Shooting Down 'Legality' of Obama Drone Strikes (VIDEO)

1960's Mind Control Video Tells You to 'Trust the US Government'

It takes her a minute or so to get to the point, but trust me, it's well worth it to stick around and keep watching. You'll be like...


25 Reasons the US should not go to war with Syria

#1 It will likely trigger world war III. Iran has threatened to attack israel if the US invades Syria, Russia already has warships there, and China intrinsically sides with Russia.

#2 The war is based on accusation, speculation and a youtube video, with no hard evidence such as chemical compositional analysis provided by any independent body. To risk world war III when doubt remains is risking the human race on a guess. UN says the report on the matter will take another 3 weeks.

#3 The last time there was an accusation of sarin by the Syrian government, the UN found out it was the Syrian rebels who had done it. [1] [2]

#4 The last time there was an accusation of any weapons of mass destruction by the western powers (US, UK, etc) using intelligence, it was wrong. No weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.

#5 Most of the Syrian rebels are islamic extremists, notably al nusra, who are an al qaeda affiliated group. Supporting them would amount to supporting al qaeda.

#6 John Kerry was wrong in his estimates of the Syrian rebels. If he's wrong on this fundamental point - as the US secretary of state - what else is he wrong on regards to this? (Hypocrisy: John Kerry was an anti-war activist.)

#7 It's unpopular in the eyes of the American public. And would result in impeachment, possibly even rioting.

#8 The US in an economic debt of $16 trillion dollars! Each tomahawk missile costs $1.45 million!

#9 Even if the chemical weapons caches exist (which given the track record of Iraq, Afghanistan and the previous sarin gas being misidentified, is unlikely), blowing them up will make the chemicals spread out into the surrounding areas potentially killing however many civilians!

#10 Blowing up Syria for using chemical weapons, especially when the UK sold the components for it to Syria and the US uses depleted uranium shells and rounds, amounts to hypocrisy.

#11 The west is not the be-all, say-all and end-all, especially when one considers how it remains unaccountable for it's own war crimes [1][2][3][4][5] (hope you're happy with yourselves, military intel) and continues to persecute people, such as Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, Michael Hastings, et alia, who expose the truth of their crimes.

#12 Syrian rebels have access to such chemicals as sarin, admitted to using it as such, and despite being affiliated with al nusra and thus al qaeda, aren't being targeted by the US. The same Syrian terrorists who will behead you if you don't convert.

#13 The Syrian rebels have a public track record of human rights abuses that are often visually demonstrated (Syrian rebel eats human heart, Syrian rebels use child soldiers, Syrian rebels kill civilians), the Syrian government on the other hand only has third hand accusations only in writing, made worse by the fact, to quote: "Rami Abdulrahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is one of the opposition-affiliated groups counting the number of those killed in the uprising, stated that civilians who had taken up arms during the conflict were being counted under the category of "civilians"" (this is misleading as it makes the armed rebels look like civilians: a civilian is a non-combatant).

#14 Such a war is untrustworthy, especially given the Saudi Arabians offered the Russians control of the global oil market if they drop their issue on Syria (and threatened to use Chechen terrorists to blow up the olympic winter games in Russia if they don't comply). They even offered to fund the US invasion of Syria. The Saudi Arabians do not have the best interest of Americans at heart: only their own selfish interests.

#15 The war was preplanned by the US and UK as early as 1957, and therefore is for selfish reasons. To quote: "Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.". To quote further: "a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time".

#16 The previous, non-congress approved (congress was excused baselessly) war with Libya, resulted in Libya still being in disarray. Something they're keen to keep quiet on. As well as a few posters here.

#17 It's based largely on 'rar rar' emotional rhetoric, and not on evidence, facts, or reasoning (the fact it's being rushed through before anyone has a chance to think should clue you in). The emotional rhetoric from a child about Iraq about babies being killed with bayonets turned out to be a lie as a PR stunt by a PR firm. Silence on this matter is deafening. We don't need another Nayirah PR incident. Or another WMD incident either (funny that: both fabrications).

#18 There's clearly vested interests in invading Syria, namely, oil (just two points below Libya in ranking), thus claims shouldn't be taken at face value.

#19 Every war by the US has so far resulted in disaster: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (1970s-1980s), US support for Iran-Iraq war (giving Iraq sarin), Gulf war (Gulf war syndrome, anyone?), Bosnia/Serbia, now Iraq, Afghanistan again (divided by sectarian tensions), US involvement in Egypt (divided by sectarian tensions, again), Libya (divided by sectarian tensions, again). Same screw-ups as those but with Syria, right?

#20 Fukushima's radioactive poisoning of the entire Pacific ocean (and possibly the world), a much bigger issue, is largely being ignored compared to Syria, which should raise questions of motives. Wouldn't it make more sense to deal with Fukushima and give that more attention?

But there were only 20, lol. 

Thanks to Joshua Flynn for creating this list.


Mall Cop's Fight Highlights Public Misinformation on Authority

This incident happened back in May, but I have decided to show it here since there is still quite a bit of discussion going on about it, and quite a lot of misinformation.

In the video you will see a Security Guard, under contract with the Cafaro company, attempt to enforce the regulations of the Ohio Valley Mall. A physical confrontation ensues. The debate here swirls around all sorts of misunderstanding by the general public, and the public's general disdain for authority.

As any regular reader here knows, I am not fan of authority myself, and certainly no "cop lover." But while I have to agree that this guard acted foolishly, technically, she had every right* to do what she did. The woman she confronted should have been arrested and charged.

The primary misconception that the public often has is that security guards have no legal authority. This is completely incorrect. In some ways, private security guards actually have more power than a police officer.

You see, a police officer must have either probable cause that a crime has been committed or be acting under emergency authority in order to issue you a command. A security guard on the other hand, is acting as the agent of the property owner. Essentially, a guard has as much authority over their jurisdiction as you have in your own home.

The police may enforce the law, but that is where their authority ends. The security guard on the other hand, may enforce the law, any rule or regulation of the property, and may even make up rules as they go along. The only real exception there is that the guard can't compel you to commit a crime.

A guard might enforce a "shoes required" dress code for the mall, even though there is no law that says you have to wear shoes. A guard might also tell you to get up an move, right after you sat down at a table in the food court. The guard would have no obligation to explain why, and would not have to cite a "you can't sit here" rule in mall regulations. The guard might simply be telling you to move because that space was reserved, or perhaps there is a crew coming to fix a water leak there. Or maybe the guard just wanted that table for themselves. It doesn't really matter legally speaking. Now granted, a guard who goes around bullying people without cause or to get the best table in the foodcourt is not going to be looked upon well by their employer, or even fellow guards, but the legal authority is there just the same. 

So specific to this situation here now. A police officer might very well tell these people that they cannot photograph there, and order them to move along. While taking photographs is not illegal, the officer may establish a scene perimeter because of the emergency situation and enforce special circumstances within that scene. They might tell you to move along for reasons of safety, or even tell you that your photos are subject to confiscation as evidence in an ongoing investigation.

(It should be noted here, that emergency authority if often used to enforce some level of common decency too. Aside from being material evidence in an investigation, no one wants to see pictures circulated on the internet of their loved one's mutilated remains being extricated from a twisted wreck along some highway. And you probably wouldn't want to see a bunch of rubberneckers oogling you while you die either.)

The guard also has, generally speaking, this same emergency authority. Being a security guard does not grant that authority outside of their jurisdiction, but here on the mall property, the guard was indeed helping to manage an emergency situation and a hazardous condition within her jurisdiction as a consequence of the emergency. She could not go running out to the interstate and do the same thing, but there on mall property she had every right to do what she did.

Now here is where the guard's power goes even beyond that of a police officer. Even if there had been no truck rolled down the embankment, no emergency situation, the guard still had the authority to tell those folks to stop taking pictures and to move along. Not only were they impeding the flow of traffic and creating a hazardous safety condition, but the guard also has no obligation to explain herself to them. She didn't have to have a reason at all, legally speaking, as we have already seen with the foodcourt example. But at the same time, if one of those idiots had gotten run over they probably would have turned right around and sued the mall over it.

Okay, so we have now established that a guard can enforce the law and help to maintain a secure perimeter in an emergency situation. We have also seen that a guard may enforce the rules of the property, which may not have anything to do with actual laws. We have even seen that a guard has the right to make up the rules as they go. Just as you could in your own home. You could tell other people they can't smoke in your home while you sit down and light up a fat cigar. The guard is the legal agent of the property owner, and therefore has the same authority as the property owner.

But what can the guard actually do to enforce these rules? It's simple really. They can tell you to leave. And if you refuse to leave? Well then, now you have committed a crime. Criminal trespass. You are now subject to arrest. The guard may use physical force to affect that arrest, or may simply use physical force to stop you from continuing your criminal activity. This is the same authority a nightclub bouncer uses when they kick out drunks. If they ask you nicely to leave, and you don't, you're in trouble. This is the same in a bar, a mall, or when you are in someone's own home. You can be ejected through physical force, and you are subject to a criminal prosecution.

So yes folks, rent-a-cops do indeed have authoritahhh. In many ways, more so than a police officer. In fact, a guard could supersede the commands of a police officer, or even eject a police officer from the property in some instances, depending on the specifics. 

The last argument that can be made here is that the guard was not actually on private property, but public property. I have seen this argument made, but it is simply not true. Even if you let the public onto your property, let's say for a yard sale as an example, it is still your property and you have the right to kick someone out. This is true even of businesses like malls, that are often thought of as public areas, even when they really are not. This has been upheld numerous times and is well established in case law. Mall property is not public property.

Furthermore, where this incident took place was not a public roadway. The truck rolled over from the public interstate, but where the guard's confrontation occurred was on Mall Ring Road, which is private property. It is not owned or maintained by any public entity, but instead secured and maintained through private contracts. the guard was within her jurisdiction. The fact that it is private property has been established by numerous media reports and is also evident by the fact that the road is not accessible to Google Earth's Street View.

So all in all here, we must now conclude that the people taking pictures and loitering, were wrong, and that the guard was legally in the right. Not only was she enforcing mall regulations, she was also protecting the interests of the mall owners, and the safety of the very people who had become confrontational with her. Although we hear in the video some talk about who touched who her first, we also see now that the guard had every right to initiate physical force to enforce the mall's security.

The guard was under no obligation to "call the police" as some have suggested, because the guard herself is in fact the authority there.

Now, having said all of this in defense of the guard, we might also look at the manner in which she performed her duty. This is the real problem here. What she did was completely legal, and the other folks were indeed breaking the law at that point, we can also see this as an example of a total lack of professionalism. A lack of training and experience could be blamed here as much as any judgement of the guard's personality. So in that sense, we might even blame her employers partially for this incident. But it seems clear enough that whatever the reason, the guard lacked a certain level of professionalism. She lost control of her own temper, and at least partly because of that, she lost overall control of the situation. Meeting belligerence with belligerence and escalating a situation beyond one's control are not hallmarks of security and/or law-enforcement professional conduct.

Having worked int he field myself, I will share my opinion here on what I might have done in that situation. First, I would have established my authority with what is known as command presence. this can be accomplished through everything from wearing a well-fitting, neat uniform, to posture, to speaking in an authoritative tone, eye contact, and in general expressing an air of professional confidence.

When my commands were not followed, I would have selected on of two options. First, to continue my hard-ass approach and call for immediate backup. At that point, I have made a supervisor aware of an escalating situation. It is then left to them to either order me to disengage, or to send reinforcement to press the issue. The alternative for me would have been to humanize myself a bit. To try to build a small rapport of understanding, and basically tell them why they can't be there taking pictures.

"Look guys, I'm just doing my job. If one of you gets hit by a car, it's my ass," is something I might have said.

Or maybe, something a little condescending even like, "Come on people. Really? How morbid are you? Don't sit here taking pictures of someone having the worst day of their lives."

The idea here is to engage in a bit of coercive conversation, rather than just start screaming and yelling. If at that point they still refused to follow instructions, I would fall back to the first choice, and call a supervisor/dispatch for reinforcement and/or further instructions.

The guard's inability to stay calm, and to effectively maintain order led to her being fired from her job in the end. No charges were filed against her, which goes to show that she was legally justified in what she did. But at the same time, her employer saw the guard was unable to do her job effectively, and sent her on her way. Because of that, it is little surprise that the mall elected not to pursue charges against the transgressors.

So the next time you start making wise cracks at the mall cops, just remember that most are more professional than you give them credit for. They are at the short-end of plenty of jokes, they bite their tongue and carry on. Think what you want about security guards, but don't make the mistake of thinking that they are powerless. If pushed, they really can mess up your day. At the very least they can tell you to get the hell out and never come back.

*DISCLAIMER: This article is not intended as legal advice. Consult an attorney to learn the specific regulations and guidelines in your state and/or location

Julie Borowski: Why I Became Anti-War (VIDEO)

No one wanted to listen though, when some of us talked about these things 12 years ago. Some of us remembered the lessons of history. Some of us were already well aware of war profiteering, the military-industrial complex, the corporate influence over government, and yes, even false-flag attacks. Many of us were less than convinced by the official account of the 9/11 attacks from the outset, and became even less trusting in our own government when we were led into war with Iraq for no good reason at all really.

Still though, it is good to see some people are waking up, and coming around to realize some of these things now. I worry though, that this awakening of sorts is more of a partisan anti-Obama position, than a true anti-interventionist stance. Time will tell I suppose. My prediction is that a Republican will take back the White House in the next election. And then we we will see who the hypocrites really are.

So many news anchors and pundits have already shown themselves to by just that, hypocrites. They were old enough and informed enough to know better then. But now, we see younger folks like Julie here, who were blinded by the dazzle of misguided patriotism and propaganda waking up to the fact that they were lied to by these hypocrites. That they were misled by the mainstream media talking heads who nly speak out against war now that it is a Democrat doing it instead of a Republican.

I admire Julie though. She makes no bones about it that she was wrong. That is not hypocrisy. That is just what we call in the conspiracy/alternative-media "waking up."

Here is her wake up call.

My personal story on how I went from a pro-war Bush supporter to an anti-war patriot. This video is much different than any of my other recent videos. No crazy costumes or props. This is just me and my story.

*Non-interventionist is probably a more accurate word to describe me. Unfortunately, it is not a common term*

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/JulieBorowski
Like me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/JulieBorowski
Please Subscribe to My Channel.


Iraq, Afghan wars will cost to $4 trillion to $6 trillion, Harvard study says: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/20...

Afghanistan, Iraq Wars Killed 132,000 Civilians, Report Says: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/...

This video and my channel is my opinion and my opinion only. It does not represent the views of any organization.


Marines.com Hacked by Syria

via: ZeroHedge

Following President Obama's decision to pass the blame buck to Congress (and its oh-so-great track record of making decisions), the Syrian Electronic Army has struck again. This time right at the heart of the matter - defacing the "Marines.com" website. As The Independent reports, the US Marines received a message calling for support from their "brothers, the Syrian army soldiers" – in the form of a web attack changing the homepage of the official Marines recruitment site to a page entitled "“Hacked by SEA." The message also stated, "Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al-Qaida insurgents," which seems to fit with many of their perspectives as we have noted previously. Full text and screenshot below...

Full text:
"This is a message written by your brothers in the Syrian Army, who have been fighting al-Qaida for the last 3 years. We understand your patriotism and love for your country so please understand our love for ours. Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue al- Qaida insurgents.

Marines, please take a look at what your comrades think about Obama's alliance with al-Qaida against Syria. Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you, fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy.

Refuse your orders and concentrate on the real reason every soldier joins their military, to defend their homeland. You're more than welcome to fight alongside our army rather than against it.

Your brothers, the Syrian army soldiers. A message delivered by the SEA"

This will not be the last of the SEA though, as the BBC interviewed the hackers (via email) and a spokesman said the SEA had "many surprises" to come. He added: "Military intervention in Syria has many consequences and will affect the whole world. Our main mission is to spread truth about Syria and what is really happening."

Latest Headlines

Which Mythical Creature Are You?                         Sexy Out of This World Aliens                         Is That a Ghost or Just a Dirty Lens                         Can You Survive the Zombie Apocalypse?                          Do You Know Vampires?                          Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse                          Ten Amazing Urban Legends That Are Actually True                          Unbelievable UFO Sightings                          Is Your Dealer a Cop?

Search This Blog