Film de la semaine: L’affaire Clearstream

11 05 2008


Affaire clearstream 1
Uploaded by revolution2


Affaire clearstream 2
Uploaded by revolution2


Affaire clearstream 3
Uploaded by revolution2


Affaire clearstream 4
Uploaded by revolution2



Le Canada a préparé l’invasion de l’Afghanistan AVANT le 11 septembre selon un livre censuré par l’armée canadienne

2 05 2008

Text repris du Réseau Voltaire:


Dans un livre qui devait paraître lundi au Québec, un ancien membre de la « Joint Task Force 2 », une unité d’élite des services secrets militaires canadiens, Denis Morisset, relate huit années d’opérations secrètes. L’ouvrage, intitulé Nous étions invincibles, détaille des actions au Rwanda, en Bosnie et Afghanistan, mais aussi —et c’est une découverte— au Pérou et en Colombie.

Parmi les révélations du livre, l’affirmation que le Canada est intervenu pour préparer l’attaque anglo-saxonne de l’Afghanistan avant que ne surviennent les attentats du 11 septembre 2001.

Cependant, il ne paraîtra pas. L’auteur a été arrêté hier pour avoir sollicité sexuellement des mineures via internet et a été incarcéré. Quand à l’éditeur, JCL, il a reçu une lettre du ministère canadien de la Défense l’informant que cette publication était de nature à mettre en péril la sécurité nationale. Cédant aux pressions, il a immédiatement retiré le livre de son catalogue.

 

Pour plus d’info, voir:

CTV News 

The Globe & Mail 



Film de la semaine: Saddam Husein, le procès que vous ne verrez pas

8 03 2008



Film de la semaine: Iraq for sale

1 03 2008

Banned excerpts:



Quand le Parlement britanique passe à deux doigts d’être aboli

25 02 2008

Blair Parlement britanique

Premièrement, qu’est-ce qu’un parlement? Un parlement est un regroupement d’élu(e)s qui contrôlent le pouvoir législatif d’un pays, d’une nation, d’une province ou d’une fédération. Toutes les lois doivent obligatoirement passer un vote auquel participent tous les élu(e)s. Antérieurement au vote, il doit aussi y avoir une discussion ou un débat portant sur le bienfondé de la loi en question et tout(e) élu(e) peut proposer de modifier la loi afin de palier à d’éventuelles lacunes.

En 2006, le gouvernement «Travailliste» de Tony Blair au Royaume Uni présenta le Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act à la chambre des communes. Cette loi fut entièrement rédigée par un groupe de travail indépendant du gouvernement dirigé par le patron de la presse et directeur de la banque Barclays David Arculus. Le gouvernement présenta le projet de loi au Parlement exactement tel que rédigé par le groupe de travail de David Arculus, sans modifications aucunes. Le projet de loi fut présenté aux parlementaires comme visant à réduire les contraintes bureaucratiques pour les entreprises et passa sans problème la première lecture.

En fait, le projet de loi n’avait rien à voir avec la réduction de contraintes bureaucratiques pour les entreprises. Le projet de loi, donnait le pouvoir à un ministre quelconque de passer toutes les lois qu’il ou elle voudrait sans passer par le parlement. Ce projet de loi aurait aussi donné aux ministres le pouvoir de modifier ou d’abolir toute loi existante, incluant les plus fondamentales comme le doit à un procès juste et équitable.

Le parlement britannique serait ainsi devenu désuet car l’executif aurait pu passer toutes les loi qu’il désire sans passer par le parlement et les autres parlementaires ne peuvent de toute façon pas passer de lois sans la sanction de l’executif car l’exécutif contrôle le parti qui a le plus de sièges au parlements.

Finalement le projet de loi a commencé à être modifié lors de sa troisième lecture et lorsqu’il fut finalement adopté par le parlement, tous les pouvoir législatif n’ont pas été transférés aux ministres.

Il est intéressant de noter que ceci s’est passé sous un gouvernement travailliste. Originellement le parti travailliste anglais representait vraiment les travailleur(se)s car il était majoritairement financé par les syndicats. Sous le gouvernement de Margaret Thatcher, une loi fut passée afin d’intérdire aux syndicats de contribuer aux caisses électorales. Un parti représente les gens gens qui financent le parti. Maintenent que les travaillistes sont financés par des gens plutôt aisés et des entreprises, c’est ces gens que représente vraiment le parti.

Voici quelques liens pour en savoir plus sur le sujet:

http://www.saveparliament.org.uk

corporate watch

Financial Times



Ce que pourrait acheter l’argent gaspillée en guerroyant en Iraq

9 02 2008



Les options de ventes (puts) du 11 sept. 2001

25 01 2008

Repris de MTL911Truth:


Benoit Perron
envoyé par ebolBenoit Perron est un animateur radio sur les ondes de CISM 89,3 FM (radio université Montréal) tous les mardis 9:00 am - 10:30am , ainsi que sur les ondes de la radio Libre de Montréal CIBL 101,5 fm, tous les mardis, de 1:00pm - 2:00pm . Il est aussi président d’Energie Solaire Québec (www.esq.qc.ca) ainsi que chargé de cours en sciences de l’environnement à l’Université du Québec à Montréal et conférencier.
www.myspace.com/benoitperron



Film de la semaine: Sibel Edmonds: Kill the Messanger

18 01 2008

Désolé mais la version française semble avoir été censurée par google: Sibel Edmonds - Une femme à abattre

Mais il y a toute même cette bande annonce sous-titrée:



With Rudy Giuliani, corruption runs deap …

16 12 2007

Town Hall Meeting June 27 2001.
Larry Hanley,President of ATU Local 726,tries to ask then Mayor Rudy Giuliani about an inside deal to grant bus routes to connected private bus companies that contibuted to his campaigns.

Pat Lynch, President of NYC Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, NY-1, May 3, 2007: “Rudy Giuliani doesn’t deserve to be president”

How Giuliani Made $30 Million Without Even Trying
By Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report 14/12/07
Dec 15, 2007 - 11:22:12 AM Email this article
Printer friendly page
Giuliani and Asher met in 2002 when Asher demonstrated his Matrix database software [ndlr: Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX) datamining system is a spying system proclaimed to help state law enforcement officials identify potential terrorists. The Matrix program was shut down in June 2005 after federal funding was cut in the wake of public concerns over privacy and state surveillance] for the former mayor, who was reportedly impressed enough to strike a business deal: Giuliani Partners would represent Asher’s company, Seisint, as part of a very lucrative arrangement. GP got $2 million per year, a commission on Seisint’s government sales, plus stock options that were worth a bundle after LexisNexis [ndlr: part of Reed Elsevier] bought Seisint in 2004.

Giuliani’s association with Asher became somewhat controversial lately, after Asher’s name popped up in a California public corruption indictment. But the business partnership looks even more interesting today, in light of this report in Time.

GP pulled in more than $30 million for just one year’s work on Seisint’s behalf, company records show…. But the Seisint deal wasn’t as perfect as it seemed. One problem: the payment of percentages or commissions to “solicit or secure” government contracts is prohibited by federal law and laws of some states. Tom Susman, ethics chairman of the American League of Lobbyists, says the bar on commissions is intended to eliminate incentives for middlemen to bend the rules to land a contract. A GP official who refused to be named insists that the firm never received “commissions” from Seisint — despite what Brauser and Latham remember and despite the fact that payments to GP are labeled “commissions” in both the minutes of a Seisint board meeting and a key financial statement.

Instead, says the official, GP earned “special bonuses” based on the achievement of corporate “milestones.”

Please. Giuliani’s firm lobbied to help Seisint secure lucrative government contracts. Seisint, in turn, paid the firm “commissions.” But now Giuliani’s team want to redefine the word, in order to make it legal — they weren’t “commissions,” they were “special bonuses.” Even by Giuliani standards, this kind of lying is just insulting.

Wait, it gets worse.

Seisint was using Giuliani’s name to open doors and secure contracts, but Giuliani insists he was never a lobbyist, and never registered as a lobbyist.

But this doesn’t add up. Giuliani’s firm pulled in $30 million thanks to Seisint. How, exactly, does Giuliani justify all of this money? If it wasn’t money earned by commission, and it wasn’t generated by lobbyist fees, what was Seisint paying $30 million for?

Rudy never registered as a lobbyist because even though he and his clients were using his name to advance their interests with the federal and state governments, he claimed he never actually lobbied. And now the commissions he got for securing government contracts through his savvy “not lobbying” aren’t really commissions but “special bonuses.”

Nice work if you can get it. Unless it all turns out to be illegal.

Which, in this case, given all the lobbying Giuliani did, it might very well be.

This is exactly why Giuliani has tried to keep his business work secret and free of public scrutiny. His client list, that we know of, includes the makers  [i.e. Purdue Pharma] of OxyContin (Giuliani personally met with the DEA chief when the agency launched a criminal investigation of the company), an official in Qatar with known ties to Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, and a cocaine smuggler with a database company that apparently paid Giuliani $30 million for work he claims not to have done.

How Giuliani even has the chutzpah to run for public office (worse yet, the presidency) with this record is amazing. And how any thinking person could even consider voting for him is a mystery.

Source:Ocnus.net 2007



Film de la semaine: ZEITGEIST

10 11 2007

english con subtítulos en español

Et voici une adaptation française de la première partie faite par James:


Notes:

It is not the «central banking system» which is a problem as such but the fractional reserve banking system. The USA is a notable exception but most countries’ central bank (including the UK now) is owned by the governement and redistributes its profites to the governement.

Warburg = Warburg Pincus + M.M. Warburg&Co + UBS

Rockefeller = Exxon (ex-Standard Oil) + JP Morgan Chase

John Pierpont Morgan = JP Morgan Chase + Morgan Stanley + Deutsche Bank +USX (ex US-Steel)

I.G. Farben = Agfa+BASF+Bayer+Aventis

Washington Post= 18% Berkshire Hathaway, 7% JP Morgan, Barclay’s 2% etc.

New York Times Co. = 22% T. Rowe Price, 7% Morgan Stanley, 10% Fidelity Inv., 5% Barclay’s, etc.

Time magazine = Time Warner

The complete interview with Aaron Russo can be found here: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5420753830426590918

Clarifications from the makers of the film:

15:25-15:27
The December 25th birthday denoted to Jesus Christ, as stated by the narration, is not written in the Bible, although it is practiced traditionally. However, this date, known in the Pagan world for the birth of the ‘Sun God’ at the Winter Solstice, is in fact implied by the astronomical symbolism during the birth sequence.
More on this point is addressed in the Interactive Transcript.

53:56-53:59
The text reads:
[”Collapse Characteristics of World T. Center 1, 2 & 7 fit the Controlled Demolition Model Exactly”]
-WTC 7 fits the C.D. model exactly, however Towers 1 and 2 were, in fact, EXPLOSIONS rather than implosions. The means of the demolition of Towers 1 and 2 would be considered “unconventional”. The free fall speed; collapse “into its own footprint” and other such goals of controlled demolition, are however confluent.

1:04:09 -1:04:16
The video here is of the Madrid Bombings of 2004, not the London Bombings of 2005.
It is used as a creative expression and example.

1:09:22- 1:11:05
These extracts from the JFK speech entitled “The President and the Press” from April 27, 1961,
are used as a dramatized introduction to Part 3, and are not exactly in context with the original intent
of JFK’s speech. Though President Kennedy does indeed address the peril of secrecy, denouncing

“secret societies”, “secret oaths” and “secret proceedings” in his statements, the latter section is
related to his views on Communism and not these societies.

1:17:14-1:17:20:
The narration states regarding W.Wilson and the Federal Reserve Act:
“Years Later Woodrow Wilson wrote in regret…”
- The notion of “years later” is incorrect. The quote is taken from his book
“The New Freedom” and it was written the same year he signed the Federal Reserve Act.

1:23:35 -1:23:38
There are 2 errors stated in the narration, one computational, the other technical.
1) It should say: (correction in italics) “Roughly 25% of the average worker’s income is taken via this tax”
[According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average US salary is about $36,000
which translates to a 25% Federal Income Tax. * 35% is the high tax bracket ]

2) This 25% is not a flat tax against the entire income of that single person for the year.
Rather, the tax is “graduated”. In other words, it is a generalization to say “25% is taxed”, where as there are 2 tax rate brackets under this one, and income is taxed based on each bracket combined, in a graduated manner. Consequently, the statement “you work 3 months out of the year…” is not accurate as it would be less than that in light of the “graduated” nature.

1:27.35-1:27:40:
There is a statement error in the narration. It should say: (correction in italics)
-”J.D. Rockefeller made 200 million dollars off of it [WWI]. That’s about 1.9 Billion by today’s standards”
[It was stated as “1.9 Trillion”, which was misspoken and intended to have been read “Billion”, not “Trillion”.
Note: Based on the Consumer Price Index (not the GDP used initially), this conversion can also be figured
at about 3 Billion dollars]