scrubbed from YouTube servers. There are many video on YouTube which depict graphic violence, but that are interrupted before play with a disclaimer so that the user does not proceed without warning. So why are these particular videos being systematically deleted?

At this time, we can only find one video that is still functioning. We will see how long this lasts though. Be warned, the video is indeed graphic, with the worst images coming in the last 30 seconds or so of the video.

The MSMR also recommends this article by Blacklisted News:

Libyan War Gets Weird

(((WARNING: Graphic violence)))

Police State of Mind

The following presentation is brought to us by Station.6.Underground, used by permission.
...

I just came across an article written for USA Today newspaper titled, "New iPhone apps help drivers evade police...The iPhone and Android applications spot checkpoints and speed traps." The article was hosted by PoliceOne.com, a website for law-enforcement.

These apps can be used to detect things like speed traps and red-light cameras, but the focus of the article goes to checkpoint detection.

The apps' DUI checkpoint feature -- which sends alerts about drunken-driving checkpoints that have been reported by other drivers -- is troubling for some police agencies. "If people are going to use those, what other purpose are they going to use them for except to drink and drive?" says Capt. Paul Starks of the Montgomery County (Md.) Police Department.

F@ckin cops are so indoctrinated in their Gestapo mindset, that they can't even fathom the concept of freedom anymore. That someone might actually use that app just to avoid being caught up in a traffic jam caused by the DUI checkpoint, or better yet, that a person might want to avoid being held up, harassed, have their car ripped apart and searched without a warrant, or even have their car impounded even though they aren't drunk! In 2009, Los Angeles impounded 24,000 cars at DUI checkpoints, yet only 3,200 DUI arrests were actually made.

















The USA Today article then goes on to quote Starks saying...

"They're only thinking of one consequence, and that's being arrested. They're not thinking of ending the lives of other motorists, pedestrians, other passengers in their cars or themselves."

So the cop is assuming that everyone who uses theses apps must be drunk for one thing. But you're damn right Starks, the first thing on any civilian's mind should be the consequences of being arrested...









...But of course, it is important to keep in mind that many, many people who are stopped and searched, even placed in handcuffs and arrested, are not guilty of any crime whatsoever. All the police have to do is claim that they smell weed...









I don't know about you, but it seems pretty reasonable to me that anybody in their right mind would prefer to avoid that shit.

In this video, a guy from NY State tries to exercise his 4th Amendment rights by refusing to give the Sheriff's department consent for a search. There is some back and forth over whether or not the deputy needs a warrant once the K-9 has "alerted" on the vehicle. But in the end, the deputy decides to impound the car and have it towed to the station while he waits for a warrant to come through from the D.A.'s office. The civilian is cuffed and put in the back of a squad car, denied his doctor prescribed medication that was supposed to be taken during the time he was in custody, and finally after 4 hours of filming his camera goes dead. He posted the highlights of the footage in this Youtube video...









But then again, you don't even have to be in your car, or at home, like on this occasion when police searched a man's car while it was sitting in his own driveway after he left to go to the music store. Police claimed that they got a 911 call from the house, even though there was no phone line in the house...









Still think the police give a flying fuck about your rights or the Constitution? Do you still think that the Constitution even exists? Wake up and smell the Fascism folks, the house is burning.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ~Fourth Amendment

Recipients of unemployment benefits to work again cleaning subways

This is another one of those ideas that looks great at first glance, until you stop to think about it for a second and realize this is yet another propaganda piece, and actually a very terrible idea. “Why,” you ask, “would it be a bad idea to put people on welfare to work?”

Well right out of the gate we have a problem there. Unemployment insurance is not welfare. It is an insurance program paid for directly by tax-paying workers, in case they ever lose their job through no fault of their own and are unable to find a comparable job quickly. So we aren't talking about people who don't want to work, or are normally unemployable for some reason. We are talking about people who have lost their job through no fault of their own, and have paid into this insurance system. So in other words, this is like being told that you can't collect on your Social Security at 65 unless you go mop out subway trains.

I find it offensive, yet curious that the Daily News does not have the wherewithal to make that distinction in their article. Is the newspaper truly that ignorant, or is this yet another subtle ploy for the hearts and minds of the sheeple, in order to divide and blind them? Notice how in the article, they state that just about every one they spoke with in the subway thought it was a good idea. Also note that the poll questions shows shows about 99% of the people in favor, while reading over their comments section there is nowhere near that same rate of approval.

Here is a link to the Daily News article...

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/03/29/2011-03-29_cashpoor_mta_may_put_recipients_of_unemployment_benefits_to_work_again_cleaning_.html

Well since I have started asking questions now, here is another big one that needs answering. If the MTA has work available, why aren't they hiring these people directly, and keeping them off of welfare in the first place?

Oh, but these aren't actually paid jobs.

You know, there is a word for forcing people to work without pay, it's called slavery.

But it's not really slavery because they are being paid in foodstamps, and given shelter with programs like section-8.

Now this may come as a surprise to you, but even slave-owners fed, sheltered and clothed their slaves. Slave-owners knew that they had to take good care of their slave-worker, the same way you might take care of your car, or a farmer takes care of his tractor.

But this isn't really slave labor because these people have a choice, they could have gone out and gotten a job.

Oh really? So in the last few years tens of millions of Americans up and decided to become lazy all of the sudden and not take any of these millions of jobs that are out there? Yes, that is sarcasm you are detecting.

Now let's not forget, that it was the banks who drove our economy into the ground in the past few years, putting millions out of work and onto government programs, and it is banks like JP Morgan and Chase who are now clocking a fortune off of welfare Electronic Benefit Cards. When private companies control the government, you have fascism folks.








So slavery doesn't bother you? Not afraid of Fascism? Well try this on for size you good Republican voter, or you mindful Conservative Democrat. What do you call it when you have a separate class of workers who receive no pay, but instead live is state-tenements, wearing state issued clothing, and eating food bought with government ration vouchers? Thaaaat's right hot-rod. Communism. If you support this program, you are a dirty Commie. You are telling the government that the American worker is not worth anything more than some crappy one-room roach dorm and a few slices of processed cheese.

Don't let Americans become slaves to Communism. Hold our leaders accountable. Tell them that this idea sucks. Welfare is not the result of laziness and bad choices, it is the product of failed policy and vampire economics. Last year the MTA laid off over 3,500 paid workers, only to turn around and replace them now with unpaid welfare workers. Coincidence? Does that really even sound like a “solution” for welfare to you?

And for some background info, this isn't the first time they have “tested the waters” with this sort of idea. Check out this article from the MSMR written when Republican candidate for N.Y. governor Carl Paladino has said that he would like to send welfare recipients to go live in vacant prison cells and do work for the state....

http://msmreview.blogspot.com/2010/08/prison-labor-re-education-camps-for.html

...There is an agenda folks, and you aren't scheduled to be one of the winners. Also, check out the article “Unpaid Jobs: The new Normal?” linked here...

http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.com/2011/03/unpaid-jobs-new-normal.html

Opinions as headlines

We are all entitled to our opinions, and free speech should be just that, free. But there is still something inherently wrong with newspapers that deliberately and blatantly spread propaganda. It has certainly become more and more prevalent as more and more media outlets come under the control of fewer and fewer companies. And as blatant as it may be sometimes, it is almost as if it is hidden in plain sight with headlines like this one...

Obama strongly defends US military action in Libya

Now there are a few big problems with this headline. The first being the use of the word "strongly." So much for objectivity in reporting stating an opinion in their headline.

Second of all, did you actually see that speech? So chock full of the same flag-waving garbage rhetoric that we have been hearing for years that I might have thought Bush was standing up there if Obama had managed to fumble a few words. As if we have some inherent duty to "help" the Libyans, while throughout the rest of Africa, indeed throughout the rest of the world, despots slaughter and starve their people with impunity.

Well enough of my own opinions on the subject, but one simple fact remains. That this newspaper has used a statement of opinion as a "factual" reporting of news in their headline. Trashy reporting or subtle brainwashing?

Congressional hearings on Islam: Rise of the Fourth Reich

Congress will begin hearings Thursday on the threat of radicalization of Muslims, despite protests and questions of Islamophobia. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) who is the the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee has stated that the goal of the hearings is "to establish and show the American people that there is a real threat of al-Qaida recruiting and of homegrown terrorists being self-radicalized within the Muslim community."

So in other words, it's stated purpose is propaganda. King has already made up his mind and now seeks evidence to support his biased position after the fact, and a pulpit from which to spread his message to the American people. In one breath he says that his only target is al-Qaeda, but in the next he talks about how the Muslim community is not doing enough to deter extremism in their midst.

But let's stop right there for a moment. Al-Qaeda. While the government and the media still use the term to instill fear in the hearts of Americans each day, it has been well established that there is no such thing as al-Qaeda. There is no monolithic terrorist network, there is no organization taking orders from Osama bin-Laden or any successors.



Okay, so there really is no al-Qaeda. But is there a threat from radicals and fundamentalists on American soil among American-Muslims? King brings up 9/11, of course. So ten years after the fact, Congress suddenly now finds the need to have these hearings on the threat of Muslim radicals in our midst? Let's not forget that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were not Americans. Not even Afhganis of Iraqis for that matter. They were mostly Saudi Arabians. That is of course, if you take the government's word for it.



Okay, so maybe there are still questions about 9/11, but we know there are religious radicals. The question then is, are religious fundamentalism really a threat here in America, domestically? Well, we know that the Oklahoma City bombing was done to avenge the deaths of radical Christians. That bombing was entirely domestic. Everyone involved were American citizens. So why did we never see Congressional hearings about Christian fundamentalists? Or, for that matter, radical elements within the U.S. Military? After all, Timothy McVeigh was a decorated war hero.



See our related article: Border War: The Blind Eye of America

In the wake of 9/11, such domestic threats are overshadowed by the fear of Muslim extremists, the sort who are alleged to have carried out the most spectacular act of terrorism the world has ever known. So how many extremist are there in the world? What are the chances of something like that actually happening again ? What is the real threat? One in five people on the planet are Muslim, yet the world is not ablaze with daily horrific acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. The reason for this is that the fraction of Muslim fundamentalists which exist could be likened to what the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

Now among that faction of radical Islam, we actually have to look a little deeper too. How many Muslims are really so committed to their rhetoric, that they are willing to die for it? How many would act, and not just spew hate speech? A much smaller percentage again, to be sure. Just like the KKK and their ilk, they talk a good line, but when was the last time you heard of a Klansman even going to prison for his beliefs, much less dieing for them? But let's go ahead and assume that some of these Muslim radicals are a little more committed than their Christian counterparts Out of what is estimated to be a few thousand truly hardcore radicals around the globe, from more than a billion Muslims, how many would actually be able to carry out an attack on American soil? Especially one anywhere near the scale and complexity of 9/11. How many radicals would actually have the will, the commitment, the capability, the skills, the connections, and the resources to carry out such an attack? When you think about it that way, it's pretty hard to imagine how a ragtag group of hard-drinking strip-club visiting cocaine snorting supposedly strict adherents of fundamentalist Islam were able to even carry out 9/11 in the first place.

Of course, that doesn't mean the Muslim terrorists didn't actually carry out the 9/11 attacks. That can be debated elsewhere. It also doesn't mean that it would be impossible for Islamic radicals to carry out a terror attack, on any scale, here on American soil, however unlikely that prospect might be. But is that enough to have Congressional hearings singling out Muslims as a threat or as harboring a threat against the American people?

According to the official story, Muslim radicals are responsible for 2,998 American deaths, in one, single, coordinated attack on American soil. Last year, 5,890 people were murdered by a black person. This means that in 2009 you were almost twice as likely to be murdered by a black person, than you were to be killed by a radical Muslim in the year the attacks actually happened. Now compound those odds over a ten year period, since 2001, in which no more attacks have happened, and you can see that blacks are are a far greater threat to Americans than any Muslim.

Oh, did you find that offensive? Good. Because these hearings are just as offensive, with even less merit.

Some have called these hearings a return to McCarthyism. No folks, it is far worse than that. This is the face of Fascism, on the order of what happened in Germany in the few short years before the Holocaust. This isn't about political ideals. This is about the United States Congress making an open attack on a religion, with strong racial and ethnic overtones.

The only question then is, why? Feel free to contact us if you really don't know at this point, but let's finish off with this. There is no real threat from Muslims. No more so than any other group of people, far less in fact. You are twice as likely to be crushed under a vending machine than you are to be killed by a terrorist. Your odds of being killed in a 9/11 style terror attack are about 8 million to one. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning... four times.

Fallout from Wikileaks already hitting home?

In recent weeks, the disclosure of classified material by non-profit media group Wikileaks has been the subject of much discussion. So just a quick re-cap here to start off, for those that may not be familiar with the story. Wikileaks has published hundred of classified and sensitive documents, diplomatic cables, that give a revealing look inside America's international political and war strategies. Wikileaks claims to now have hundreds of thousands of such documents, which they promise to publish over time. The U.S. military claims these documents were leaked to Wikileaks by an Army Private whom they have kept in solitary confinement for the last seven months.

As a sort of sideshow now to this whole affair, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been detained in England on a warrant by Swedish authorities who want to question him over charges of sexual misconduct. Swedish officials claim that there is no political motivation behind these charges, and that the charges are unrelated to the goings-on at Wikileaks, despite the fact that he was already detained and questioned while in Sweden this past summer on these same charges. With the release of new material came this renewed effort to arrest Assange once again. The timing of all of this is certainly coincidental at the very least.

Jiulian Assange Interrogated by Swedish Police

But now to the topic at hand, as it most directly pertains to the freedom of speech. In the United States, free speech is protected under the Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -First Amendment

Free speech is also recognized internationally under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." -Article 19

Nevertheless, debate has raged as to whether or not Wikileaks is guilty of high crimes for publishing the classified material. The debate centers on whether or not free-speech protections extend to the publication of classified government documents and if Wikileaks did in fact break any laws that are already in place. Assange and Wikileaks were no doubt confident that they were breaking no laws, as numerous U.S.-based publications have printed sensitive material in the past without facing the threat of prosecution, and no pertinent laws have been put on the books since the First World War. (Not to mention the fact that Assange is not an American citizen, Wikileaks is not an American organization, and any such "crime" did not take place on American soil.) So it would seem that opponents of Wikileaks are really more concerned with how damaging the material is, rather than the fact that classified material is being published. 

Speaking from a supporter's home in England where he is staying under house arrest, Julian Assange stated today that he fears an imminent indictment by U.S. Authorities against either himself or Wikileaks by a secret grand-jury. An msnbc.com legal panel also predicts that there will be an indictment. 

A report of the panel's discussion can be found at this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40653249/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/

The implications for free speech, and freedom of the press would be profound if such an indictment were handed down, and certainly if a conviction were secured it would completely undermine the very foundations of a free press in America. At stake here is one of, if not the most cherished and fundamental liberties that define us as a nation. More alarmingly, let us have a look at what effect this is having already on the American press. There is a virtual media blackout on the contents of the information published by Wikileaks, as the U.S. media runs spinelessly in full retreat of what has already been reported publicly, not only by Wikileaks themselves but by other news organizations in Europe and elsewhere. As Dr. Ron Paul points out in the audio recording here below, the main-stream corporate media are completely focused on the leak, rather than the content.

Also, U.S. Based servers have dropped or blocked access to the Wikileaks website, and an American must now access servers on foreign soil to read the content at all. So exactly what does it mean to be an American today, when we must travel to foreign soil, even digitally, in order to practice our Constitutionally protected rights? With corporate media already dominating the mindset of the masses with biased and incomplete reporting, outright blackouts of news, and then cramming their content with tabloid “junk-food news,” the last bastion of hope for free speech now is the internet. And that folks, is why there is a war on now to censor the internet. There is a war on to control what Americans think, and what Americans can and cannot see. You can read more about that here in one of our previous articles...

Book Burning in the Digital Age...and so it begins

Some might say that American companies and press outlets have good reason to avoid Wikileaks like the plague right now, at least until the chips do fall where they may. Spineless as it may be to not defend the core principals by which a press organization operates in the first place, their fears are not without some merit. It does however show a lack of integrity, and boldly hints that profits are more important than the actual reporting of news. It also goes to show how oppressive our government actually is, that in this supposedly free country, the press will run and hide from anything that might upset the government, before any case has even been made. Now it appears that this hint of trouble has already undermined our ability as a people of a so-called free and open society to get the story, the full story, the true story. And now it has spilled over into general reporting, beyond news that has anything to do with the Wikileaks story.

Take the news that is being reported today for example, by the Associated Press, as it appeared on Yahoo. The story is about the CIA station-chief in Islamabad, Pakistan, being recalled from his post in the wake of his cover being blown in a Pakistani lawsuit accusing him, and others named in the suit, of killing civilians there with missile strikes. Threats have been made against him, and his name is being openly reported overseas, in Pakistan especially. Yet here in America, we are barred from knowing his name because, as the AP claims, “...he remains undercover and his name is classified.” So while the enemies of America now know full well the identity of the CIA station-chief, we here at home are still barred from this information. For what purpose?

CIA station-chief pulled from Islamabad

Clearly, material that was once considered classified, is no longer in fact classified once it is leaked to non-classified persons, regardless of the circumstances or the sensitivity of the information.

classified clas·si·fied [klas-uh-fahyd]

adj.

1. Arranged in classes or categories.

2. Available to authorized persons only, as for reasons of national security: a classified document.

This fact not only shows that the AP is being shamefully cautious and “white-gloved” when dealing with information that the U.S. government may object to being reported, but goes right to the heart of the matter as it pertains to the Wikileaks dissemination of formerly classified material. Once the material is leaked to non-classified personnel, it is no longer classified by the very definition of the word.

How much other material is being censored by the AP, or other news sources, which the American government may find objectionable? Are we to tolerate wholesale censorship and the destruction of our fundamental liberties, simply because the government might be offended by the reporting of fact, truth, or opinion? And when did this government for the people and by the people, suddenly become the masters of the people, dictating what is and is not allowed, in direct opposition the ideals put down as inalienable rights of the people in the founding document of this nation?

Some have argued that this whole matter with Wikileaks has been a “false-flag” operation all along, an “internet 9/11” as some conspiracy theorists have termed it, in order for the American government to seize control of the internet. Whether or not Assange and Wikileaks are actually a CIA asset is debatable, even if not likely, but one thing is clear; the American government is poised to exploit this matter in a way that stands in stark contradiction to the ideal this nation once held most dear.The days of freedom of speech and freedom of press in America, as we have known them for hundreds of years, are at an end.

We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights.  ~Felix Frankfurter

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.  ~Edward R. Murrow

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.  ~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

Nations grown corrupt
Love bondage more than liberty;
Bondage with ease than strenuous liberty.
~John Milton

(Special thanks to Ahkronn for contributing to this article)