0
POPSFBI Obstructs Justice: Uncovering the Anthrax Cover-Up Who benefited most from the anthrax letters, that targeted very specific people in Congress (Democrats Leahy and Daschle) and Media (including Tom Brokaw and Robert Stevens)? Was it Bruce Ivins--really? The FBI claims his motive was profit from a vaccine to cure anthrax, but we see no evidence that he ever produced it. We do find more credible motive elsewhere, and that the FBI wants to close this investigation, based upon his "suicide", is an attempt to put him on trial in his death, and in his absence! Never has there been a more flagrant public crime with more injustice in the investigation and "conclusion", nor more international and governmental actions as a consequence (i.e. wars and legislation), if this is it. The FBI is aiding and abetting a cover-up, which is obstruction of justice, which they were told to do from the beginning.
3
POPSHow far will the border security go!?! So you have to give them your username and password to access your computer and there looking at data on the laptop and mentioned data accessed from the laptop, VPN’s and such, so do you have to give them a VPN password? This seam like it’s going a little far, I can access any of my information, I keep a lot in the cloud, so they can force me to allow them access because I brought a computer. What if I bring a clean machine with NO data, not even a browser history? Then whats next, I have to register my passwords at the border when I’m not even bringing a computer? Because I can get to my info from any net connected PC!
0
POPSAnthrax Suspect Was Not the Culprit
Yet officially he committed "suicide" while he did not know that he was to be charged? (What was his motive for suicide if he did not know he would be charged?) His friends and key scientists vehemently reject and refute the FBI's fingering him (in a desperate attempt to close the case). That the anthrax letters (sent to only Democratic leaders in Congress, Daschle and Leahy) contained the words "Allah is great" also demonstrates this was a false flag action with clear intent to blame Arabs and "Islamic terrorists" to heighten the propaganda and fear campaign and coerce Congress to pass draconian legislation for the PATRIOT ACT, Homeland Security, and permit a definition less "war on terrorism" (all contrary to the Constitution) and cede all power to the Executive branch. The motive appears clear by the anthrax letters form and content, and the effects upon the country, which are inconsistent with the alleged motive of this good standing scientist that was trusted until now.
0
POPSChina pays a high price for environmental indifference! As it vandalizes much of the natural World in its bid to exploit natural resources China's years of indifference to environmental woes is coming to haunt its leaders. Bravo! All the pomp and ceremony could well be shrouded by a real "pea soup" of pollution. It fits well in a nation which obscures its abuses of human rights, its willingness to tolerate so much fake in medicines, products, etc. Its time for China to "come clean" in more ways than just its smog!
0
POPSFallen on Deaf Ears - Another Impeachment Petition I came across this today while doing some research. I did a quick check to see if my name was on it. Nope, this is yet another petition, or written request for help, that has fallen upon deaf ears. What a shame. I wonder, all sum total, how many Americans were ignored in our numerous petitions and requests for impeachment? What's the grand total of signatures? Is there a way to find out...as, these documents were sent to Congress. Shouldn't we be able to know how many requests went unanswered? This particular petition was signed by 4, 491 American Citizens. Do they mean nothing?
1
POPSFear and loathing in Sweden Is there any connection between the <a href="http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/158/full">cringing apologies</a> to offended Muslims over the cartoon affair and this sort of terror-of-terror reaction?
7
POPSWhy The Brits Are Setting Terrorists Free It is surely no accident that this failure to grasp the true dimensions of the Islamic terrorist threat is so pronounced among the British elite. For these are the people whose education and careers embody the key attribute of Britain's liberal society – the belief that the world is governed by rational agents acting in their rational self-interest. The British ruling class just doesn't get religious fanaticism. That is why its judges and politicians are finding it so difficult to fight Islamic terror. Not just Britain but the whole world is less safe as a result.
3
POPSWhy The Silence on This Dictator?
Peter Maass writes on why we rarely hear U.S. criticism of Teodoro Obiang, the draconian ruler of Equatorial Guinea -- when we hear so much about Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. Maass posits that it's because of U.S. oil investments in the West African nation. There's no doubt some truth to that notion. But it could also have to do with the strange ebbs and flows of the media. Britain's BBC has gone to extraordinary lengths to cover Zimbabwe, in part because it was a former British colony, which Equatorial Guinea was not. But more importantly, perhaps, is the fact that just about every news organization in the world that covers Africa on the ground has a correspondent in South Africa. Call it the Jerusalem effect: Sure, it's newsworthy. But there are more foreign correspondents per capita in Jerusalem than anywhere else in the world. So closer things get covered more, farther things not so much. And Equatorial Guinea is a long, long way away from the foreign press.
1
POPSBad anti-counterfeit proposal This could be used to limit intellectual freedoms. If the hardware can be taken and seized then ALL its contents are taken without appeal and without protection. There would be certain people who would attract this sort of suppression because of their political or social views. Imagine a political protester or a writer crossing a border when this is in place. This is a BAD one.
1
POPSBush can bot any American citizen in jail for life without reason ?? !! With the approval of Congress and no outcry from corporate media, the Military Commissions Act (MCA) signed by Bush on October 17, 2006, ushered in military commission law for US citizens and non-citizens alike. While media, including a lead editorial in the New York Times October 19, have given false comfort that we, as American citizens, will not be the victims of the draconian measures legalized by this Act—such as military roundups and life-long detention with no rights or constitutional protections—Robert Parry points to text in the MCA that allows for the institution of a military alternative to the constitutional justice system for “any person” regardless of American citizenship. The MCA effectively does away with habeas corpus rights for “any person” arbitrarily deemed to be an “enemy of the state.” The judgment on who is deemed an “enemy combatant” is solely at the discretion of President Bush.
5
POPSYou Can't Soak The Rich "Like science, economics advances as verifiable patterns are recognized and codified. But economics is in a far earlier stage of evolution than physics. Unfortunately, it is often poisoned by political wishful thinking, just as medieval science was poisoned by religious doctrine. Taxation is an important example. "The interactions among the myriad participants in a tax system are as impossible to unravel as are those of the molecules in a gas, and the effects of tax policies are speculative and highly contentious. Will increasing tax rates on the rich increase revenues, or hold back the economy, as John McCain fears?
10
POPSWhat a relief ... some humanity in the world! I followed this story and was dismayed when the UK began to exercize some Draconian like blindfolding to the plight of a young man who most definitely deserved the benefit of asylum. It seems as though they have had a change of heart and listened to something other than fear!
4
POPSThe Democrats And Gun Control Mr. Obama's campaign Web site touts his belief in the Second Amendment rights to have guns "for the purposes of hunting and target shooting." Conspicuously absent is the right to have firearms to defend one's self, home and family. A presidential candidate could of course swear devotion to the First Amendment, while declaring that the amendment's purpose is to protect sports reporting and book collecting. And that candidate could still support government lawsuits against publishers, local bans on newspapers, and draconian restrictions on political commentary. Civil libertarians who supported such a candidate because of his alleged love for the First Amendment would be foolish. Civil libertarians who support Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton because of their purported fealty to the Second Amendment may be bitterly disappointed.
4
POPSSenate to Consider another Bill Hacking at our Rights of Free Speech
The most pressing liberty Ron Paul, the ACLU, Dennis Kucinich and pretty much most left- and right-leaning organizations fear outright is a restriction on the right of internet access, since the House Subcommittee hearings and text of the resolution seized upon it with almost draconian intent. "The Web as a Weapon?" The question begs another: How do you disarm that weapon? "I agree that focusing a commission to study how Americans 'adopt' belief systems is problematic," said German, "but focusing the Commission on the Internet as an aid to, or facilitator of violent radicalization, will likely result in a recommendation to censor the internet in some manner, which would obviously be a violation of the First Amendment." Kucinich, who was one of the scant few to vote against the resolution, was equally suspicious. But as usual, he's a bit more dystopian about such measures in his outlook, calling it the "thought crime bill" during a speech to supporters in December. "If you unde
1
POPSPhishing for Your Info While corporations, associations (like MPAA) and governments enforce IP law in a draconian fashion, privacy vanishes and on-line fraud runs rampant!
5
POPSBush: No Ideology Other than Greed This cracks me up. So: are right wingers strict-constructionists, decentralizing as much as possible and protecting states rights or big government federalists using consolidated power to engineer their ideal society? Depends on the issue: Prohibiting Abortion: Federalist unless it is a state trying to ignore Roe v Wade, in which case: State's Rights Integrating Schools: States Rights Unless it comes to Federal support for segregation: Federalists Marijuana decriminalization: Federalist Unless your state institutes ridiculously draconian and probably unconstitutional punishments: States Rights Gun Ownership: States Rights Unless unless you are Washington DC and pass restrictive gun control laws: Federalists Environmental Protection: States Rights Unless your state actually tries to protect the environment at the expense of big business: Federalist These guys believe in nothing, they just use any ideology they can to justify whatever it is the want.
1
Pops
Newest Clips
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update