MacLeans Gets G20 Protest All Wrong....

While waiting at the optometrists for our yearly eye exams, I happened to spy a MacLeans magazine perched on top of a pile of waiting room reading materials.  The image on the front cover leapt to my eyes.  It was of a young, thin man with his arms raised and his face covered with a WWII era gas mask, standing defiantly in front of a blazing police cruiser.  The cover photo was the same as the one above except that the "Canada's Gross National Product sign had been conspicuously cropped out.  The caption read, "Lock Them Up: Why the G20 thugs don't deserve any leniency".... I chuckled a bit out loud and commented under my breath "who are the thugs you're referring to exactly", meaning that the Police and Security forces brought in could easily have been mistaken for thugs this past weekend.

I thought I'd have a quick read, hoping to find a glimpse of a neutral and balanced examination of the "thuggery" and how the parties on all sides played their respective roles.  I expected some criticism of the Police for not using (even once) the very costly water cannon vehicle to at least extinguish the burning wreck of a cop car, let alone blast the so-called Black Bloc anarchists into the next postal code.  But, alas, I was sorely mistaken.  Instead, I found a rather contrite and slightly apologetic treatise on how the city was man-handled by this relatively small band of anti-capitalists.  They certainly packed a rather large punch, media wise, compared to the over 25,000 peaceful protestors who marched down Toronto's streets over the course of the three days. Not much ado was made of the peaceful protestors, and plenty of the window smashers and car blower-uppers.  It hardly seemed a fair analysis, considering that people had reported being harrangued for simply being too close to the security fencing.  Surely the anarchists would have had a much rougher time with the police?  And yet, by all accounts they did not.  So, why now the "off with their heads!" battle cry?  It doesn't make sense to close the barn door after the cows have run away.  After reading the article I knew I had to clear up a few points.  I just cannot let such blatent ignorance go unchallenged.   I'll do my best to break the article down, paragraph by paragraph to expose the blatent lies and deceptive inferences that imply that a witch-hunt is now in order.

The article begins by saying: "In downtown, Toronto gangs of highly motivated thugs torched four police cars and broke storefront windows of dozens of businesses during a wild spree of G20 violence. Police responded by arresting more than 900 protesters and bystanders."  It should be noted that none of these "thugs" were of the 900 arrested.  The author wrongly  implies that 900 Black Bloc (and witnesses) were arrested.  If this were true you wouldn't need to find them, would you?

"What took place on the streets of Toronto was indeed a serious situation, yet anxiety over the behaviour of police is wildly overdone."  I would vehemently argue that this is not the case, and I encourage anyone who disagrees to go to Youtube and view footage shot of the various police officers randomly beating people, bullying them, dragging them and of the comments coming from the "innocent bystanders" MacLeans refers to who testify of the deplorable conditions in the makeshift detention center at Toronto Film Studio's.

"Those responsible for the damage should be the focus of society’s anger. Only the professionalism and preparedness of police prevented circumstances from being much worse."  Excuse me, but 1.5 billion dollars bought a heck of a lot of fence, police and security and equipment to handle the so-called thugs.  Why wasn't it used I wonder?

"Rather than an inquiry, we need further police effort to ensure every one of those lawless thugs is brought to justice."  Well, it seems as if arresting 900 peaceful protestors wasn't enough, now after the event has long gone, we now need increased police presence to bring the real criminals to justice.  An inquiry seems a bit silly, I guess.....(tongue in cheek).  I mean, we're obviously not safe anymore, right?  We just need more police and fewer rights and freedoms and we can all sleep better at night.

"Overheated arguments from the CCLA and others regarding mass arrests and claims of police brutality need to be kept in perspective. Many of the complaints seem to involve the quality of the sandwiches in detention. Or that the police banged their batons on their shields in an “intimidating” manner. It’s possible many of those arrested for breach of the peace were not directly involved in any violence. But they were released in a matter of hours. Canadians’ constitutional rights have survived the ordeal unscathed."  I know that one woman would have plenty to say about police brutality.  In her 'testimony', she recounts how she was grabbed, thrown into a van, sat on by a very large 'officer' who punched her and choked her until she nearly passed out, threatened her, deprived her of water, and more.   You can read her description of events here: http://rabble.ca/babble/activism/my-experience-g20-detention-centre .  As for Canadians' constitutional rights surviving unscathed... I guess that depends on which side of the fence you're on.  I'm pretty sure the right to peaceful assembly (as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was certainly scathed for about 900 detainees.

"It is necessary to keep the violence that did occur in perspective as well. Recall that when the Montreal Canadiens beat the Boston Bruins in the first round of the 2007-2008 NHL playoffs, street havoc also ensued. And those Montreal rioters managed to torch or smash 16 police cars. So by at least one measure, the G20 conflagration produced only one-quarter of the damage created by a run-of-the-mill hockey riot. Further to the point, there were no injuries significant enough to mention and the riot earned only modest international attention. This was no Bosnia in the 1990s. It wasn’t even Montreal in April."....Well, then what's all the fuss about then, if it wasn't as bad as all that?  The riot earned only modest attention, by MSM (mainstream media) standards because that's what MSM does, it only shows what it wants too... the people were certainly there along with hundreds of photographers and independant journalists, but most of them were arrested (like Charles Veitch of Love Police fame, Dan Dicks of PressForTruth.ca, and Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change New York, who was denied entry into Canada altogether).

"But consider what might have happened without this massive investment in security. Had the “black bloc” anarchists responsible for the extant street damage penetrated the security fence and disrupted the actual G20 events, the international attention would have been much more significant, and the damage done to Canada’s reputation far greater. Whatever steps the police took to prevent this from happening were both necessary and welcome"  Police either politely looked the other way, or weren't there altogether while all this was going on.  In fact, some YouTube evidence exists that police provocateurs were involved in the street damage as was the practice at the Montebello, Montreal SPP protest.

"Beyond the role of the police, however, there’s another reason—largely overlooked—why a major security catastrophe was averted: the global protest movement appears to be losing steam.  This statement is assinine, and reflects the complete lack of research done by this publication.  The United States Tea parties, the riots in Greece, Iceland, etc.. are exactly about the global protest movement.  Perhaps said author, should get out more, or at least watch some YouTube.


The mass of protesters agreed on very little other than a general sense of unhappiness with the status quo, whatever it might be. Issues seen and heard from the crowd ranged from animal liberation to legalization of marijuana to the treatment of homosexuals in Iran. There was no consistent message, other than the minority position on the desirability of broken windows. Only after the fact have protesters managed to coalesce around a common theme of alleging police brutality. Yet it bodes poorly for the future of the protest movement if  the only coherent argument it can muster involves the reaction of others to itself."  This argument is like asking which came first the chicken or the egg.  It is rediculous to say that 25,000 peaceful protestors who managed to show up on three separate days, have speeches, create placards and signs etc.. failed to show a consistent message.  The message is just that.. the people are unhappy.  The fact that the author could care less about the small issues as much as the big ones makes him an ignorant idiot.  As well, the fact these kind of issues are not MSM fodder, does not mean that those who got arrested got what was coming to them.  The people who showed up to protest expected to vent their concerns and feel a part of the democratic system that encourages their right to free speech and assembly without the threat of being arrested or assaulted.  I'm pretty sure no one who was arrested wanted their head smashed into the pavement just to make a point.  And the future of the protest movement is now unfortunately tainted with distrust of the police who are supposed to be guardians of the public.

The author goes on to state that: "Bringing the world’s major economies back to fiscal balance is crucial to closing the book on the Great Recession. Was this accomplishment, significant though it may be, worth the candle?"  I guess my question to this question would be: "Significant for whom?"  Who, (if not the people living under the governments represented at the G20,  and better yet,  those protesting), are the recipients of the gains made at this years conference?  Will we, the people, see improvements to our economies? Or will we see a group of corporatists put us all further in debt? 

In my opinion, the "roving lawlessness" demonstrated at this years G20 went unopposed.  Why?  Perhaps it was a "dry run", a test situation, used to feel the pulse of the Canadian people.  We are, after all, one of the healthier economies in these days of economic collapse.  The global awakening, as Zbigniew Bryzinski stated, is one of the greatest challenges to the Globalist Agenda.  People don't want their countries turned into corporations, plain and simple.  And whether Black Bloc or the guy up the block, we need to continue to say so. 



"We feel it is important as well to stand together with the rest of the movement in solidarity and opposition, but at the same time visibly apart in our presence and analysis.  It is time we spoke about what we want, both within the anti-globalization movement and to the world at large.  It's time for the world to hear the voices behind the masks."  The Black Bloc Papers (2002)

Citizen's Arrest of War Criminal George W. Bush: Court Case in Canada

Ony In Canada Eh? Well actually no, plenty of other citizens (all in the US) have made such attempts, but this one is noteworthy because it is an indication of the disdain some Canadians have for politicians in the south.  George Bush (Jr.) has made several appearances across Canada, giving speeches on his 2 terms in the Presidency.  His appearances are well attended by both fans and protestors alike.  Below is an excerpt taken from the Calgary Herald (where the article no longer appears) and reposted at Global Research. 

Citizen's Arrest of War Criminal George W. Bush: Court Case in Canada

Anti-Bush Protester Handed Fine, One-Year Probation

By Daryl Slade

Global Research, June 10, 2010

Calgary Herald - 2010-06-07

CALGARY — A Chase, B.C., man will not go to jail after being convicted of obstructing a peace officer while protesting former U.S. president George W. Bush's visit to Calgary last year.

Provincial court Judge Manfred Delong handed a conditional discharge Monday to John Pasquale Boncore, 58, and placed him on probation for a year.

Boncore — who also goes by the name of Splitting the Sky — must make a $1,000 donation to a charity of his choice and pay a $50 victim fine surcharge as conditions of his probation.

Court heard Boncore, who wanted to have Bush arrested as a war criminal, tried to cross a line of city police officers providing security as the former president spoke at the Telus Convention Centre on March 17, 2009.

Boncore told the judge before sentencing that if being fined $1,000 "for trying to apprehend a war criminal of the Bush administration, and possibly stop torture and murder," then "bring it on."

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who has worked for many years in aboriginal rights with Boncore, a former resident of Buffalo, N.Y., gave a strong character reference on the man's behalf during Monday's hearing.

Outside court, Clark condemned the Bush administration for "the most unspeakable aggression" since the Second World War in starting conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. He insisted there shouldn't be a problem with protesting something you believe in.

"It's important people see that side of (Bush's regime)," said Clark. "If (the U.S.) continued this war aggression, it's going to be a short and difficult future for everybody."

A defiant Boncore told the judge before sentencing he wasn't there to incite violence but that he "(believes) in my heart that George W. Bush is a war criminal."

Crown prosecutor Tracy Davis, who did not seek any jail time, nevertheless called Boncore's actions that day a well-planned and deliberate action.

Defence lawyer Charles Davison had sought a discharge for his client, who had no prior criminal record and has a good standing in his community.

Delong said the issue did not have anything to do with Boncore's beliefs but rather what he had done that day.

He called the obstruction a relatively minor offence compared to similar cases.

Citizen's Arrest of War Criminal George W. Bush: Court Case in Canada

Why the 9/11 Truth movement just won't die....

I've come across an interesting theory in Quantum Physics and the quest for the truth that explains why the 9/11 Truth movement just won't die. 

Physicists like Einstein, Bors, Pauli and others, have and continue to wrestle with the concept of reality.  Aristotle was the instigator of this question (formally), when he looked at the question of potentiality which asks: "What potential does something have to become something else".  Aristotle's view was that each 'thing' has a certain power to become something that it is not already...ie. A sleeping man to become awake.  Quantum physicists took this a step further in proposing that the man is both asleep and awake as the potential exists for both states.  The "Copenhagen interpretation" of Quantum Theory developed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, and others says two basic things:


1. Reality is identical with the totality of observed phenomena (which means reality does not exist in the absence of observation), and
2. Quantum mechanics is a complete description of reality; no deeper understanding is possible. (1)

The Theory basically states that a phenomenon exists only when it is observed, and becaused it is observed.  The man exists in both potentially sleeping and awake states and is only one or the other once someone else observes the man that way.
Alex Patterson has this to say about the Observer Effect:

     "Fundamental to contemporary Quantum Theory is the notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed. This effect is known as the 'Observer Effect'...".

So what constitutes a phenomenon?...
Some definitions:
1. An observable fact or occurrence or a kind of observable fact or occurrence. For example: Hurricanes are a meteorological phenomenon.

2. Appearance; a perceptible aspect of something that is mutable.

3. A fact or event considered very unusual, curious, or astonishing by those who witness it.

4. A wonderful or very remarkable person or thing.

5.  An experienced object whose constitution reflects the order and conceptual structure imposed upon it by the human mind (especially by the powers of perception and understanding).

It would seem that the very definitions of 'phenomenon' are in themselves 'Observable Effects'.


Let's break down September 11, 2001 a little bit.  Let's suppose that only one person in the world was in New York that morning and saw only one plane hit one tower and later saw that tower fall.  The collapse of that tower as it appeared to that one observer would be considered a unique phenomenon and it's "truth" would be found to be unique and unshakable.  That person could travel the world telling of his or her experience and all who heard it would also accept that as their "truth".  Now if we add another observer, say two blocks away in the other direction from the first, what that observer saw happen would be an entirely different phenomenon, due to the difference in angle of view. 

Now, lets add a second plane hitting the other tower and observers who saw this from their offices on various floors of office buildings around the plaza.  As well, we can add people who did not see anything, but heard loud explosions, and other people describing what they saw or heard.  These too are unique phenomena. 

Now we add another interesting element, which is the media, that supplies us, on say, four or five different channels, different footage from the ground and by helicopter of the two towers. (For those of us who were nowhere near the events of that day, we had only our television sets to shape our observations.)  The observations, however, are not enough on their own to constitute the truth of what really happened.

"All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses.

                                                                                                                                     -Neitzsche

Butressed against these is "the official story", which has also proved to be as variable as the observations themselves.  For each person who was a "witness", they will contrast their version of what they saw, heard, etc... with "the official story" and decide if it agrees or does not.  When the official story begins to show inconsistencies and holes, people still tend to cling to their observation as the absolute truth and discard the official story as a pack of lies.  The more that the media clings to the official story and rebroadcasts it, the more the official story begins to stink.  What's more people begin to question all the other official stories they've ever been told whether they were observers to the phenomenon or not. 

The truth is not really out there, but within each person, based on their personal experience and their perception checking of the facts of the official story and the facts as they see them.  The number of truths about 9/11 probably reach in the billions and will never find agreement until all the facts come out. 


Footnotes
(1) From Alex Patterson's Website: http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/observer_effect.htm

WHO and Big Pharma....not so strange bedfellows

When I drive in to school from where I live to Saskatoon, which is about a 30 minute drive, I like to listen to the Alex Jones Show.  My morning routine involves getting up, dressed, a quick bowl of cereal while the coffee percolates and I download the latest podcast of his show from the day before.  While I don't always agree with everything Alex has to say, (and lately I find myself agreeing less and less with what he has to say), I still find he has a way of sourcing out information that no mainstream media outlet can. 
On the outside people would expect that me, this 39 year-old, single mother of two teens, who works and is pursuing her Nursing degree would hardly be the Infowars type.  However, I have to give Alex some of the credit for waking me up to some of the realities that are wreaking havoc on our world today. It was Alex who first brought me some very different information about the H1N1 pandemic than what I was hearing from our local news outlets.  CTV and CBC were busy stressing about how many people were diagnosed or who had died from the virus every day and by all accounts it seemed that the second wave was going to be the next 1918 flu.  Why then was Alex ranting about it being a hoax? 
I decided to find out more about it and even set up a public opinion poll on a website I created in order to find out if indeed I wasn't alone.  Well, I got 260 responses and without boring you with the percentages, found that over half of the respondents felt that the pandemic was over-exaggerated and had no intention of getting the H1N1 shot.  On top of that almost all respondents said they wanted to see a review of the governments handling of the pandemic and wanted to see more research into the safety of vaccines.  Only 2% of the respondents trusted the Canadian Government and yet most trusted the Provincial Health Authorities, who are overseen federally.  Only two respondents said they trusted the pharmaceutical companies and a low percentage trusted the FDA.
 Surprisingly almost all the respondents trusted the World Health Organization.  I say surprisingly, because on the Alex Jones Show (Feb 8th, 2010), I listened to an interesting interview with a Dr. Wodarg, who is head of the European Council on Health and who is investigating the dealings between the big pharmaceutical companies like Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline and the WHO.  Apparently, the WHO has some sort of private dealings with these companies and may have been involved in some kind of profiteering from the sales of vaccine and Tamiflu.  These are, of course, allegations at this point, but the fact that 47 nations in Europe are participating and getting to the bottom of things is certainly encouraging.  So encouraging in fact, that I took the liberty of informing our own Prime Minister about the councils investigations in hopes of inspiring Mr. Harper to action. 
Prior to sending Mr. Harper this letter I sent the results of my poll to Dr. David Butler-Jones(our Health Minister) in hopes of getting a review of some kind here.  Sadly, I received minutes from a special hearing that told me the Canadian Government has no intention of holding any such investigation into it's own handling of the pandemic.  In minutes from the hearing, Dr. Butler-Jones blithley side-stepped questions from Health Critic, Judy Wasylicia-Leis, who point-blank asked him when there would be a public review.  He laughed and essentially said that the perview of health matters was between the Health Minister and the Provincial Health Authorities, so any discussions as to what could be done differently would be done on that level and that level alone.  The public needn't be bothered. 
Now, as all Canadians are aware, the Parliament is prorogued until March 3rd, and as far as I know my letter still sits on the Health Minister and the Prime Ministers desks. 
Perhaps now that a panel of elected European representatives from 47 countries are willing to call the 2009 pandemic a hoax, maybe the right people will be held accountable there and it will trickle down to other countries as well. 
If the World Health Organization, (who made the decision to upgrade the pandemic to level 6, thereby creating a panic and putting into action, government agencies who blindly purchased untested vaccine for mass distribution to the people) can be brought to their knees, what makes the PM of Canada or the Health Minister for that matter think they are above the same reproach?
March 3rd is still some weeks away, so it will be interesting to see what conclusions the EU council makes in that time....I guess, until then Mr. Harper, enjoy the Olympics!

Prayer Breakfast with the President

In Obama's speech yesterday at a prayer breakfast where dignitaries, politicians and lawmakers gathered to share a meeting of the minds; the President made bold and scathing comments aimed at bringing his critics into line.  In a typical passive-agressive fashion, Obama openly challenged those who questioned his faith and "for that matter" his citizenship.  This move, clearly aimed at re-establishing his position as the commander-in-chief, seemed to also say....'don't mess with Mr. Big'! 

When I heard this speech, heck, I almost felt guilty.  I mean, how dare we question the authority of the President?  Really, what does it matter what Obama's birth certificate says?  He is a man of faith!  That should certainly be enough. 

Curiously, though, no one noticed that while Obama was blithely asking us to accept the idea that faith and politics should be viewed as singular, in another breath he pledged that he would maintain the separation of Church and State.  If this is true Mr. President, then we could certainly accept your adherence to your faith and yet still question your country of origin.....they are after all separate issues as you point out.

Huffington post reports: "Obama said the office would also work to reach out overseas "to foster interfaith dialogue with leaders and scholars around the world."" (referring to a new branch of government that would seek to revitalize America through interfaith movements at the 'neighborhood' level).  Obvious to this writer is the contradiction this poses...does anyone else see it too?

He also goes on to say that he will gladly extend religious groups a helping hand from tax dollars provided it goes to non-religious activities.  While this is good for feeding the homeless, etc...it does present some form of control over the religious organizations themselves and the ways they see fit to help people.

On a final note, I have to laugh at the following statements he made:

"There is no religion whose central tenet is hate."


"There is no god who condones taking the life of an innocent human being," he said, and all religions teach people to love and care for one another. That is the common ground underlying the faith-based office, he said.

I find it hard to believe that the President would be so naive....I mean, did he not pay attention to his briefings on Islamic extremeism, is he not familiar with the Talmud?  Has he never seen a bhuddist monk kill another person.  I would suggest that he is naive if not in denial and certainly didn't have a good speechwriter proofread those remarks before he spoke them.

For the full article see here.

They don't want us to Unite!!! - B. Marley

Had a rather heated debate with a friend on the activities of my favorite patriotic radio-show host Alex Jones (of infowars.com).  I came across a webpage linking Alex to the Zionists and criticized his friendships and business dealings with certain Jews....The page reeked of White-Supremecy.  While I have no real knowledge of the vocabulary used by anti-semetic commentary...I can use my common sense to discern a smear campaign when I see one.  What was funny to me was another article I read criticizing Alex as being a White Supremecist.  I guess when you can't attack the facts that a person is talking about...you can always attack their character.

Not everything that Alex says, I agree with, but what I can say is that he is very well read, knowledgeable and neutral when it comes to religious affiliation.  Where Alex is not neutral is when it comes to attacking elite individuals who take advantage of the weak and usurping the rights of citizens, and that includes the freedom of speech.  What is ironic is that people like Alex, Lou Dobbs, Ron Paul and others are fighting to maintain the same freedom of speech that those who speak out about the above people enjoy so much.

The debate with my friend will never be about Zionism or White-Supremecy, from my perspective, for I have no opinion about which side is right or wrong...what is important is that the ability to say what we believe is maintained.  The fact that I can argue with my friend and yet still maintain an element of respect between us is truly what is at the core of our freedoms.  This above all else is what must be maintained.  Perhaps if we focused on our commonalities we might be more united than we realize.

Those who want to see the oppression of others continue, will of course defame those who speak out about oppression.  The oppressors want to divide and conquer...and if we can fight amongst ourselves, they just have to sit back and watch the mayhem.  Like Bob Marley said..."They don't want us to Unite!".

Through a scanner darkly...

This morning it was made official, the not so small smalltown of Saskatoon has been scheduled to recieve a full body scanner for it's John Diefenbaker airport.  It did not come as a surprise but was nonetheless dismaying to read about.  "Well, there goes air travel for our family!"  I wondered if there was anyone else, other than my facebook friends, who would agree with me.  Did people know?  I mean, really know just how much of the human body is shown by these things?  I decided to find out by listening to our local talk-radio station.  Well, there were certainly lots of hot comments coming from people who were outraged over the courts decision to let the Saskatchewan Roughriders GM off lightly for his assault on a 16 year old girl.  This is encouraging, I thought!  The whole scanner issue would be sure to ruffle a few feathers.  Boy was I wrong.  I got a very polite intro to the topic I was going to be talking to the host about only to find that I could only get a few comments out before getting cut off.  Wow, well, I guess I know how this is going to go down.  People will, it seems, think it's not ok for the GM of our favorite football team to treat a 16 year old babysitter as a sexual object, but ok to put our wives, mothers, sisters, daughters through a machine that shows their naked bodies to some airport staff members.  Ah, but there's an alternative!  If you object, you can go into a private room for a pat-down. 
Another point of contention is that this so-called terrorist attack occurred in the US.  Whatever in the world made the Canadian government jump on that bandwagon without a proper review?  Oh, right, I forgot...the parliament is currently prorogued...the PM doesn't have to answer to parliament.

For the record, I will drive to visit family from now on..unless I can find an airport that doesn't have a scanner of course!