Posts tagged D.C.
Whether one agrees or not with supporting / joining the upcoming scheduled open carry march on D.C. on July 4th one thing is almost guarantied. If history proves anything the mainstream media will black this out until they can either edit and spin the story to their owner’s advantage or a provocateur created action gives the MSM the green light, as the spin has already taken place.
Below are article snippets with links to the full resources for the information I have seen to date. Research on your own if you choose as I am sure more information and opinions are available than I have had time to mention here.
By Lori Stacey
In what can only be described as perhaps the ultimate test of the 2nd Amendment in our nation’s capitol, an open carry march with loaded rifles is being planned for Independence day.
The organizer for this event is Adam Kokesh, an outspoken advocate for gun rights and veteran of the Iraq War. He is well-known within the Patriot community for pushing the envelope in order to bring attention to our constitutional rights and defense of them. He hosted a television show on Russia Today called Adam vs. The Man and has continued to bring forth radio segments on the internet using the same show title since leaving RT.
Adam was one of the organizers of a gutsy march on the White House on Presidents’ Day back during the primaries in support of Ron Paul. It was a march that comprised exclusively several hundred veterans and active duty military members whose goal was to proclaim that “Ron Paul was the choice of our troops.” It was carried out peacefully and respectfully but received very little national mainstream press coverage in spite of the uniqueness of such an event.
In perhaps Adam’s most courageous planned event to date, a march is scheduled for the 4th of July. A facebook group has been set-up to organize and plan the event which will be a march with loaded rifles slung behind participant’s backs. The information regarding the march openly discloses to interested participants that it will be a non-permitted event into Washington, DC where open-carry is forbidden to be done according to current gun control laws.
As stated in part within the facebook group’s information:
Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington, & returning with the resolve that the politicians, bureaucrats, & enforcers of the federal government will not be welcome in the land of the free.
This event will be truly a test of whether or not the American people are still “allowed” to “peaceably assemble” freely without the unconstitutional need to get permission from the government, i.e. by permit. That is one aspect of the march that should be noted.
The above video is Adam Kokesh’s first media appearance on the Alex Jones radio and TV show since he announced his armed march on D.C. Adam expanded on his publicly announced plan to lead an armed formation of 2nd Amendment Rights activists from Virginia’s Arlington National Cemetery to the White House and back. He told Alex Jones that this is an armed revolt and an overthrow of the illegitimate government but he agreed with Alex that what he means by that is it is a symbolic overthrow of their violation of the civil rights of American gun owners. This is a powerful interview, read the CNS news article below.
Alex Jones Interviewed Radio host and activist Adam Kokesh plans to lead an armed march from the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia all the way to the White House and back.
According to a Facebook event posted by Kokesh, titled “ Open Carry March on Washington,” he plans to lead a peaceful march July 4th “across the Memorial Bridge, down Independence Avenue, around the Capitol, the Supreme Court, & the White House, then peacefully return to Virginia across the Memorial Bridge.”
As of 7:00am on 5/8/2013 there are 2,663 people who are intending to participate in this event.
But if Adam Kokesh follows through with his July 4 plans — 2,500 people have signed up for the cause — he and his makeshift band will be met on the Arlington Memorial Bridge by two police forces packing guns of their own.
Kokesh, 31, and D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier say they want to work together to ensure a peaceful airing of grievances. But the chief says only one side can have guns: hers. And she’ll have backup from the U.S. Park Police, which will also position officers at the District line.
“If you’re coming here to protest government policy, great,” Lanier said Tuesday on her monthly appearance on NewsChannel 8, reacting to the group’s plan to cross the Potomac River from Arlington National Cemetery. “If you’re coming here to break the law, we’ll take action.”
Lanier added, “There’s a pretty good chance we’ll meet them on the D.C. side of the bridge.”
Kokesh is calling the event an “ Open Carry March ” but described it as a general demonstration against “tyranny,” not a protest against specific gun laws.
News of the march comes amid a national debate over gun regulations that emerged after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Kokesh has chosen to stage his protest in one of the most strictly regulated cities when it comes to firearms laws — and one of the most contested.
By John Raines
There’s been a lot of confusion about Adam Kokesh’s armed protest march into Washington and multiple people have stated the group will simple turn around if they are met with resistance. I’d like to clear up some of the incorrect assumptions regarding political geography in the Washington D.C./Maryland/Virginia area.
First some history. During the colonial period, both Virginia and Maryland claimed ownership of the Potomac River. In 1776 Virginia ceded control and legal ownership of the portion of the river where the two states share a border in the Virginia Constitution.
Some time later in the 1790s Virginia and Maryland ceded land to the Federal government for the creation of Washington D.C. The portion of the Potomac that ran through the District was no longer part of Maryland but became part of D.C. In 1847, the Virginia portion was “retroceded” back to Virginia. However, the Maryland portion originally ceded to the Feds provided the legal ownership over the Potomac and remained in the possession of Washington D.C. This arrangement continues to this day.
What does this all mean? Conventional wisdom would assume that the border between two states is at the middle point of the river. However, with the Potomac this is not true. Since Washington D.C. has ownership of the Potomac River to the lowest point on the Virginia side, (through Maryland’s prior ownership) Adam and his formation will have a very short march before they find themselves in violation of D.C. law. So short in fact, they may mistakenly believe they are still in Virginia before even reaching the Memorial bridge as Columbia Island between the two locations is part of D.C. (Lady Bird Johnson Memorial park).
Common sense commentary about the war on the American people. ”We’re just asking politicians to live up to their oath.”
Amber Lyon: I saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting.
I saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting.
- Amber Lyon
The Amber Lyon story is just the latest in a series of articles that expose the total Joseph Goebbels like censorship rampant in mainstream media today. The first one I posted several weeks ago exposed how the NY Times basically just regurgitates whatever government officials tell them, while the other showcased how an NPR reporter covering D.C. had to leave and do her own thing out of frustration. This is precisely why alternative media sites are taking off. They provide the only outlets left for genuine journalism.
So back to Amber. Back in March 2011, CNN sent a four person team to Bahrain to cover the Arab Spring. Once there, the crew was the subject of extreme intimidation amongst other things, but they were able to record some fantastic footage. As Glenn Greenwald of the UK’s Guardian writes in his blockbuster article from today:
In the segment, Lyon interviewed activists as they explicitly described their torture at the hands of government forces, while family members recounted their relatives’ abrupt disappearances. She spoke with government officials justifying the imprisonment of activists. And the segment featured harrowing video footage of regime forces shooting unarmed demonstrators, along with the mass arrests of peaceful protesters. In sum, the early 2011 CNN segment on Bahrain presented one of the starkest reports to date of the brutal repression embraced by the US-backed regime.
Despite these accolades, and despite the dangers their own journalists and their sources endured to produce it, CNN International (CNNi) never broadcast the documentary. Even in the face of numerous inquiries and complaints from their own employees inside CNN, it continued to refuse to broadcast the program or even provide any explanation for the decision. To date, this documentary has never aired on CNNi.
Having just returned from Bahrain, Lyon says she “saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting.”
After Lyon’s crew returned from Bahrain, CNN had no correspondents regularly reporting on the escalating violence. In emails to her producers and executives, Lyon repeatedly asked to return to Bahrain. Her requests were denied, and she was never sent back. She thus resorted to improvising coverage by interviewing activists via Skype in an attempt, she said, “to keep Bahrain in the news”.
In March 2012, Lyon was laid off from CNN as part of an unrelated move by the network to outsource its investigative documentaries.
“At this point,” Lyon said, “I look at those payments as dirty money to stay silent. I got into journalism to expose, not help conceal, wrongdoing, and I’m not willing to keep quiet about this any longer, even if it means I’ll lose those payments.”
Amber Lyon, I salute you.
Please forward this post to everyone you know. I for one want to live in a country with some real and free press. Not some CIA propaganda arm that pretends to be a reliable source of news.
Read Greenwald’s excellent article here.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Always sad to see true investigative reports put down over doing a fine job and replaced with script readers approved by D.C. By the way, although the article may read “Former Reporter”, I think not. Maybe the title should read “Former CNN Reporter Gets Promoted In The Eyes Of We The People For Showing True Integrity”.
By J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) Millions of Americans have long suspected that the so-called “mainstream media” is big-time controlled, whether selectively or institutionally. A recent New York Times story not only substantiates that belief, it proves just how controlled the messages are that are coming from those who mean to rule over us. What’s more, the story demonstrates that most major media sources are complicit in the packaging of information the public is “allowed” to hear.
The revelations may not necessarily be groundbreaking news to many Americans who already suspected they weren’t getting unfiltered and unbiased reporting, though the extent of control over the information reaching the public from the major campaigns may surprise many.
But the revelations should certainly be disturbing to voters who are trying to make choices based on altered or incomplete information.
Of course, that’s the point. Full disclosure would mean giving a rival something to campaign for (or against), so it’s understandable for a candidate to want to carefully control his or her message.
Where it becomes shameful is when the media willingly goes along.
If you take a minute to read the definition and look towards Washington D.C. it should be very clear that this well defines the times that we find ourselves living in along with the governmental system in place and in control. This is not a system that just happened overnight, but causally tweaked and advanced over a generation to the fast placed reforms and power shifts we now find ourselves in.
Anyway, read the definition and feel free to agree or not, or add a new perspective in the comment section below.
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Thanks to (@sibzianna)
Media Blackout on Troops who Rallied for Ron Paul in Washington DC on President’s Day
I have never been as proud to be an American as I am now and that wouldn’t have been possible if it weren’t for our troops and their passion for Ron Paul.
Our troops were warned:
This was posted on the RON PAUL IS THE CHOICE OF THE TROOPS Facebook event page by Kevin Audrain, who claims to be active duty Navy and was leaked to me by multiple unconfirmed sources.
From: Weger, Joel A CIV OGC, Ethics [mailto:joel.weger@NAVY.MIL]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:17
Subject: [ETHICS] Partisan Political March
It has come to our attention that a partisan political march targeting
military personnel is being organized for February 20, 2012. See link
As a reminder, active duty personnel are prohibited by DoD Directive 1344.10
paragraph 18.104.22.168 from marching in a partisan political parade regardless
of whether they are in uniform or civilian clothes. Reservists not on
active duty and retirees may not march in uniform pursuant to paragraph
4.1.4. Reservists not on active duty and retirees may march in civilian
clothes provided that they do not otherwise act in a manner that could
reasonably give rise to the inference or appearance of official sponsorship,
approval, or endorsement.
The directive is a lawful general regulation. Violations of paragraphs 4.1.
through 4.5. of the Directive by persons subject to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice are punishable under Article 92, “Failure to Obey Order or
In addition, DODI 1334.01, paragraph 3.1.2 prohibits the wearing of the
uniform by members of the armed forces (including retired members and
members of reserve components) during or in connection with political
You may wish to advise your command regarding this particular event because
of the apparent solicitation of active duty personnel.
Joel A. Weger
Department of the Navy
Office of the Assistant General Counsel (Ethics)
More than 18,000 people were invited to attend to attend the “RON PAUL IS THE CHOICE OF THE TROOPS! (march on the White House)”. Two-thousand-one-hundred and fifty-one people committed to going to the march while 964 people clicked maybe.
I didn’t think the mainstream media could disappoint me anymore than they already have. When the special news report came in on the television they said nothing about what was going on in Washington DC with our troops and instead talked about war propaganda in Iran.
The troops stood up for our freedoms for the first time that I know of, inside our own borders and it wasn’t even considered newsworthy?
I don’t understand what is wrong with our media!
I was fortunate enough to watch this unfold live on the internet thanks to feeds available from livestream and Ustream.tv but not one word has been uttered on the television.
Here was my take on the thing.
On February 20, 2012, on Presidents Day, our troops gathered for a rally in Washington DC to march in support for their candidate of choice, Ron Paul.
I was moved to tears as our troops marched in formation on our nation’s capitol shouting “President Paul”, “end the FED”, “end these wars”, and “Ron Paul revolution legalize the Constitution”.
For the first time since 9/11 I felt American Pride! It is the most patriotic event I’ve ever saw in my life.
Our troops stood silent and saluted for eight straight minutes to honor those who committed suicide since the Obama Administration took office. It was eerie to think about because for every second that passed a veterans life was lost due to suicide was honored.
Our troops challenged the legal advice given to them and I am thankful they did.
“We the people” must stand against this tyrannical government and the corrupt monetary system that has wreaked havoc all over the world. We can no longer say nothing or what freedom we do have will be forever gone.
Jack Abramoff: The lobbyist’s playbook Or
How To Buy Your Own Congressperson
CBS 60 Minutes
November 07, 2011 — Jack Abramoff, the notorious former lobbyist at the center of Washington’s biggest corruption scandal in decades, spent more than three years in prison for his crimes. Now a free man, he reveals how he was able to influence politicians and their staffers through generous gifts and job offers. He tells Lesley Stahl the reforms instituted in the wake of his scandal have had little effect.
Jack Abramoff may be the most notorious and crooked lobbyist of our time. He was at the center of a massive scandal of brazen corruption and influence peddling.
As a Republican lobbyist starting in the mid 1990s, he became a master at showering gifts on lawmakers in return for their votes on legislation and tax breaks favorable to his clients. He was so good at it, he took home $20 million a year.
Jack Abramoff: Inside Capitol corruption
How corrupt is lobbying in Washington, DC? Enough to get “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl angry when she hears how Jack Abramoff bribed and influenced legislators.
It all came crashing down five years ago, when Jack Abramoff pled guilty to corrupting public officials, tax evasion and fraud, and served three and a half years in prison.
Today he’s a symbol of how money corrupts Washington. In our interview tonight, he opens up his playbook for the first time.
And explains exactly how he used his clients’ money to buy powerful friends and influence legislation.
Jack Abramoff: I was so far into it that I couldn’t figure out where right and wrong was. I believed that I was among the top moral people in the business. I was totally blinded by what was going on.
Jack Abramoff was a whiz at influencing legislation and one way he did that was to get his clients, like some Indian tribes, to make substantial campaign contributions to select members of Congress.
Abramoff: As I look back it was effective. It certainly helped the people I was trying to help, both the clients and the Republicans at that time.
Lesley Stahl: But even that, you’re now saying, was corrupt?
Stahl: Can you quantify how much it costs to corrupt a congressman?
Abramoff: I was actually thinking of writing a book – “The Idiot’s Guide to Buying a Congressman” – as a way to put this all down. First, I think most congressmen don’t feel they’re being bought. Most congressmen, I think, can in their own mind justify the system.
Abramoff: –rationalize it and by the way we wanted as lobbyists for them to feel that way.
Abramoff would provide freebies and gifts – looking for favors for his clients in return. He’d lavish certain congressmen and senators with access to private jets and junkets to the world’s great golf destinations like St. Andrews in Scotland. Free meals at his own upscale Washington restaurant and access to the best tickets to all the area’s sporting events; including two skyboxes at Washington Redskins games.
Abramoff: I spent over a million dollars a year on tickets to sporting events and concerts and what not at all the venues.
Stahl: A million dollars?
Abramoff: Ya. Ya.
Stahl: For the best seats?
Abramoff: The best seats. I had two people on my staff whose virtual full-time job was booking tickets. We were Ticketmaster for these guys.
Stahl: And the congressman or senator could take his favorite people from his district to the game–
Abramoff: The congressman or senator uh, could take two dozen of his favorite people from their district.
Stahl: Was all that legal?
Ira Rosen is the producer.
Abramoff: We would certainly try to make the activity legal, if we could. At times we didn’t care.
But the “best way” to get a congressional office to do his bidding – he says – was to offer a staffer a job that could triple his salary.
Abramoff: When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, “You know, when you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.” Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to ‘em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they’re gonna do. And not only that, they’re gonna think of things we can’t think of to do.
Neil Volz: Jack Abramoff could sweet talk a dog off a meat truck, that’s how persuasive he was.
Neil Volz was one of the staffers Abramoff was talking about. He was chief of staff to Congressman Bob Ney, who as chairman of the House Administration Committee had considerable power to dispense favors. Abramoff targeted Volz and offered him a job.
Stahl: You’re the chief of staff of a powerful congressman. And Jack owns you and you haven’t even left working for the congressman.
Volz: I have the distinct memory of, you know, negotiating with Jack at a hockey game. So we’re, you know, just a few rows back. The crowd’s goin’ crazy. And Jack and I are havin’ a business conversation. And, you know, I’m– I’m wrestlin’ with how much I think I should get paid. And then five minutes later we’re– he’s askin’ me questions about some clients of his.
Stahl: When you look back was that the corrupting moment?
Volz: I think we were guilty of engaging in a corrupt relationship. So there were several corrupting moments. There isn’t just one moment. There were many.
Abramoff: At the end of the day most of the people that I encountered who worked on Capitol Hill wanted to come work on K Street, wanted to be lobbyists.
Stahl: You’re telling me this, the genius of figuring out you could own the office by offering a job to the chief of staff, say. I’m having two reactions. One is brilliant. And the other is I’m sick to my stomach.
Abramoff: Right. Evil. Yeah. Terrible.
Stahl: ‘Cause it’s hurting our country.
Abramoff: Shameful. Absolutely. It’s the worst thing that could happen. All parts of the system.
Stahl: I’m mad at you.
Abramoff: I was mad at me–
Stahl: I’m not kidding. I’m not kidding.
Abramoff: Look I did things and I was involved in the system I should not have been in. I’m ashamed of the fact I was there, the very reason why now I’m speaking about it. And now I’m trying to do something, in recompense, is the fact that I thought it was– it was wrong of me to do it.
One of the offices he keyed on was that of his good friend, the Majority Leader Tom Delay, eventually hiring his deputy chief of staff and his press secretary, and going into business with Delay’s chief of staff.
Stahl: Did you own his staff?
Abramoff: I was as close to his staff as to any staff. I had a very strong personal relationship with a lot of his staff.
Stahl: How many congressional offices did you actually own?
Abramoff: We probably had very strong influence in 100 offices at the time.
Stahl: Come on.
Stahl: A hundred offices?
Abramoff: In those days, I would view that as a failure. Because that leaves 335 offices that we didn’t have strong influence in.
Stahl: Did he own you?
Bob Ney: Oh, I don’t believe Jack Abramoff owned me. But were we involved in the culture of corruption together? Absolutely.
Former Republican Congressman Bob Ney was ambitious and looked at Abramoff as a way to build alliances with the White House and the majority leader.
Ney: I wanted to be speaker of the House and Jack Abramoff was the beautiful light of day for me to get to the person who I had had some conflicts with, Tom Delay.