Feeds:
Posts
Comments

A Noble Lie – Trailer

Noble Lie: a myth or untruth knowingly told by the elite to maintain social harmony, or the social position of that elite.


The 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City was a direct blow to the heart of America. 169 people were killed, including nineteen children. For years following the bombing, thousands of victims’ family members, survivors, rescuers, and ordinary Americans, have questioned the official explanation for that tragedy. Largely ignored by the government and censored by the mainstream media, these questions will not go away until history records the whole truth and justice is rendered for all.

A Noble Lie is the culmination of years of field research, interviews and investigative reporting conducted by independent journalists and ordinary citizens in their quest to find the truth. At times risking their lives and their sanity, the evidence they have uncovered threatens to blow the lid off of the official story of the bombing.

Utilizing unseen-before footage and explosive eyewitness testimony, A Noble Lie will change forever the way you look at the face of terrorism.

http://www.anoblelie.com

This week we turn the focus of our open source investigation to Sgt. Terrance Yeakey, one of the first responder heroes at the scene of the OKC bombing who discovered something that conflicted with the official story of the bombing…something that cost him his life.

Episode #140 at The Corbett Report

Terrance Yeakey Truth

A Noble Lie

Chris Emery, James Lane and Holland Vandennieuwenhof will be unveiling their project underway to produce a new documentary covering the Oklahoma City bombing in an interview on with Alex Jones on Wednesday July 7th at 2 pm.

This film, A Noble Lie will expose new information and documentation including video footage that has never been released to the public.  Many years of research has been invested in this project that promises to bring new understanding to tragedy that shook our nation to its core.

The Alex Jones Show can be heard live online at http://www.infowars.com/

By PAUL H. RUBIN

Destin, Fla.

As the oil spill continues and the cleanup lags, we must begin to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions. There does not seem to be much that anyone can do to stop the spill except dig a relief well, not due until August. But the cleanup is a different story. The press and Internet are full of straightforward suggestions for easy ways of improving the cleanup, but the federal government is resisting these remedies.

First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time.

Various skimmers and tankers (some of them very large) are available that could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, discharging the mostly clean water while storing the oil onboard. While this would clean vast amounts of water efficiently, the EPA is unwilling to grant a temporary waiver of its regulations.

View Full Image

Getty Images

Next, the Obama administration can waive the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from operating in U.S. coastal waters. Many foreign countries (such as the Netherlands and Belgium) have ships and technologies that would greatly advance the cleanup. So far, the U.S. has refused to waive the restrictions of this law and allow these ships to participate in the effort.

The combination of these two regulations is delaying and may even prevent the world’s largest skimmer, the Taiwanese owned “A Whale,” from deploying. This 10-story high ship can remove almost as much oil in a day as has been removed in total—roughly 500,000 barrels of oily water per day. The tanker is steaming towards the Gulf, hoping it will receive Coast Guard and EPA approval before it arrives.

In addition, the federal government can free American-based skimmers. Of the 2,000 skimmers in the U.S. (not subject to the Jones Act or other restrictions), only 400 have been sent to the Gulf. Federal barriers have kept the others on stations elsewhere in case of other oil spills, despite the magnitude of the current crisis. The Coast Guard and the EPA issued a joint temporary rule suspending the regulation on June 29—more than 70 days after the spill.

The Obama administration can also permit more state and local initiatives. The media endlessly report stories of county and state officials applying federal permits to perform various actions, such as building sand berms around the Louisiana coast. In some cases, they were forbidden from acting. In others there have been extensive delays in obtaining permission.

As the government fails to implement such simple and straightforward remedies, one must ask why.

More

· As Storm Stalls Cleanup, House Passes Victims’ Bill

· Florida Sees New Threat to Its Beaches

One possibility is sheer incompetence. Many critics of the president are fond of pointing out that he had no administrative or executive experience before taking office. But the government is full of competent people, and the military and Coast Guard can accomplish an assigned mission. In any case, several remedies require nothing more than getting out of the way.

Another possibility is that the administration places a higher priority on interests other than the fate of the Gulf, such as placating organized labor, which vigorously defends the Jones Act.

Finally there is the most pessimistic explanation—that the oil spill may be viewed as an opportunity, the way White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said back in February 2009, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Many administration supporters are opposed to offshore oil drilling and are already employing the spill as a tool for achieving other goals. The websites of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, for example, all feature the oil spill as an argument for forbidding any further offshore drilling or for any use of fossil fuels at all. None mention the Jones Act.

To these organizations and perhaps to some in the administration, the oil spill may be a strategic justification in a larger battle. President Obama has already tried to severely limit drilling in the Gulf, using his Oval Office address on June 16 to demand that we “embrace a clean energy future.” In the meantime, how about a cleaner Gulf?

Mr. Rubin, a professor of economics at Emory University, held several senior positions in the federal government in the 1980s. Since 1991 he has spent his summers on the Gulf.

By PAUL H. RUBIN

Destin, Fla.

As the oil spill continues and the cleanup lags, we must begin to ask difficult and uncomfortable questions. There does not seem to be much that anyone can do to stop the spill except dig a relief well, not due until August. But the cleanup is a different story. The press and Internet are full of straightforward suggestions for easy ways of improving the cleanup, but the federal government is resisting these remedies.

First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time.

Various skimmers and tankers (some of them very large) are available that could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, discharging the mostly clean water while storing the oil onboard. While this would clean vast amounts of water efficiently, the EPA is unwilling to grant a temporary waiver of its regulations.

View Full Image

Getty Images

Next, the Obama administration can waive the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from operating in U.S. coastal waters. Many foreign countries (such as the Netherlands and Belgium) have ships and technologies that would greatly advance the cleanup. So far, the U.S. has refused to waive the restrictions of this law and allow these ships to participate in the effort.

The combination of these two regulations is delaying and may even prevent the world’s largest skimmer, the Taiwanese owned “A Whale,” from deploying. This 10-story high ship can remove almost as much oil in a day as has been removed in total—roughly 500,000 barrels of oily water per day. The tanker is steaming towards the Gulf, hoping it will receive Coast Guard and EPA approval before it arrives.

In addition, the federal government can free American-based skimmers. Of the 2,000 skimmers in the U.S. (not subject to the Jones Act or other restrictions), only 400 have been sent to the Gulf. Federal barriers have kept the others on stations elsewhere in case of other oil spills, despite the magnitude of the current crisis. The Coast Guard and the EPA issued a joint temporary rule suspending the regulation on June 29—more than 70 days after the spill.

The Obama administration can also permit more state and local initiatives. The media endlessly report stories of county and state officials applying federal permits to perform various actions, such as building sand berms around the Louisiana coast. In some cases, they were forbidden from acting. In others there have been extensive delays in obtaining permission.

As the government fails to implement such simple and straightforward remedies, one must ask why.

More

· As Storm Stalls Cleanup, House Passes Victims’ Bill

· Florida Sees New Threat to Its Beaches

One possibility is sheer incompetence. Many critics of the president are fond of pointing out that he had no administrative or executive experience before taking office. But the government is full of competent people, and the military and Coast Guard can accomplish an assigned mission. In any case, several remedies require nothing more than getting out of the way.

Another possibility is that the administration places a higher priority on interests other than the fate of the Gulf, such as placating organized labor, which vigorously defends the Jones Act.

Finally there is the most pessimistic explanation—that the oil spill may be viewed as an opportunity, the way White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said back in February 2009, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Many administration supporters are opposed to offshore oil drilling and are already employing the spill as a tool for achieving other goals. The websites of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, for example, all feature the oil spill as an argument for forbidding any further offshore drilling or for any use of fossil fuels at all. None mention the Jones Act.

To these organizations and perhaps to some in the administration, the oil spill may be a strategic justification in a larger battle. President Obama has already tried to severely limit drilling in the Gulf, using his Oval Office address on June 16 to demand that we “embrace a clean energy future.” In the meantime, how about a cleaner Gulf?

Mr. Rubin, a professor of economics at Emory University, held several senior positions in the federal government in the 1980s. Since 1991 he has spent his summers on the Gulf.

Taking Back Government, One Politician at a Time!

By Debbie Morgan, Staff Writer, Take Back Washington, June 14, 2010

debbie@bridgestonemediagroup.com  

The early demise of Pennsylvania Democratic Senator Arlin Spector, Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett, the Kentucky victory of Rand Paul and the recently faced run-off of Blanche Lincoln cannot be better news to those of us seeking “change we can believe in.”  Many other incumbents are facing increasingly difficult elections this year, as well.  While pundits and other “experts” try to explain what is happening during these ever-increasing rounds of status quo political blows, the people are quite pleased.  The obvious question to those in D.C. is “Can you hear us now!?!”

We-the-People, tired of waking up to more losses of liberty, never wanted this kind of  “change” and are sending a very loud message to the buddy network at the federal level…Protect our rights or get out of our House!  In a recent Washington Post/ABC Poll, only twenty-nine percent of Americans continue to support their present Congressional representatives.  That says a lot about how Americans feel they are being represented (or misrepresented!), as it is an all time low for incumbent support.  Bloomberg is reporting that a late-May Gallup poll shows that sixty percent of those polled would prefer a candidate that has never run before as opposed to the thirty-two percent of people who would like to see someone with at least some legislative experience.   

A Washington Post article states, “This sour mood has made for nervous politicians, as candidates from both parties have tried to figure out what voters want — and don’t want.”  Really?  That means that our REPRESENTATIVES are still not listening!  In an effort to enlighten them, let us take a look at a few key things.  

First, what does representative mean?  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as standing or acting for another especially through delegated authority, constituting a government in which the many are represented by persons chosen from among them usually by election.  And to represent means to act in the place of or for usually by legal right, to serve especially in a legislative body by delegated authority usually resulting from election.  The first line of the United States Constitution tells representatives whom they will be representing: We-The-People.    

What incumbents need to know is that the people are fed up with their utter lack of representation.  These politicians do not get elected to go to Washington DC so THEY can decide what is best for us and then cram it down our throats.  Let me put it in plain English…Stop deciding for us and just go to DC and protect our rights!  THAT is what we elect and pay you to do!  Is that so hard to understand?   

We know our representatives actually do understand us.  The New York Times reported that Democrats are skipping Town Hall meetings this summer because their constituents are still fuming and they don’t want another repeat of last year’s devastating get-togethers.  Why would their constituents still be angry?  Because last year’s Town Hall meetings saw irate voters livid over the Healthcare debate, and yet, our representatives passed the catastrophic healthcare legislation, anyway.  They can be absolutely sure that we remember their lack of concern for our views.  Now, is that representation?   

The article says that Democratic Party leaders had advised their members to hold “controlled” events, do not engage in unscripted Q&A-type meetings, and get active in the community.  The question for these Congressional representatives is, how are you going to know what the people you represent want you to do for them if you are not going to engage them in conversation?  While a handful of these elected officials said they thought the meetings last year were informative, they are not repeating their Town Hall meetings this year.

So, what happens now?  From the looks of it, the people may get some much-needed new representation in DC.  Incumbents are finding it harder and harder to hold on to their seats, as those who have had enough of their Congressmen and women’s do-what-we-will attitude are stepping forth and getting involved.   

The new film, Don’t Tread On Me, has become an invaluable tool to educate the masses as to the role government should play in our lives and the duties of our elected officials.  Our country’s Founding documents are clear, yet our Congressional representatives continue to let us down.  Congress derives its power to govern from the people, not themselves.  Their duty is simple…Protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies…ALL enemies.  And, for those who may be unsure just who those enemies are, they would be any person or country who would deny us our unalienable right to life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness.  

Just to be sure we understand what we are talking about, let us take a look at a few other important terms.  Liberty, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary means “the quality or state of being free, the power to do as one pleases, freedom from arbitrary or despotic control and the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges.”  The root of the word simply means free.  Life, in old English, comes from the word that means to live.  Pursuit means the act of pursuing, and to pursue means to engage in.  The obsolete definition of Happiness may be the most telling.  Happiness used to mean good fortune or prosperity.  The present meaning is still good for our purposes, though; the state of being content…well-being, to experience satisfaction or pleasure.

What does all of this tell us?  It tells us that our Founding Fathers wanted the inhabitants of this new country to have the inherent right to be free to live our life in good fortune and to be able to experience pleasure and satisfaction or enjoyment in our social, political, and economic rights and privileges…to be content in our free lives.  Simple enough!

We have all heard “Constitutional Experts” and others tell us that the Constitution, along with other founding documents, is unclear with regards to what our rights actually are.  We have heard it over and over again, it just says you have these “rights,” these “inalienable rights,” that cannot be taken, but they are not defined.  I beg to differ!  The Declaration of Independence clearly states that we are given certain unalienable rights.  What rights?  “That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  The Constitution says in the opening line that it’s stated purpose is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty”…To whom?  “To ourselves and our posterity.”  How much more clearly can this be made?  

Since our infamous Congressional representatives cannot understand it, how do we achieve this?  Our forefathers laid that out for us, as well…by limiting the central government and retaining as many rights as they could for the State governments and the individual people of the United States.  Where can we find this bit of information?  Don’t Tread On Me poignantly points out that this most important information is listed in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights: most especially our Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights.   

I am not Ivy League educated (maybe that is the problem!), but I can tell you this; it took me a couple of afternoons of reading through some of the debates during the writing of the Bill of Rights to understand exactly what our country’s framers had in mind for their fellow countrymen and women.  So what was that, exactly?  To have a section of the world’s population who is actually free to be happy and pursue their own interests, unencumbered by government intrusion.  This bit of information coincides with the information in Don’t Tread On Me, and has brought about a major shift in the consciousness of Americans who are frustrated with the utter lack of their Congressional representation.    

The people are getting it as they are beginning to understand what has gone wrong and what it will take to make our country great again.  They are forming new groups or joining others that have been around for a while.  The Campaign for Liberty, the TEA Party and Restore the Republic comes to mind.  They are getting involved with old groups, all in an effort to make a difference. They are paying attention to alternative news…they are waking up and getting involved!  

In the face of harsh criticism on the federal level, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has promoted legislation that will protect her state against the onslaught of illegal immigrants.  Citing that the Federal Government would do nothing to secure the Arizona/Mexican border, she took matters into her own hands and asserted her state’s right to take care of itself.   

In Maine, the Republican Party, at the hands of many dedicated individuals, showed backbone this past May when they rewrote their political platform, returning their State Republican Party to it’s Constitutional roots, with an emphasis on retaining its Tenth Amendment rights.  Montana and Tennessee were among the first states to tell the federal government that guns manufactured in their respective states, with parts manufactured in their respective states, and that do not cross state borders, are off limits to federal gun laws.  Many other states followed suit.

Many states, in fact, are seeing the benefit of asserting their Tenth Amendment right to govern in the manner to which they see fit, without federal strangleholds on the issues that their citizens find important. The Tenth Amendment Center reveals that several states are introducing or passing legislation to re-establish the Tenth Amendment on the state level.  From the Firearms debate to Medical Marijuana to Health Freedom to Real ID to Cap and Trade and anything in between, the states are taking charge.   

This election cycle is proving to be a very interesting one, as mainstream politicians are realizing that we do, indeed, want that illusive “change we can believe in” and that we were deadly serious during the Town Hall meetings back in 2009.  Politicians better start representing the people they serve or they will face a loss of their lucrative little political careers or, for the newcomers, they better represent the people who chose them or their political careers will be VERY short-lived.  Let it be known now that we, the people of the United States, will be watching every move you make, and if you plan on representing us, you had better know OUR Constitutional rights and protect them.  After all, that IS what we elect you to do!

End Notes:


Don’t Tread On Me
http://www.DontTreadOnMeMovie.com/

Voters’ support for members of Congress is at an all-time low, poll finds
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060800016.html?wpisrc=nl_headline  

Lincoln Wins in Arkansas; Angle to Face Nevada’s Reid
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a_4ex_PG3sMM&pos=8  

All definitions are from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary  

Democrats Skip Town Halls to Avoid Voter Rage
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/us/politics/07townhall.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1  
Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html  

Platform of the Maine Republican Party
http://www.mainegop.com/PlatformMission.aspx  

Tenth Amendment Center
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
http://RestoreTheRepublic.com
3149 Dundee Rd #176
Northbrook, Illinois 60062, USA

Rockefeller stumps for cybersecurity

April 30, 2010 – 5:58am

WFED’s Max Cacas

Click below to hear the report

 Download mp3

 

 

Related Stories

NIST to coordinate interagency cyber effort

NIST restructuring bill passes committee

Harris changing the IT tone at Dept. of Education

Two big reasons for adopting IPv6

NIST sets new security configuration guidelines

By Max Cacas

Reporter
Federal News Radio

With the threat of attacks against the nation’s military and civilian cyber-infrastructure looming and increasing daily, lawmakers and officials alike are aware of the need for tough and robust legislation to shore up America’s cybersecurity posture.

West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller (D.) chairs the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. He traveled west of the Capitol about four blocks to share lunch with the Business Software Alliance’s 2010 Cybersecurity Forum at the Newseum. His focus: Senate bill S. 773 – the Rockefeller-Snowe CyberSecurity Act.

“When it comes to cybersecurity,” he told the BSA luncheon, “the familiar ‘regulation versus leave it to the marketplace’ debates all hearings, right? It’s always one or the other, and it’s a very dangerous and false choice. The government cannot do this on its own, and neither can the private sector. We will only succeed if we work together, and continue to.”

Chairman Rockefeller says the overarching theme of S 773 is one of “shared responsibility”, reflected, he says, in the fact that both the public and private sectors need to contribute to the successful outcome of this bill.

Rockefeller told the BSA luncheon that because a federal cybersecurity bureaucracy will never be able to keep up with advances in technology, and because leaving things to the private sector alone will never work, he and his ranking member, Senator Olympia Snowe (R.-Maine) are trying to write a new model of what cybersecurity means.

The bill calls for developing a cybersecurity strategy and identifying the key roles and responsibilities of all the players, private and public, who will respond in a time of crisis. That starts with a Senate-confirmed National Cybersecurity Advisor who will answer directly to the President, coordinate the government’s cybersecurity efforts, and collaborate with the private sector. In particular, our bill provides for unprecedented information-sharing between the private sector and the government regarding threats and vulnerabilities, including access to classified threat information for cleared private sector executives. We also require detailed emergency response planning and rehearsals to clarify the roles, responsibilities and authorities in an emergency.

Rockefeller also addressed concerns by a number of privacy and “good government” groups that his cybersecurity bill constituted a wholesale “taking of the Internet” by the White House and the Executive Branch.

“Nothing could be further from the truth. We have worked closely with you and other stakeholders to refine the language. In case there is any remaining confusion, let me be clear: this bill does not create any new emergency powers for the President or anyone else in government. It simply requires all key players to get together ahead of a crisis and prepare. If we have a cyber-Katrina or a cyber-9/11, we want quick effective action – not bureaucratic confusion.”

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=1946427

 

——

Rockefeller calls for public-private action on cybersecurity

Senator’s bill would mandate a comprehensive national strategy and unprecedented info sharing

  • By Richard W. Walker
  • Apr 30, 2010

Cyberattacks aren’t confined by governmental or national boundaries, and neither should cybersecurity programs, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), said recently in calling on government and industry to work together to meet the rapidly rising tide of attacks on U.S. information systems.

“National borders and traditional notions of security do not always apply to 21st--century threats, especially in the cybersecurity arena,” he said April 29 at the Business Software Alliance’s Cybersecurity Forum 2010 in Washington. “The idea that government alone can protect our citizens’ security within clear national borders is outdated. Therefore, to secure our country from cyberattacks we must have shared responsibility — public sector and private sector.”

Rockefeller’s bill (S. 773), co-sponsored with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), was approved by the Senate  Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee March 24. It builds on the idea that cybersecurity is a shared responsibility between the public and private sectors, Rockefeller said. “That’s what this whole bill is about,” he said. Rockefeller chairs the committee.

The bill would require the president to work with the private sector to develop a comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy. It also calls for a cybersecurity advisory board of outside experts from industry, academic institutions and nonprofit advocacy organizations to advise the president on cybersecurity-related issues. In addition, it would create the office of a Senate-confirmed national security adviser to the president.

Debates about cybersecurity often come down to government versus market solutions, Rockefeller said. “It’s always one or the other,” he said. “That’s a very dangerous and false choice. The government cannot do this on its own. And neither can the private sector … we will only succeed if we do work together.”

Maryland.

http://gcn.com/Articles/2010/04/30/Rockefeller-cybersecurity-bill.aspx?p=1

 

 

Contact Senator Rockefeller

 

DC Office:
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-4802
Phone: 202-224-6472
Fax: 202-224-7665
Web Email
Website

District Office- Fairmont :
118 Adams Street, Suite 301
Fairmont, WV 26554-2841
Phone: 304-367-0122
Fax: 304-367-0822

District Office- Charleston :
405 Capitol Street, Suite 508
Charleston, WV 25301-1749
Phone: 304-347-5372
Fax: 304-347-5371

District Office- Beckley :
207 West Prince Street
Beckley, WV 25801-4514
Phone: 304-253-9704
Fax: 304-253-2578

District Office- Martinsburg :
217 West King Street, Suite 307
Martinsburg, WV 25401-3211
Phone: 304-262-9285
Fax: 304-262-9288

2008 Campaign Contact Information

Official Rockefeller for Senate campaign website

Friends of Jay Rockefeller
Post Office Box 1909
Charleston, WV 25327

web@jay08.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.