The FCC Begs to Ask, Democracy or Dictator?

Dear Federal Communications Commission Committee,

I respect your position in life; being on the Federal Communications Commission is a very powerful position. The press is the vehicle to an informed electorate and a healthy democracy. You beg to ask the question if we want our media in the hands of fewer not more minds. To place the power of the media into many minds is a healthy democracy to place this power into a few minds is a healthy authoritarian government. You hold the power to make this decision.

You are asking the people of this region if they want a democracy or a dictator form of government. You have a lot of gall coming to Seattle to make your case for more concentration of power, and your absurd excuse is FOX News gives money to charity and the people can have news on the radio while the men folk watch a football game. Well you can see the passion in Seattle against your proposal and lame excuses for monopolies in our sacred press. Seattle has listened to your proposal and we aren’t buying it.

I admire your courage to come to Seattle to hold a public hearing on the consolidation of media ownership, because your mission comes with great risk as you ask Seattle for permission for an authoritarian government. Remember what happened last month to Rumsfeld. The people of France accused him of war crimes and as they were about to serve him a warrant he had to sneak out of the country. Is this what you want for yourselves; to be a Rumsfeld of your own country? Beware, the people will warrant your criminal behavior of consolidating power in the media.

It amazes me that you would even dare come before the people and ask their opinion on this absurd and atrocious proposal; to ask the people if they want a democracy or an authoritarian government. Voltaire said, “those that can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Gentlemen, Seattle is not believing your absurdities and will not participate in your atrocities.

Filmmaker Aaron Russo Dies

Dear Friends,

Please join me in a moment of tribute to a fellow American who trumpeted our values and love of freedom. Not long after the release of his stunning blow to our financial system he passed over. His legacy is to bring an end to the Federal Reserve and get the US back to being the great nation of liberty it once was and shall be again. Russo felt that disbanding the Federal Reserve is the single most important thing Americans can do to save our country and our world from the New World Order.

Please join me and millions of others in carrying out Mr. Russo’s legacy.

Peace,
Tivana


Aaron Russo, filmmaker for liberty, dies at 64
'America: Freedom to Fascism' creator was critic of Fed, income tax, government power

Posted: August 25, 2007
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57316

"I believe in individual freedom," he said. "I don't believe in a big, monolithic state."
… "you have $44 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a Federal Reserve that is broken, a situation in Iraq which I think is disgusting, and you have both parties stopping people from bearing arms. Where is that in the Constitution?"
In 2006, Russo released a documentary dealing with the Federal Reserve system, income tax and government power – "America: From Freedom to Fascism."

"In 1913, America was a free country, then a band of powerful bankers achieved their fathers' and great grandfathers' goal. America has never been the same. Soon the world will not be the same."

Aaron Russo

Kucinich Launches Impeachment of Cheney

By Michael Tivana Nov. 6, 2007

Today, November 6, 2007, on the floor of the US House of Representatives, the illustrious and tenacious Rep. Dennis Kucinich D-OH, exercised House Rule 604 and called for High Privilege to impeach VP Dick Cheney. “A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order”.

I watched for ANY news on this historic event on our evening news. It became obvious the editors of our news elected to choose any story BUT impeachment. Instead of hearing the reasons why Cheney must be impeached to restore the ‘Rule of Law’ in our great country, the headlines were composed of: the chaos of martial law in Pakistan, the Hollywood writers strike and how our TV shows will be re-runs, a lost woman named Stacey Peterson, an interview with presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, a Senate committee approving a man that thinks torture comes in handy to be our next head of police, and a five minute expose on why Hillary thought she was not at her best in the last debate. Hillary, is she playing the sex card while admitting she is not playing the sex card, you decide.

Americans have once again been denied news that is crucial to knowing what is happening to their country; insulted by Neanderthals in charge of camera views; disgraced by the one industry mentioned in our constitution in order to protect us from Attorney Generals that think torture comes in handy. The press, the fourth branch of government, is now the defender of a Great BIG LIE, the War On Terror, the press in post 9/11 continues to fail us.

But wait, there was one mention, one interview of Kucinich on the evening news, did anyone see it? Fox Business News interviewed him O’Reilly style. Fox Business News, the station I never heard of, never knew it was on my TV, dissing Kucinich for 3 minutes, is the best the press could do. This is pathetic.

So what happened? Kucinich asked for High Privilege on the floor of the House to impeach VP Dick Cheney. Kucinich was well spoken while reading of the entire 11 page resolution laying out the reasons to impeach: manipulating intelligence to lead us into war, threatening a foreign country with attack (Iran), and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of vice president etc. After he introduced the resolution, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., immediately moved to table it.

Instead of debating the resolution the Democrats moved to table it and dispose of it. The vote was going in favor of tabling with 290 votes until the GOP leadership changed its mind. Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes to kill the resolution, to no, forcing the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on impeachment. This I have never seen before, votes changing in both directions. Both Republicans and Democrats switched their votes to NOT table the resolution, then to table it, then not to. The final vote was 251-162 against tabling, with 165 Republicans voting against the resolution and 86 Democrats jumping the Pelosi ship and splitting the party. Unbelievable, could it be the Republicans are grabbing the Holy Grail of impeachment away from the Democrats?

"We're going to help them out, to explain themselves," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas.

I am thinking the Republicans seized the opportunity to split the Democrats, which is what happened. They also are confident they can actually win the debate, decided by a vote on impeachment, which they will win at this time. But given there is new found momentum for impeachment this strategy may backfire if they wait too long.

The Republicans stole the day and kept impeachment alive in the House until, the Democrats countered by offering a motion to refer the proposal to the House Judiciary Committee for further study, effectively preventing a debate on the House floor. That motion passed by a party-line vote of 218-194.

So we are back where we started but with more support for impeachment from the Democrats on the Judiciary committee and in the House.

The White House said, “Democrats were shirking responsibilities on issues such as children’s health insurance, and they find time to waste an afternoon on an impeachment vote against the vice president. This is why Americans shake their head in wonder about the priorities of this Congress."

What do you think John Q. Public? Is Congress wasting its time pursuing impeachment? There comes a time when good people have to exclude themselves from a crime when it is being committed right before their eyes. This John Q. Public thinks every day has to be impeachment day until the crimes against us cease. If members of Congress block impeachment they are defending the crimes and must be recalled when possible or voted out of office.

First Amendment Fee

Seattle Parks Department Charges "First Amendment fee" For Rallies
by Tivana

Now it is official, Americans in Seattle have to pay a fee to use the public parks for rallies and it is called the First Amendment Fee. We have to pay a fee to exercise our rights. And if you do not have the money, you do not have the right to peacefully assemble.

USE PERMIT FEES
Application fee – First Amendment Events including political and religious activities. $50

"First Amendment Vending" is governed by regulations adopted by the Department of Parks and Recreation. When conducted on a park drive or boulevard, First Amendment Vending is subject to a monthly base permit fee of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) plus a fee of ten percent (10%) of gross receipts.

(and they want 10% of anything sold at the rally, who thinks this junk up?)

Peace Out,
Tivana

Bush Extends National Emergency

Bush Extends 2001 National Emergency Declaration For One Year
--Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks
(whitehouse.gov) 12 Sep 2007

From the White House
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States. Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, last extended on September 5, 2006, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2007. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

{What makes Bush and the executive branch of government so powerful? Why are they correct when they say they are acting within the law when they abuse our constitution? Because they are acting under the executive orders within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

These executive orders can be written by any president at any time and the content does not have to be exposed publicly. The orders are only enacted when we are in a state of emergency. Well we are beginning year 7 of being in a national emergency and the list of the secret executive orders is growing and their use is expanding. For more on these orders and the FEMA laws go here -- http://tribalmessenger.org/t-fema/fema-laws.htm }

Tivana

Bush Criminalizes Anti-War Movement

Executive Orders
by ~Bill Minneman

A little-noted Executive Order signed last Tuesday, July 17, has the effect of criminalizing any activities opposing the US occupation of Iraq or US plans for that country's economic or political restructuring. The order (reprinted in full below the forwarded commentary, and available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html) calls for the Federal government to block the financial assets of:

{It's no wonder people are afraid to confront this government - the power this government wields is quite numbing and paralyzes people that would otherwise speak out}
"any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;" (underlinings all mine).

"Blocking" of assets under this order means a prohibition on their being "transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in."

Note the following points in the language of this Executive Order:

1. The determination of whose assets are to be blocked is made strictly within the executive branch. No courts are involved.
2. The order authorizes actions not only against those determined to have committed the proscribed acts, but also against those determined--again, by the executive branch--to pose a risk of committing them. It thus authorizes preemptive actions against targeted persons.
3. The order also applies to anyone who has assisted or supported a person who has been declared subject to this order.
Elsewhere, the order defines "person" to refer to an individual or an "entity," which in turn is defined to mean any "partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization."

Let's understand what this means. Let's say that CAWI sponsors or endorses an anti-occupation rally, and that in the course of that rally the Chicago police change their recent relatively permissive approach and decide to crack a couple heads. Well, we have "violence" in connection with that event, so the U. S. Treasury Department can freeze CAWI's meager assets. But in fact there needn't be any actual violence at that rally; the event itself might be determined to pose a risk of violence, so CAWI is subject to the order. In fact, there needn't actually be a rally; just the planning of a protest--or indeed just talking about one, let alone such overt acts as maintaining a web site containing anti-occupation content, or managing a listserve that facilitates anti-occupation discussion--might be determined to present such a risk, and make CAWI subject to the order.

And once that determination is made and CAWI's assets are frozen, then any organization that has supported or participated in any CAWI activities is subject to having its own assets frozen for having "materially assisted, sponsored or provided...support for" an organization deemed subject to the order. And, oh yeah, any of us individuals who have contributed to CAWI directly or to a local UFPJ affiliate or other group that has ever cooperated with CAWI in any way might then have all of our assets frozen as well.

It's not only the explicitly anti-war groups that could be subject to this order. Freedom of Information Act demands by groups such as the ACLU or Human Rights Watch for access to documents related to US policy on Iraq could be determined to inflame passions that would pose the risk of violence that would interfere with the Iraqi occupation. That determination would put the assets of those organizations and subsequently of their members in jeopardy. Similar FOIA demands by news media could likewise jeopardize the assets of the parent corporation of a newspaper or broadcaster.

In fact, suppose there are anti-occupation protests outside the 2008 Democratic Convention, and the Treasury Department determines that those protests (a) pose a risk of violence, and (b) are prompted at least in part by speeches on the convention floor opposing administration policy on Iraq. In that situation, the language of this Executive Order could be construed to permit the freezing of the assets of the Democratic Party.

Given an administration in which the Under Secretary of Defense, Eric Adelman, last week replied to an information request regarding Iraq from a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (Sen. Clinton-D., NY) with a letter claiming that mere discussion of the topic “reinforces enemy propaganda,” these scenarios may not be as much of a stretch as they might at first seem.

For anyone who thought that the series of post-9/11 U. S. government actions to freeze the assets of Muslim charities such as the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation were unfortunate but essentially a matter of concern only to the Muslim-American community, this should be a wake-up call. The first application of this order will create a classic illustration of the Niemoeller lament that, "First they came for..., and I did nothing." In this case, they've given themselves the ammunition to come for us.

~Bill Minneman

FBI Restricts Student Freedoms

FBI Restricts Student Freedoms
Submitted by Canada IFP on Sun, 2007-06-24

US university students will not be able to work late at the campus, travel abroad, show interest in their colleagues' work, have friends outside the United States, engage in independent research, or make extra money without the prior consent of the authorities, according to a set of guidelines given to administrators by the FBI.

Federal agents are visiting some of the New England's top universities, including MIT, Boston College, and the University of Massachusetts, to warn university heads about the dangers of foreign spies and terrorists stealing sensitive academic research.

FBI is offering to brief faculty, students and staff on what it calls "espionage indicators" aimed at identifying foreign agents.

Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know, and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators.

Faculty, staff and students are encouraged to monitor their colleagues for signs of suspicious behavior and report any concerns to the FBI or the military.

"What we're most concerned about are those things that are not classified being developed by MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], Worcester Polytech [Worcester Polytechnic Institute] and other universities," Warren Bamford, special agent in charge of the FBI's
Boston office, told the Boston Herald. "It's to make sure these institutions receive training...[on] what spies look for. There are hundreds of projects going on that could be useful to a foreign power."

"My understanding is that what the FBI is proposing is not illegal, but it does raise questions about the chilling effect in regard to academia, "Chris Ott, Communications Manager of the ACLU of Massachusetts told WSWS. "What will it mean about feeling free to pursue information? People on the campuses will be afraid to ask questions or take on the investigation of certain areas, say, for example, nuclear energy. "

University administrators have expressed their appreciation of FBI efforts.

"It was a very nice offer," Robert A. Weygand, vice president for administration and a former Rhode Island congressman told the Boston Herald. "We are taking it under consideration."

Last year the FBI initiated the College and University Security Effort (CAUSE), in order to establish an "alliance" between the Federal agency and academic institutions.

According to the FBI, through CAUSE, Special Agents in charge meet with the heads of local colleges to discuss national security issues and to share information and ideas.

http://pressesc.com/01182668252_espionage_indicators

Federal Approval To Travel Inside US in '08

by Blue Patriot Woman
http://blue-patriot-woman.dailykos.com/
9-20-2007

Buried in the September 5 issue of the Federal Register, was a notice that Thursday, September 20, the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) will hold public hearings on their so-called Secure Flight Plan.

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p102/484384.pdf

Come with me into a nightmare world where American citizens will have to obtain permission from the government before they can travel by air in the U.S.

Your government (meaning the Department of Homeland Security) is up to no good.

Beginning in February 2008, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will implement their ¨Advance Passenger Information System (APIS),¨ the gist of which is that you will need permission from the United States Government to travel on any air or sea vessel that goes to, from or through the U.S. The travel companies will not be able to issue a boarding pass until you are cleared by DHS. This applies to ALL passengers, US citizens and visitors alike. And how do you get said permission to travel? That´s for your government to know and you to never find out.

Now TSA proposes to do for domestic travel what APIS will do for international routes. That´s what I said: the new TSA rule would require that you obtain PERMISSION to travel within the U.S.

Here is the summary of their proposed rules, which seem so reasonable, couched as they are in the blandness of governmenteez [emphasis added].

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assume from aircraft operators the function of conducting pre-flight comparisons of airline passenger information to Federal Government watch lists for international and domestic flights.

This rule proposes to allow TSA to ... receive passenger and certain non-traveler information, conduct watch list matching ... and transmit boarding pass printing instructions back to aircraft operators.

We propose that, when the Secure Flight rule becomes final, aircraft operators would submit passenger information to DHS through a single DHS portal for both the Secure Flight and APIS programs. This would [result] in one DHS system responsible for watch list matching for all aviation passengers. {as of November 2007 there are over 750,000 Americans labled as terrorists - the problems arise as people do not know they are on the list until it is too late - nobody knows how to get off the list}

The proposal ... require[s] that travellers display their government-issued credentials not to government agents but to airline personnel (staff or contractors), whenever the DHS orders the airline to demand them. But since the orders to demand ID of [certain passengers] will be given to the airline in secret, ... travellers will have no way to verify whether ... demands for ID are actually based on government orders.

Think about that: you will not be allowed to verify if the person demanding your papers is actually authorized to do so. In addition, the airlines or their contractors (or sub or even sub sub contractors) have the right, under the proposed rules, to do anything they like with your personal information including:
keeping copies of your passport ... as long as they like, use it, publish it, broadcast it, sell it, rent it, or pass it on to whomever they please. They would have no obligation to get your permission for any of this.

The Identity Project at Papers Please is working to prevent your government from robbing you of your right to privacy in your movements.

{Freedom to move about the country by air will be tested. This limitation on travel will be the test for future limitations on surface travel}

Peace Out - Tivana