Picked up the phone to hear: “Khaleh-jan, everything is about to change.  I can’t talk about it, but get ready for change.”

This coming at the same time as information about on-going monitoring of facebook/ twitter etc by the Iranian government.  (see link to WSJ article on the topic here: ).  These articles, rumors versus stories about civilians being detained for writing and organizing on the internet make me feel depressed, hopeless, like the wind is knocked out of me, very very afraid.  But then, I get a phone call like that from Iran, and I think of my aunt, a five foot, 65 year old woman with 1/2 a lung removed, who is in the streets, standing up for what is right.

Then, my spine straightens again, and I remind myself to keep steady, but to write a letter to my children.  Explaining why I decided to speak out against oppression, why I decided the risks were worth the benefits, and explaining, my dear babies, why I believe the world is good.  If we stand up for good.  Even when it is really really scary to do so.

December 04, 2009
Federal Appeals Court Rules Against D.C. in Gun Suit
A federal appeals court today revived a suit filed by the owner of a Virginia security company who was targeted, but not arrested, for prosecution in the District of Columbia on an unregistered firearms charge.

The suit, filed last year in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges the police acted in bad faith in securing a warrant for the arrest of Robert Ord, the owner of Falken Industries. Ord is licensed to carry a firearm in Virginia. Since 2006, he has provided security service in the District.

Last year, District lawyers abandoned the case against Ord. But he still sued, on the grounds that the threat of prosecution has cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in contracts. Ord said he is unwilling to work in the city out of fear he will be arrested and prosecuted on a gun charge. His suit, which seeks damages, was thrown out last year. Judge John Bates said Ord’s fears of prosecution were “mere conjecture.”

But on Dec. 4 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in Ord’s favor, finding that the suit met certain thresholds. The court ordered additional hearings. “Obviously we are pleased the matter was reversed,” said Ord’s lawyer, Matthew LeFande, a solo practitioner in Arlington, Va. “Ultimately, we got the decision we wanted.” The court heard oral argument in September.

“Ord’s injury stems from his inability to travel to D.C. and carry on his security business here while armed without fear of prosecution,” wrote Judge David Tatel, who was joined by Judge Judith Rogers. Judge Janice Rogers Brown agreed in part. “That injury is imminent because the District of Columbia has made clear its specific intention to prosecute him.”

District lawyers, including D.C. Solicitor General Todd Kim, said Ord’s claims are meritless since he was never arrested. There was neither a search nor seizure in the case, District lawyers said. The appeals court disagreed.

“True, Ord may not have been seized in the traditional sense, but the arrest warrant effectively exiled him from the District of Columbia, thus restricting his ability to travel and causing substantial injury,” Tatel wrote. (Click here for the opinion.)

The Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gura of Alexandria, Va.’s Gura & Possessky, supported Ord as an amicus. Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, was also on an amicus brief supporting Ord.

(culled from http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/12/federal-appeals-court-rules-against-dc-in-gun-suit.html )

The word love is used so much in our society that I often wonders if people really understand the word or the actions that should follow the meaning; not that I am an expert or an authority on the subject.

Our modern dictionaries define love as:

1.  A profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

2.  A feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

3.   Sexual passion or desire.

4.  Affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one’s neighbor.

Hopefully you had the opportunity to look carefully at those definitions, they are not exhaustive definitions but enough to help you see the point that will be made in this post.

The word love is a noun; a careful look at how this word is defined in scripture is evident that actions are involved. Simple repeating or saying the words prove nothing, it is the action behind the words that speak volumes to the hearer of the words “I Love you”.

How unfortunate, the same word that we use (love) to define an emotion as to how we feel about a person, we use to define how we feel about a pair of shoes, a favorite food, a place or a thing and we doe the true definition and application of this word a grave injustice.

If we are to look for examples,   Hollywood is not the place to look; unfortunately the church sometimes falls short of being an example of this definition also. If we are to look to what scripture says about love, the definitions will seem foreign to most readers and most will often object to the actions defined as love.  Hence I state again; as you see what scripture says (and we shall cover this shortly) about this word love, you will agree that it is indeed an action word. Now, let us take a look at a few examples about what love is not and what it will not do.

Love is not:

• Conditional
• Something you make (you express it)
• Love is not, flowers. (but its close)
• Love is not, “I love you”.  (that could be even closer)

Love will not:

• Abandon you.
• Hurt you.
• Embarrass you.
• Tease you.
• Torment you.
• Cause you to wonder if they care. (Shall I go on?)

So, when family or church members (whom haven’t seen you in months) see you once again and they say, “I really miss you” or “We Love you here at 9^th street community church” do their words verify their actions?  Have they shown their love by their actions?  What about in the church, during the giving service, does the preacher inject that slight element of fear to cause you to comply with their request? Using fear, intimidation or manipulation (in the slightest amount) is wrong!  When the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water, they feared, Jesus recognized their fear and said “Fear Not, It is I”.

“There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love”. 1 John 4:18

“No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us”.  1 John 4:12

“Love never does anything that is harmful to its neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law. ” Romans 13:10

““In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12

-Visit us again for parts II & III as we discuss what love is.-

Idiot savant, Malik Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panthers Party for Self-Defense, says AG Eric Holder was right to drop voter intimidation charges against his racist, black nationalist, group of thugs. In the same line of defense Obama often uses, Shabazz blamed the charges on the Republicans. He believes the Republicans are on a “political witch hunt” for questioning why AG Holder dropped the charges.

Shabazz flat-out lied when he claimed his group racists thugs do not condone voter intimidation. Watch this video and decide for yourself…

See those New Black Panthers standing outside a Philadelphia polling place with a nightstick during last year’s presidential election? According to Shabazz, this is a Republican “political witch hunt.” In his eyes, this is not voter intimidation. Not only did one of the thugs have a nightstick, they hurled racial slurs at white voters.

So, with sworn affidavits and documented video, the Bush administration’s DOJ filed voter intimidation charges, only to have Obama’s DOJ dismiss them. Why were the charges dropped when the Obama DOJ, headed by Eric Holder, had all the evidence to prosecute? Questions need to be asked when a crime is committed and someone’s rights were violated.

In advertising you have probably heard the phrase; “Sex Sells”.  Is it true? Think about it for a moment. You go to a car show, you see a beautiful red sports car and on the hood a scantily dressed woman that leaves little to the imagination when your see her next to the car. Scenery like that really makes the onlookers think; men might think, wow, I can really attract some girls with this car or my wife would sure look sexy in this car. We experience this everyday. There are many other examples that I can list about how sex is used in our society as a tool.

The illusion that you will either see something exciting (eye candy), or be with someone sexually, or experience the remote possibility of an encounter are powerful illusions that will attract ones attention and perhaps cause you to act on the illusion or fantasy that’s in your head.  Likewise with fear, it’s a powerful tool, if used properly; people will act with a sense of urgency to do what the user is trying to accomplish.

Take a look at some examples:

“Who will take care of your loved ones if you should die? Mega Life insurance is here to help your family in times of crisis. Its comforting in knowing the debt you will leave behind will be taken care of”.

___________

“Don’t take chances with your families health, the flu is at epidemic proportions, see your Neighborhood clinic today for your flue shot, your children’s life may depend on it!”

___________

Church members will recognize these also:

“If you really love God, stand to your feet and get some money in your hands, I would not stay seated, God is in the building and He is blessing! You don’t want to be left out do you? You need to get in this line now!”

___________

“You need to be here in the church, every time the doors of the sanctuary are open! The Bible says to not forsake the assembling of your self together! I would obey God and be here this Thursday night for the guest evangelist!”

___________

Come back for part 2 of Fear Sells.

(CFD.net.au – Contract for Difference, Share, Forex, ETFs, Commodities Traders) –

Oct. 21 (Bloomberg) — Afghan and

United Nations

officials expressed confidence in steps they are taking to ensure the presidential runoff set for Nov. 7 isn’t marred by the widespread fraud that plagued the election two months ago.

“We have learned very valuable and painful nful lessons from the first round,” UN Secretary-General

Ban Ki-moon

told reporters yesterday in New York. “We will try to ensure that all Afghan people should be able to express their own will freely and without any intimidation or threat.”

Ballots were being packed yesterday for shipment to voting sites across the country,

Aleem Siddique

, spokesman for the UN mission in Afghanistan, said in a telephone interview. More than 200 of the 380 district election coordinators for the first round have been fired for complicity in the fraud, and polling stations where irregularities occurred won’t re-open, he said.

President

Hamid Karzai

said yesterday that Afghans will have to head to the polls again after a UN-backed probe found that more than 1 million Ballots, or a quarter of the votes cast in the Aug. 20 election, were suspect. Karzai fell short of the more than 50 percent of valid votes needed to avoid a runoff with former Foreign Minister

Abdullah Abdullah

.

Abdullah called for “a better environment and more transparency in the elections” in a phone interview with Bloomberg Television today, saying there may be a change as a result of the runoff.

coalition government?

“If that agenda was possible to reach through other means, I would have been open to it,” Abdullah said, referring to suggestions that Karzai and Abdullah form a coalition instead of participating in another election. Abdullah said his agenda of change urges a “more decentralized system to get the people of Afghanistan in the political process.”

“But we are left with a few days of campaigning before the election. I’d rather focus on this rather than thinking of other scenarios,” he said in response to a question about forming a coalition.

“Now it is again the turn of the people of Afghanistan to choose one of the two candidates,” Karzai said at a news conference yesterday in Kabul. Abdullah told reporters he had telephoned Karzai to thank him for agreeing to a second vote for which he will be ready, Associated Press reported.

In his interview with Bloomberg Television today, Abdullah pointed out that he is concerned that the same institutions will be dealing with the election and that the short time span and the approach of winter would pose challenges.

Message on Fraud

“There was a strong message to the Afghan people and to the international community that fraud did not decide the outcome of the election,” Abdullah said in welcoming the call for a runoff.

Peter Galbraith

, the former deputy head of the UN mission in Afghanistan who was fired in September over his disagreement with decisions on how to handle allegations of fraud, said the steps outlined by Siddique don’t go far enough to ensure a credible result.

“You need to fire every member of the election Commission staff in places where there was fraud,” he said in an interview. “The UN also needs to stop pretending that anything about the Independent Election Commission is independent except the title. Its members were appointed by Karzai and at every juncture have taken partisan, pro-Karzai decisions.”

The election Commission will count the Ballots with assistance from the UN. The five-member Election Complaints Commission, appointed by the UN, Afghan Supreme Court and the nation’s

human Rights commission

, is empowered to investigate allegations of irregularities and adjust the results.

Violence-Prone Areas

Most allegations of fraud in August came from violence- prone areas in the nation’s south and southeast.

Security to make women feel safer going to polling stations needs to be improved, and restrictions on media coverage of the voting should be relaxed, according to Rachel Reid, a Kabul- based researcher for

Human Rights Watch

.

“Women’s Security wasn’t addressed in the planning until the very last stages of the last election,” Reid said. “Only in the last weeks were women recruited to do Security checks in polling stations, for example, and some women reported that they didn’t feel safe to go out and vote.”

Reid said Afghans should have access to media reports on violence and decide for themselves whether to cast a ballot.

In Washington, President

Barack Obama

welcomed the second round of voting, calling it “an important step forward in ensuring a credible process for the Afghan people.” Obama said he called Karzai to congratulate him on agreeing to the runoff.

U.S. Strategy

Accusations of fraud and uncertainty about the final result have weighed on Obama’s review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, including whether to commit more troops to the conflict against insurgents there. Obama’s chief of staff,

Rahm Emanuel

, said Oct. 18 that the country must have a “legitimate and credible government” in place and any decisions are tied to an analysis of whether Afghanistan can govern itself.

White House press secretary

Robert Gibbs

said this morning that it’s “certainly possible” that Obama might announce his revised strategy before the second vote.

The greatest concern regarding the runoff is the winter weather, U.S. Defense Secretary

Robert Gates

said. The approach of winter means that snow and cold might limit turnout and block roads needed to transport ballots to Kabul for counting.

Security Concerns

Karzai called for international assistance in securing the country for the runoff election, saying Afghans had gone to the polls “often at great risk.”

Gates said most of the troops added by contributing nations before the first election are still in place and could provide protection.

NATO Secretary General

Anders Fogh Rasmussen

said he is seeking a “higher standard” in the next round of voting. About 67,700 troops in Afghanistan from 42 nations fall under North Atlantic Treaty Organization command.

Karzai didn’t comment on suspect ballots in his name, saying only that some voters in the south were “disrespected.” He had argued any fraud was too limited to interfere with his re-election.

Ban said that “the important thing is that even though, unfortunately, widespread fraud has taken place, the measures which we have put in place worked. We detected the fraud, and we reported this. Now all these measures will be put in place again, so that the mechanisms and measures will continue to work and function properly.”

“Both candidates have spoken against a coalition government,” said U.K. Foreign Secretary

David Miliband

in an interview with the BBC Radio 4’s Today program, adding that despite the serious security situation in the country, it is possible to have a credible runoff election in November.

Miliband said the main reason for military operations in Afghanistan was because the situation in the country posed “a threat to our own security directly.”

To contact the reporters on this story:

Bill Varner

at the United Nations at

wvarner@bloomberg.net

;

Ali Sheikholeslami

in London at

alis2@bloomberg.net

.

Last Updated: October 21, 2009 10:56 EDT

Source: Afghan Runoff Election Prompts Steps to Fight Fraud (Update3)

As is often the case I’m writing a blog post following a conversation I had during a training session. This one was about violence and aggression and how best to respond to it in social care settings. The theme of this particular conversation was not particularly about people whose aggression is fuelled by anger or violence but about those who are hostile primarily because they have learned that it works. There is an important principle here:

People learn best as a result of consequence.

What follows is an extract from AMJ training materials on violence and aggression………

There are four main reasons for aggression. These are……

1. Learned behaviour – the person believes that aggressive behaviour will get them what they want.

2. Fear – the person is using aggression as a means of self-defence.

3. Dislike – the person dislikes the other individual or group and believes that this gives them the right to hurt them, to take the law into their own hands, so to speak.

4. Invalidation – The person believes that they (and/or their needs) are not being taken seriously. This is one of the most common reasons for aggression and the destructive power of invalidation should not be underestimated.

It’s important that we understand the different types of reasons why people behave with hostility. Each one has it’s own motivation and needs to be dealt with in it’s own way.

For example – learned behaviour tends not to be associated with anger – the person hasn’t lost control at all. They are simply controlling their behaviour in order to do what works. These people intimidate because they have learned time and time again how effective this approach is. They were probably the school bully and have never really had cause to review their tactics before.

It’s probably not possible for you to change this – you won’t make them nice people who believe in equality overnight. But you can teach them not to treat you that way – that’s probably the best you can hope to achieve. Remember that they learned to bully and intimidate because it works. You need to teach them that it doesn’t work on you.

Have firm boundaries and make sure that there are very real consequences if they are crossed. For example – if your client intimidates you or your staff then perform a new risk assessment – and make sure that the risk assessment involves changes in practice. For example the next meetings will be at times when you can be accompanied by colleagues. If previous meetings were at the client’s home subsequent ones will be in the office in the presence of colleagues.

If the client actually assaults you or commits any other offence such as discrimination or verbal abuse then prosecute. This is the evidence they need that this sort of intimidatory behaviour will not work on you or any of your colleagues. Everyone must have the same boundaries and they must be enforced without exception. Otherwise they will not work.

Fear is linked to anger and will be dealt with later when we look at limbic system strategies.

Dislike is no reason to hurt or intimidate anyone. The idea that anyone has the right to do that simply because they dislike someone is extremely arrogant. This also needs firm boundaries from everyone in the team.

Invalidation and validation will be dealt with later in more depth.

Cheney has some serious problems with President Obama bowing respectfully to foreign leaders. And yet he expects Americans to lay down before him and be trampled over by his corporate cronies. This is a man who has taken advantage of more people to get what he wants than any other American figure in recent history. There is a thorough and complete brainwashing that goes on here. And it’s brainwashing through fear, which has always been America’s greatest enemy. And now he’s at it again trying to convince his incurious hordes that Obama needs to “Man-up” or “step-down.”

Commenting on Obama’s bow to the Japanese Emperor during the president’s trip to China, Cheney commented that:

“”There is no reason for an American president to bow to anyone. Our friends and allies don’t expect it and our adversaries perceive it as a sign of weakness…

“I think it’s fundamentally harmful and it shows in my mind that this is a guy, a president, who would bow, for example, who doesn’t fully understand or have the same perception of the U.S. role in the world that I think most Americans have.

“What I see in President Obama is somebody who bows before foreign leaders and spends his trips aboard primarily apologizing for U.S. behavior. I find that very upsetting.”

Really? Cause Lord knows the world openly embraced our macho posturing during the eight years of the Bush Administration. Why, we were seen as parent figures, protectors, the good guys, right? Thank God for an evolved America. Leading by example, and all that. You know, like the Bush Administration’s charming,  jingoistic vision of  ”cowboy diplomacy.”

No, the truth is Cheney’s view of America has something to do with carrying a gun and shooting your friends in the face. Accident or not, it’s the perfect metaphor for Cheney’s approach to heroism, manliness, and American strength. And anyone who goes “hunting” with this man has what’s coming to them.

What was it Ghandi said?

“The science of war leads one to dictatorship, pure and simple. The science of non-violence alone can lead one to pure democracy…”

Here’s Cheney commenting on war:

“It will be necessary for us to be a nation of men, and not laws.”

Well, that’s never been more on display than in Cheney’s attitude toward war and interrogation. According to journalist/author Mark Danner (Stripping Bare the Body: Politics, Violence, War):

“According to the Bush administration, the Convention Against Torture allows waterboarding; allows confinement in small boxes; allows sleep deprivation for up to eight days; allows beatings; allows the use of insects and various other things to terrify detainees; allows the use of heat, light, severe cold, prolonged nudity.”

Danner also goes on to describe some other “ineterrogation methods” supported by Cheney:

“[They] threatened detainees with drills, that they were going to drill into their heads, threatened to shoot them in the head or threatened to rape their daughters or rape their wives.”

And now Cheney (and his daughter Liz) are systematically attempting to undermine our current president by suggesting he is “weak.” Danner continues:

“Republicans, in the person of the Cheneys, Kit Bond and others, have criticized the Obama administration nonetheless for starting a witch hunt of Bush administration officials, which clearly isn’t the case.

But as you saw in this lobbying group that Cheneys have now set up, the Republicans see rich political ground to be harvested in these issues. And this goes back really to three months after the attacks of 9/11, when Karl Rove stood up before the Republican National Committee and said, “Americans trust us to protect the country. You know, we can win on this terrorism issue.” And indeed, for two elections, they did win. And the Cheneys are now really trying to set up the Obama administration as an administration that’s weak, Democratic weakness, renouncing torture, renouncing the techniques that supposedly are needed to protect the country.

And I think there’s a very calculated strategy at work here, particularly in the event of another attack. That is, the Obama administration is being put in a position where if there is an attack on the country, it can be very vigorously blamed by the Republicans for leaving the country open to the attack by its supposed refusal to torture detainees.”

Liz Cheney commented on Obama’s bow versus her  father’s own stiff meeting with the Japanese Emperor back in 2007:

“You could also look at the comparison and think, Cheney 2012.”

Eek. Is Cheney really the reigning example of American “strength?”

If you ask me, I think Cheney’s values are now, and have always been, on display for anyone who wants to see them:

“We have to make America the best place in the world to do business.”

“The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil and lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.”

Even Cheney’s comments on Saddam Hussein sound more like another country talking about America’s past and the recent Bush/Cheney’s present:

“Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression… and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction.”

Even in talking about the “terrorist agenda,” Cheney continues to make oblivious comparisons to his own “agenda”:

“Given the nature of the enemy we face today, and the fact that their ultimate objective is to force us to change our policies and to retreat within our borders, the last thing we need is to convey the impression that terrorists can change our policies through violence and intimidation.”

How about that Gandhi fella again:

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?”

Choose your leaders wisely.

Emails leaked over the weekend by anonymous hackers, via a Russian web server, have unearthed a culture of deception, bullying, intimidation and smear-campaigning by certain scientists at apparently reputable climate research institutions such as the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK. Where many have been quick to write off the ‘conspiracy theories’ postulated by a few of the sceptics, it would appear that they’re really not too far off the mark.

With data modelling suggesting that temperatures should have climbed more than what they have, senior scientists at the CRU unashamedly emailed each other essentially lamenting the fact that the facts were not consistent with their theories, and suggesting they’d better find different data, or different ways of interpreting the data, to make it conform to their agenda. Colleagues with differing viewpoints were ridiculed and/or sacked.

In a nutshell, any shred of scientific credibility or integrity has evaporated and they have very clearly demonstrated that they are intent on proving their point regardless of whether that’s factual or not.

I don’t claim to be a scientist, and so can’t argue the finer points of the science behind carbon and it’s role in global warming, but from a philosophical point of view I think it’s clear that we need to keep a much more open mind and be willing to listen to a broader spectrum of voices from the scientific community.

I don’t need any convincing to reduce pollution, waste, landfill, energy consumption and so on. I believe there’s a clear case for treating responsibly our use of the natural resources around us, and our physical health is certainly not aided by wanton pollution. But I have no time for one-eyed, aggressive, bullying agenda-driven politicians and scientists who are so focussed on their agenda (and each may have different motivations behind that) that they disrespect and ridicule dissenters, and fail to allow themselves to think more laterally about other real issues that may be of concern if in fact they’re wrong about the causes of global warming.

To Die For | Gus Van Sant, 1995

Leading lady Nicole Kidman has had many ups and downs in her career. Perhaps the downs outweigh the ups, but I’m sure the lady herself would quite rightly argue that she has kept two feet firmly in the Hollywood spotlight for many years now. Even today at 40 she is still heralded as one of America’s most bankable female performers. All of this tends to distract from the point I’m attempting to make – that Kidman has talent as an actress. It’s only six or seven years since her acclaimed show in The Hours scooped a best actress Oscar, though people seem to have already forgotten this feat. It was a performance that I believe was perhaps eclipsed a year later with her role in Lars Von Trier’s overlooked experimental effort Dogville. In To Die For Kidman easily matches these two renditions; she plays aspiring TV girl Suzanne Stone, a driven and dangerous young woman who will do just about anything to make it in the industry. The character is an extremely colourful one that makes an impact using a confident, almost arrogant attitude , that is offset with some well placed femininity to seduce if not intimidate entirely. Kidman plays this role perfectly, creating a ravishing woman of the world whose naivety is shown with the kind of subtlety I previously thought to be beyond the actress.

Kidman is backed up by the equally impressive and fresh-faced Joaquin Phoenix in one of his earlier roles. He plays Jimmy Emmett, an oppressed adolescent who falls for Ms. Stone and whom she eventually uses thoroughly to get what she wants from life. Namely the killing of her own husband Larry (Matt Dillon) who she believes is standing in the way of her own blossoming career. With To Die For, Gus Van Sant chose the curious and risky process of splitting up the storytelling into direct-to-camera rants from each character: an insightful choice, but one that ultimately falls flat in creating any kind of dramatic suspense whatsoever. Thus, we find it difficult to become embroiled in the plot – something not helped by the largely confused motives exhibited also. Despite the decent performances all round (look out for a young Casey Affleck as Jimmy’s oafish friend), To Die For fails on many levels thanks to a lack of truly involving the audience in the central character’s plight. Yes, she is a diabolically watchable personality, but one whose motive is truly lost thanks to Van Sant’s fumbling. Hence, while entertaining, her position is also rather a shallow one. An interesting overall concept that tries vainly to employ some kind of black comedy to distract from a conceited plot, in the end rendering it quite pointless.

Our Rating:

L’ordre des psychologues du Québec a publié une brochure qui résume très bien le phénomène de l’intimidation à l’école et dresse un portrait précis de l’enfant intimidé.  Voici le lien vers la brochure (elle n’est plus disponible en version papier) :

http://www.ordrepsy.qc.ca/pdf/Publ_Depl_Intimidation.pdf

Today, activists from Liverpool Antifascists delivered leaflets in Halewood. The event was an overall success, but once again Merseyside BNP revealed that they rely more on intimidation tactics than on politics to get their point across.

As we set off from the Summerfield on Hillfoot Avenue, there was a brief encounter with a BNP supporter. Mistaking the antifascists for the BNP, he had joined us and asked whether Peter Tierney would be turning up soon. One activist explained to him that he was in the wrong group, whilst grabbing the opportunity to offer him a leaflet and explain why the BNP were not the party for anybody genuinely concerned with the plight of the working class. Events later in the day suggested that an antifascist making a similar mistake would have gotten more than a leaflet.

Despite the gloomy weather, there was a good turnout of activists, who managed to cover a significant area and deliver 500 leaflets in the surrounding working class estates. The event was extremely succesful and, as with a leafleting session around the shops the previous week, the response from the public was an overwhelmingly positive one.

Peter Tierney, owner of the Quiggins AttiQue in Aigburth and "super activist" for the BNP

On the way back to the original meeting point, however, we encountered Peter and Andrew Tierney. The brothers, along with an unidentified third fascist, had been delivering leaflets of their own and were just about to leave in Peter’s Land Rover. When they recognised several of the antifascists, however, they were quick to grab their cameras and start taking pictures.

Within moments, they were circling around the tired group of leafleters, taking photos as close as they could and chasing around those who tried to turn their face away. Their clear aim was to intimidate and provoke a small group of passers-by (at this point, they had distributed all their material and had nothing on them to identify their allegiances) which included two women, one of them elderly. At one point Peter, still awaiting trial for assaulting an antifascist back in April, referred to one man as a “shithouse” for not rising to the provocation. His brother Andrew, whose photographs and videos have emerged on Redwatch and various other neo-Nazi hate sites, suggested instigating a third-party assault. “Let’s get some local lads in, nothing to do with us, of course,” were his exact words, after feigning gangster-status by declaring that the leafleters should leave because “this is our territory.”

However, Liverpool Antifascists held our ground. If we had left, we risked being followed, which left individuals particularly vulnerable once they had to part ways. And if we had arisen to the provocation, it looked as though more BNP supporters would have emerged from the nearby pub to support the Tierney brothers. Instead, we stayed where we were until the two thugs got bored, seeing they weren’t getting a rise, and scuttled off.

To those familiar with the BNP, or indeed the Tierneys, this incident will come as no surprise. It also serves as a timely reminder that the party remain, despite their propaganda line, violent goons willing to threaten and intimidate anybody who dares oppose their fascist politics.

We must make sure, no matter what, that these thugs are not allowed to gain ground in Liverpool, Knowsley, or elsewhere.

¡No Pasarán!

It’s always the eyes that get me.

Smooth, suave, I tell myself. Be cool, be nice, be yourself.

And I can walk up to him. Sure, I blush a little, but that’s normal, right?

And I can rehearse my lines in my head. I’m a strange kind of actor, I guess. I try not to put emotion into my speech. If the dam cracks, the town is flooded. But it’s always the eyes that drown me.

They’re average eyes, I’ll admit that much. They just captivate me. Sometimes, they’re blue. Sometimes, they’re dark brown, like when he’s concentrating or looking me straight in the eye. But when he helps me pick up the papers I drop, they’re a very faint brown. They catch me off-guard, I guess is what I mean to say.

When he doesn’t look at me, I’m fine looking at him. But when he turns and our eyes meet, sometimes, I just blush a blotchy red color. Crayon, I believe, is the term that was used before. Some people turn a nice shade of rose. Not me. I got stuck with the help-me-internal-bleeding blush. And so it’s always obvious. Obvious to those eyes, at least.

I can look into any other eyes and I’m fine. I don’t know what it is about his eyes, though, that just scare me speechless. I’m stuck standing there, blushing and smiling, until one of my friends intervene and ask the question I was going to ask.

Going to ask until the dam exploded.

Voici la deuxième ébauche de mon affiche (la première n’étant point digne d’intérêt)…  Je ne peux pas soumettre celle-ci comme affiche finale car les visage masqués proviennent d’une affiche du festival d’avignon et je n’ai pas les droits d’utilisation. 

Voici, en gros, les points que je voulais faire ressortir :

- L’INTIMIDATION EN MILIEU PRIMAIRE : celle-ci est symbolisée par les personnages masqués.  Il y a trois types de personnages ; ceux qui tiennent les masques (les “intimidateurs”), ceux en avant plan (les “victimes”) et les copies des masques qui eux, représentent les spectateurs ainsi que les témoins.  Dans une présentation de théâtre-forum, le spectateur est “témoin” d’une problématique demandant une solution, tout comme le témoin d’une situation d’intimidation réelle.  le témoin ayant un choix à faire (soutenir l ‘intimidateur ou dénoncer la situation) je trouvais intéressant qu’une copie des deux types de personnages masqués se trouvent dans la position spectateur.

-LES CASIERS : Les casiers représentent l’école mais aussi les couloirs ; lieu où se passe beaucoup de situations d’intimidation.  Un casier a aussi une vocation de “secret” car on y range les effets de sa vie privée ; c’est aussi devant les casiers que plusieurs confidences se font ; ils deviennent donc des objets “témoins”

-LA SCÈNE : La scène représente l’élément théâtral du projet mais aussi le caractère public de la situation d’intimidation ; ces situations se passent souvent devant un public (conscient ou non) et les acteurs principaux sont les personnages de la victime et de l’intimidateur.  J’ai changé les couleurs plus traditionnelle des rideaux ; du rouge au violet, car le théâtre-forum n’est pas une forme théâtrale traditionnelle.

LES LETTRES : J’ai choisi cette forme de lettrage (police) car elle est trouble ; l’écriture est fragile, incertaine.  Elle représente bien l’esprit du projet tout en étant belle et artistique.  Elle est au-dessus des personnages afin d’assumer son rôle de “pensées” comme si celles-ci émergeaient autant des personnages sur scène que les spectateurs dans la salle.

VOICI LES TROIS IMAGES SOURCES :

Wow, this came up out of the blue.  Apparently what has happened is that someone hacked into a couple of pro Global Warming organizations and found some information that Al Gore does not want you to see.  Supposedly, this stuff shows how they have fought to keep information from the Freedom of Information requests that prove Global Warming is not happening.  They have changed temperature data to prove that global warming is a serious problem.  Does this really surprise anyone? 

I think that these scientists should really lose all credibility and credentials for being lying pieces of sh*t.  They should be ruined professionally and prevented from ever being a scientist again nor should they be able to take a lessor job in the scientific community.  However, this probably won’t happen but it really should.  I’m tired of dishonest scientists trying to govern my life and how I live it.   It should be MY decision on how I want to live my life and my finances should govern what I do…Not some dishonest scientist who are inflating temps for the purpose of deception.  Yes, Al Gore can kiss every inch of my big fat @ss.

Again, I’ve been told how I am part of the problem since I refuse to agree with the idiots.  Really, if there was a legitamite problem, would scientist have to inflate temps and use dishonest methods?  Absolutely not if it were real.  I have never done anything special for earth day.  In fact, I’ve left every light on in my house and went to work and had all of those lights on too each earth day.  I guess this makes me much smarter than 99% of liberals who believe this crap.  This even makes me 100% smarter than Barak Huisane Obama.  Wow, to think that I didn’t even go to Harvard.

Peer reviewed means absolutely nothing.  Peer reviewed just means this is a group conspiracy to bilk the country of all of it’s money and ruin it with such idiotic programs as Cap and Tax.  Again, if this was a legitimate theory then why would numbers have to be inflated and why would they have to use so much deception?  This is easy!  Because I’ve called it the Man-made Global Warming Scam.  It’s a scam for the suckers and the idiots.  Al Gore has the mentality of a snake oil salesman.

Even though this has been the coolest year for the US, Al Gore is out there saying that we are warming.  Really Al?  Ya think?  I’m sorry, most of us have had to wear warmer clothes this year because of the “warming!”  If Al is smart, he’ll get rid of his stocks and investments based on green things and start advocating that global warming does not exist.  That way he won’t wind up eating macaroni and cheese because his house of cards are coming down as this crap is exposed.  It’s hard to advocate global warming when we have emails from these so-called “Scientists” engaging in dishonest reporting to prove their stupid theory.

Again, most of what Al Gore said would happen, has not happened nor is it close to happen.  Why don’t the AP pull people from fact checking Sarah Palin and have them fact check the hypocrite Al Gore? 

To see the level of dishonesty of what they’ve found on these websites, click here.  Again, these are hacked emails that show the level of dishonesty in the global warming movement and how they worked to keep the real data from the public who have a right to see the real data.  I think this is a abomination and I think said scientists should have their credentials revoked for their dishonesty.  They should also be tried on fraud charges and have all monies that they have been given for research  stripped and I also think they should be sued for money that they have gotten and spent.

Ok, here’s the tenants of Obamacare that I think people who are for it haven’t thought of. 

How we’re going to pay for it:  This is the thing that pisses me off.  We’re going to pay for this monstrosity as soon as our liar-in-chief signs it.  That means next year all of those tax increases will kick in.  You’ll immediately start paying for it.  You’ll be taxed to death for this piece of crap legislation immediately and the program will not be implimented until 2013.

Well what’s wrong with that?  Ok, it’s like paying for a car you can’t drive and it gives the irresponsible idiots another pot of money which to steal from.  Why do you think we have so many problems with medicare/medicaid.  Congress started dipping into the account to spend the money when we couldn’t afford whatever ill-conceived programs the idiots wanted to implement at the time.  I have no doubt that congress will start dipping into the pot to spend because their other account has no money. 

So, Obama said there is no death panel in the health care bill.  Really?  Well technically you are right.  I said technically not that your really right.  Look into the ill-conceived stimulus bill.  It creates the panel which was referred to as the death panel.  So again, the liberal messiah has lied yet again.  You’d better bet your last $5, he will ration care when the kitty starts running dry.  They have already started by raising the age required to get mamograms up 10 years.  So they are already starting to ration care before the damn bill ever gets passed.

But Obama said you can keep your health insurance.  Again, he’s right but being VERY dishonest on it.  I mean sure, you can keep your insurance as long as the rates don’t go up.  When your rates go up, they will force you into the public option.  The overwhelming theme here is force. 

It is constitutional to require citizens buy health insurance or go to jail.  We could argue this one until the cows come home.  Yes, the government requires everyone to have car insurance.  The goal in Car insurance is that it covers any damage you do to other drivers and their property.  It does not care if your damages are protected.  So health insurance doesn’t have the same goal.  The right thing to bring down health care costs is to cap medical malpractice suits.  Again, this is all due to the liberal messiah bowing down to special interests.  Isn’t that something he said he would not do?  Guess yet another case where he’s lied to us.  There are so many cases where he’s lied that it’s hard to keep up with all of them. 

The bottom line is that the liberal messiah is all for lawyers suing doctors for frivalous malpractice suits but he’s against health insurance companies yet he wants us to believe he’s for the free market.  The doctors provide a service and has to spend money to provide the service.  The doctor needs money to pay the hospital back for the proceedures he used to save someone’s life, to buy supplies to use to save lives, pay for services used to save lives, and buy new equipment.  Some of the proceedures prices are fixed and can’t be lowered.

Terrorist intimidation of witnesses, jurors overlooked in Khalid Shiekh Mohammed trial

By Jim Kouri, CPP

Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to prosecute murderous, fanatical terrorists — including the 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — speaks volumes about his ignorance of a major problem with protecting witnesses and members of a jury in a case involving terrorism or organized crime.

Many police officers and prosecutors have become increasingly frustrated by their inability to investigate and prosecute cases successfully when key witnesses refuse to provide critical evidence or to testify because they fear retaliation by the defendant or his family and friends. They’ve also found it difficult to protect jurors or their families.

This problem is particularly acute, and apparently increasing, in gang, terrorism, and drug-related criminal cases. Witnesses’ refusal to cooperate with investigations and prosecutions should be a major concern: it adversely affects the justice system’s functioning while simultaneously eroding public confidence in the government’s ability to protect citizens.

A number of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices across the country have already taken steps to prevent witness intimidation and jury tampering. These include increased use of traditional witness security measures such as routinely requesting high bail for known intimidators, aggressively prosecuting reported intimidation, closely managing key witnesses, expanding victim/witness assistance services, and sequestering jury members at an undisclosed location..

Several jurisdictions have also adopted innovative approaches, such as emergency and short-term relocation of witnesses (sometimes in collaboration with local public housing authorities), methods to prevent intimidation in the courthouse and jails, and outreach programs to reduce community-wide fear and intimidation.

Most innovative witness security programs include provisions for relocating genuinely endangered witnesses, and most of the prosecutors and law enforcement officers interviewed report that confidential witness relocation is the core protection service that all programs need to provide. Respondents identified three levels of relocation:

* emergency relocation — placing the witness and his or her family in a hotel or motel for up to a few weeks;

* short-term or temporary relocation — using a hotel or motel for up to a year or placing the witness with out-of-town relatives or friends; and

* permanent relocation — moving the witness between public housing facilities or providing a one-time grant to reestablish the witness in new private housing.

Because most relocations involve witnesses living in public housing, prosecutors and police investigators have implemented a variety of approaches to working with local housing authorities to arrange the necessary transfers.

Gang members and associates of defendants often appear in court in order to frighten witnesses into not testifying. Since the threat may be very subtle and because judges often feel that the constitutional requirement of a public trial prevents them from removing such individuals from the courtroom, it is often difficult to stop this kind of intimidation. Nevertheless, a number of judges have taken steps to remove gang members from the courtroom, to segregate gang members and other intimidating spectators, or to close the courtroom entirely to spectators.

Incarcerated witnesses who are targets for intimidation in gang-and drug-related cases require special protection, including separation from the defendant within the same correctional facility or transfer to a nearby correctional facility, and separate transportation to court to testify.

An atmosphere of community-wide intimidation, even when there is no explicit threat against a particular person, can also discourage witnesses from testifying.

Prosecutors and police investigators try to reduce community-wide intimidation through community-based policing and prosecution strategies, vertical prosecution, and other strategies.

Whenever possible, jurisdictions can combine the range of witness protection approaches discussed above into a coordinated, comprehensive, and formal witness security program.

Prosecutors and police investigators recommend that a witness security program be structured carefully in order to maximize the use of shared resources, reduce prosecutor and police investigator involvement with time-consuming witness management tasks, and minimize civil liability of the prosecutor’s office and police department.

To achieve these goals, a comprehensive witness security model includes an organizing committee, an operational team, a program administrator, and case investigators. Formal interagency cooperation among the groups involved in protecting witnesses is essential to achieving these goals.

Prosecutors often have statutory authority to prevent intimidation through techniques ranging from requesting the exclusion of gang members from the courtroom to impeaching the prosecution’s own witnesses if they change their testimony between deposition or preliminary hearing and trial.

To avoid liability for the safety or misconduct of witnesses participating in witness security programs, experts strongly advise that no promises be made to witnesses unless they can be kept and that any promises that are made be cleared first with whoever has authority to comply with the promises.

Sources: US Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Research Service, New York City Police Department, National Association of Chiefs of Police

I think Glenn Beck hit the nail on the head when it comes to SEIU and Obamacare.  Poll after poll shows that the American public does not want Obamacare yet, it’s being forced down our throats.  Obama is doing Obamacare for Andy Stern and the SEIU union.  It makes sense.  The union’s growth isn’t exactly booming and one of the areas that is hitting the union between the eyes is providing healthcare to it’s members.  So they help Obama to get elected and in return the government takes this sore off SEIU’s back.

So if you think Obama is doing this for you, you are sadly mistaken.  It’s for Andy Stern.  You know, the head of the SEIU union that has met with Obama 22 times since he’s been in office.  So I thought that Obama said he wasn’t bowing down to special interest.  Obviously, yet again, the liberal messiah has lied.  Trust me, SEIU is a special interest group.  Unions are not a government entity.  They get their money from bilking it’s members for dues and strong arming people for membership.  Why else would Obama support card check?  It’s payback for SEIU’s help in getting him elected.  I have no doubt that Andy Stern was told that he’d get Obamacare and card check in return for his help in getting the liberal messiah elected.  So in fact, he promised Andy Stern that he’d have Americans pay for the union’s blunders.  They spent more money than they should have to get the liberal man child elected which hurt them in providing their end of the deal on union membership.

I support neither effort for SEIU.  Andy Stern is a liberal who spends money like a liberal.  Your union should do whatever it has to to survive, just like every business in the US.  If you’d have been looking out for your best interest, you would have made your political donations within your budget.  I feel no sympathy for union thugs who got themselves in a bind because of their partisan hackery.  To ask me and other Americans to pay all of this money to provide healthcare for union thugs is a outrageous especially when your damn money pool comes from other Americans who probably won’t be covered by Obamacare.  Goddamn Barak Huisane Obama for attempting to bilk Americans for money to help out SEIU while trying to make average Americans believe this is good for them.  Then again, this bad idea isn’t any better or worse than Obama’s Cap and Tax bill meant to steal even more money from hard working Americans by adding a climate change tax onto our Energy bills and at the pump based on a scam called man-made global warming.

Of course if you want to tip the lying president voluntary then by all means go ahead if it makes you feel better.  I personally don’t need any help in getting rid of my pay because the gas pumps have gone up causing food and other necessities go up in price.  If it was up to me, the lying president won’t get any more of my money than they are entitled. 

Liberals refuse to consider the grand idea of giving tax breaks for those who purchase their own insurance and simply put others on medicare/medicaid.  They’d also need to pass a law saying that pre-existing conditions are required to be covered.  This would solve the problem of having people uncovered and keep the government out of healthcare.  They wouldn’t even have to give them the full tax break for the full price of their health insurance.  Just make the tax break of half of what you pay for the insurance

This week brought two significant actions by the left wing thugs in their attempt to force socialism and the destruction of America down our throats.

First was the assault on two Tea Party Patriots who attempted to take video and photos of an ANSWER coalition pro-illegal immigration gathering in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

The ANSWER announcement of their rally was an incitement to violence against Tea Party members who were staging an anti-illegal immigration rally.  It used terms such as ’smash’, ‘tea baggers’, take the streets’, ‘fight the racists’, ’shut down’, ‘fascist’, ‘white supremacist’ and ‘beat back’.  With descriptors like these is it any wonder that they were looking for an excuse to fight?

The second action was an attempt by SEIU to intimidate Senator Lieberman of CT:

Senator Lieberman has been staunch in his opposition to the nationalized healthcare plan approved by the House of Representatives.

Having their thugs congregate outside his home in the dark of night to chant is another of their despicable tactics.

For more on the Ft. Lauderdale violence.

For more on the Connecticut Protest.

Dobbs Was Forced Out Say Sources, CNN Insiders
Huge severance package was part of deal offered by higher ups who “wanted him out”

Watch the video: