DaniMartExtras, Too


REAL NEWS March 09

Posted by Xaniel777 on March 9, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS :  March 09, 2012






From The Native Wisdom Keeper & Shaman Little Grandmother Kiesha Crowther


Uploaded by  on Nov 24, 2010

This is the best video regarding the year 2012 !

During her workshop in Zurich early November 2010 Little Grandmother Kiesha Crowther spoke about 2012, the expected pole shift and how we should prepare ourselves. Illustrated with pictures and accompanied by the music piece “Garden of Love” from the CD “Sarastus” by Rija.

Original video : http://vimeo.com/16830337

The Official Website for Wisdom Keeper and Shaman Little Grandmother :

Any copyrighted material in this video is copied for educational purposes only.



VOTER FRAUD AGAIN ~ How did Ron Paul lose Alaska?


{ XANIEL’S NOTE : HOW YOU ASK ??  He lost it the same way he lost Nevada.  VOTER FRAUD BY THE THE GOP !”

There were some States that did favor one of the others, ( but that would be more out of obligation or misplaced loyalty rather than intelligence.   And even then Ron Paul should have come a close second in those.)

However certain States,  like Nevada, where the Ron Paul supporters are at LEAST 75% strong and Alaska where the support is at LEAST 70 to 75% strong, victory should have been a slam dunk !!

And yet the very open and questionable GOP pulled off another sham on the voters and will apparently get away with it without every answering for their open and questionable actions.

There has been nothing but questionable activity ( let’s just call it what is, ‘ FRAUD ‘ ) by the GOP in every State these elections have been held thus far.

Despite it all, NOT ONE Governor in any of the involved States has demanded or even thought to call for an investigation into ‘ THE GOP VOTER FRAUD FRANCHISE ! ‘

The fraud has been so wide open and blatant that even many of those voters who favored one of the others have questioned it.

How long will ‘ WE THE PEOPLE ‘ stand by and allow the GOP or THESE GOVERNORS, ( who should demanding answers at this very stage of things ), to get away with what can only be classified as the TREASONOUS ACT  OF ‘ VOTER FRAUD CARRIED OUT AGAINST THE U.S. AMERICAN CITIZENS ‘( whose voices are not being legally heard through the democratic process ) before we take ACTION and make this right ??

For that matter,  why hasn’t the ‘ GREAT F.B.I. ‘,( hahah…’ great ‘…that’s just too funny…),  taken any action on what is clearly illegal activity by the GOP ( and as far as I am concerned ‘ SAID GOVERNORS ‘ who are somehow involved in all this cover-up, take our word for it, crap ! )???



THEY WORK FOR US AND WE NEED TO TAKE CHARGE ONCE AGAIN ( much the same way we should have been doing all along )~~ Xaniel777


Alaska Dispatch

From AlaskaDispatch

Eric Christopher Adams | Mar 07, 2012

How did Ron Paul lose Alaska?

Paul’s ardent supporters here in the 49th state were on Wednesday casting a wide net, including allegations of polling impropriety, disenfranchisement and other shenanigans by Alaska Republican Party officials.

As the only Republican presidential candidate to make the lonely journey to Alaska this election cycle, and with a groundswell of support from the state’s libertarian-leaning independents, many national pundits and local political watchers had expected a Ron Paul win here on Super Tuesday.

It did not come to pass. Paul ended up placing third in Alaska’s presidential preference poll. Mitt Romney won Alaska by the skin of his nose, taking 32.4 percent of the vote, according to The Associated Press. Rick Santorum, in what seemed surprising, came in a strong second here, taking 29.2 percent. Paul received 3,175 votes, or 24 percent of the turnout. That should net Paul about six delegates to the GOP National Convention in August.

It all amounted to some serious, post-Super Tuesday head scratching for the Paul 2012 campaign after their man had lost three states he’d been predicted to win, including Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota. Thousands turned out to see Paul on Sunday in Alaska. Thousands turned out, too, for him in Idaho and North Dakota. Paul went so far to as to predict he’d win at least one or two of them, himself.

Idaho is a Mormon-heavy state so Mitt Romney’s domination there seems more understandable. North Dakota has a national reputation for its particular brand of Western social conservatism; Rick Santorum doesn’t seem a far-fetched winner there, though Paul came in a respectably close second.

But Alaska? Paul enjoys a deep volunteer base here. His supporters were organized on Tuesday night. It would seem, though, that the campaign simply wasn’t able to convert that enthusiasm into victory.

Ron Paul for Alaska campaign chief Evan Cutler said the candidate’s supporters and organizers who were out at the polls Tuesday night harbored other suspicions.

“People were turned away at the polls that were registered to vote due to confusion among the poll volunteers. Voter registration databases were outdated,” Cutler said his organizers reported, going on to add that, “younger voters, voters of a certain demographic were turned away” and that the campaign had conducted exit polling across the state and that numbers reported by the state party leaders “didn’t jibe.”

The allegations didn’t stop there. Cutler also accused party bosses of levying “poll taxes” of at least $50 for participation in post-vote district conventions. The Paul campaign even accuses Alaska GOP Chairman Randy Ruedrich of rigging his own district via teleconference to make sure Mitt Romney — the state establishment Republican choice — won a majority.

An email Cutler sent Ruedrich was forwarded to Alaska Dispatch.

“There were some other complaints about the process in your own district,” it said. “According to the reports I received, when the District Convention convened there were 7 delegates in your cohort and 7 in the Ron Paul one. Instead of letting people vote then, I was told you instead called supporters from your side one by one until you had enough people on the Romney side on the phone to take all the delegate slots.  …”

Did it really happen? “Absolutely not,” Ruedrich said in an interview Wednesday night. “It just isn’t true, absolutely not true. We did not vote via teleconference even though it would have been fully appropriate.”

Ruedrich says that he and another party worker left his district’s polling place “to process state data from the preference poll. When we issued an all-data-in report, we returned to the convention because it was still in process. We participated in the vote in person.”

Ruedrich went on to refute the poll tax allegations, the disenfranchisement, the other things Paul supporters were whispering. He said complaints were common for a constituency that failed to achieve its objective. But he also said the Paul campaign’s accusations were something more than just sour grapes.

“This is a little bit more severe,” he said.

While the he-said, she-said continues, one thing is certain: the Alaska Republican Party’s rules are labyrinthine. Who knew that people could vote via teleconference in a district convention? Doesn’t that seem like a recipe for accusations of preference or vote-weighting?

“It’s fully appropriate,” Ruedrich said.

The Paul campaign doesn’t think so and Cutler said he and other up-and-coming young Republicans weren’t pleased with the way Ruedrich was managing the state’s GOP.

“Ruedrich and others are bending their own rules for Romney. It’s not fair. There’s a history of game playing in Alaska’s Republican Party. People shouldn’t be disenfranchised. They shouldn’t have to pay to play. … Ruedrich should probably go,” Cutler said.

Alaska’s Republican presidential poll is conducted solely by party bosses like Ruedrich and isn’t overseen by the state’s Division of Elections. Cutler isn’t the first conservative to call for Ruedrich’s head.

But much mightier politicians (including Sarah Palin) have taken him on, only to be frustrated again and again.

Editor’s Note: This article was updated March 8 to clarify that Evan Cutler reported the allegations of Ron Paul for Alaska supporters and organizers. 

Contact Eric Christopher Adams at eric(at)alaskadispatch.com




Congressmen Announce Bill To Repeal NDAA Infinite Detention, Torture


From Alexander Higgins Blog

Posted by  – March 8, 2012

US Congressman introduce a bill to repeal the Federal government’s authority to infinitely detain and torture US citizens without trial.

Members of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have announced new legislation that will repeal the most controversial aspects of the NDAA which authorizes the infinite detention of US citizens without trial.

The summary of the legislation outlines several provisions that ensures that anyone captured, detained, or arrested in the United States on suspicion of terrorism will go through the either federal or state courts,  and be provided due process rights awarded under the Constitution.The legislation would further outlaw the “military combatant ant” detention of US citizens, require that proper evidence is provided regarding any allegations, and prevent them from being shipped to overseas CIA torture prisons.

The summary of the legislation reads (full text below the graphic)

Congressman Announce Bill To Repeal NDAA Infinite Detention, Torture


U.S. Senate

U.S. House of Representatives

FACT SHEET: The Due Process and Military Detention Amendments Act of 2012

  • The Due Process and Military Detention Amendments Act of 2012, which is grounded in the core principles of the United States Constitution, ensures that any individual detained on U.S. soil has access to due process, the federal or state court systems and will not be detained indefinitely by the military pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

  • The current law gives the Executive Branch too much power. The bill strikes an ill-conceived and unnecessary provision in the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that relates to mandatory military custody (section 1022).

  • The bill also amends the permissive detention provision of FY2012 NDAA (section 1021) to clarify that the only option for anyone detained in the United States pursuant to the AUMF is the Article III courts (federal) and state courts. This bill prohibits military commissions, indefinite detention and transfer to foreign countries for individuals detained in the United States.

  • The bill also states that any trial proceedings “shall have all the due process as provided for under the Constitution” and ensures that anyone detained in the United States pursuant to the AUMF will be tried in our civilian courts and receive all the due process rights enshrined in the Constitution.

  • Our civilian law enforcement investigations have a proven track record of success and have provided intelligence and admissible statements without Miranda in “crisis detention” situations, as demonstrated by the recent mandatory life sentence received by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the “Underwear Bomber.”

  • Over 300 individuals convicted of crimes related to international terrorism are currently incarcerated in federal prisons within the United States with no escapes or retaliatory actions.

  • Our civilian courts cover a broad set of offenses, giving our federal prosecutors a wide range of tools that can be used to incapacitate suspected terrorists.

  • Our civilian courts enhance international cooperation. A number of countries have indicated that they will not cooperate with the United States in certain counterterrorism efforts, for example, in providing evidence or extraditing suspects, if we intend to use that cooperation in pursuit of a military commission prosecution. 

    Although the use of military commissions in the United States can be traced back to the early days of our nation and is an effective tool in presenting evidence obtained from the battlefield, in their present form they are less familiar to the international community than our civilian criminal justice system and Article III courts.

The news of the announced legislation was reported on Congressman Adam Smith’s House web site.

Ranking Member Adam Smith, Senator Mark Udall Launch Effort to Protect Citizens from Indefinite Detention, Preserve Civil Liberties

Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Adam Smith (WA-09), and Senator Mark Udall (CO), a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, unveiled legislation (summary) at a press conference today to ensure that any individual detained on U.S. soil under the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) has access to due process and the federal court system.

The bills also prohibit military commissions and indefinite detention for individuals detained in the United States and affirms that any trial proceedings “shall have all the due process as provided for under the Constitution.”

In unveiling their companion bills, Smith and Udall made the following joint statement:

“Current law gives the executive branch too much power.  By ensuring all due process rights enshrined in the Constitution, our legislation protects civil rights and ensures national security. The bills clarify that the only options for anyone detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) are Article III courts (federal) and state courts.  They prohibit military commissions and indefinite detention.

“In addition to protecting civil liberties, these bills strengthen one of our strongest assets in trying suspected terrorists:  Article III courts and domestic law enforcement.  Federal courts have a proven track record of success: Over 400 defendants charged with crimes related to international terrorism have been successfully convicted in the United States since 9/11.

“Additionally, our civilian law enforcement also has a proven track record of success as demonstrated by the recent mandatory life sentence received by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the “underwear bomber.”  This conviction builds on a history of success.  In fact, more than 300 individuals convicted of crimes related to international terrorism are currently incarcerated in federal prisons within the United States with no escapes or retaliatory attack.

“While some claim we should shy away using a court system that has been a model for the world for more than 200 years, we believe that we should embrace it.  We should not fear our Constitution.  We should embrace it.”

Source: Adam Smith’s Official House Of Congress Website

Russia Today reports:

Congress considers repeal of indefinite detention and torture

Barely two months after President Obama authorized the indefinite detention of Americas, two members of US Congress are asking fellow lawmakers to approve a bill that will repeal a controversial provision of the NDAA.

US Congress

                       US Congress

(RT) – Barely two months after President Obama authorized the indefinite detention of Americas, two members of US Congress are asking fellow lawmakers to approve a bill that will repeal a controversial provision of the NDAA.

US President Barack Obama inked the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, essentially allowing the American Armed Forces to indefinitely detain any suspected terrorist, including Americans, without ever bringing them to trial. Though President Obama has spoken out against the act — the very same one he signed — the legislation is currently in effect and allows the US government to grossly strip away rights otherwise guaranteed by the country’s Constitution.

The federal government has already gone to the NDAA to support the continued detention of alleged foreign terrorists, but two members of Congress, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington and Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado, are asking other lawmakers in the House and Senate to sign their name on a bill that will make sure anyone — American or not — will be given a fair trial.

“The goal here is to have clarity, first of all, on how these people are handled in the US, and second of all, to reassert the primacy and the importance of our civil justice system,” Smith says of the proposed bill. “It is our contention that our civil justice system absolutely protects us from the threat in this case.”

In addition to holding a position within the US House of Representatives, Congressman Smith is also the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. Both him and Senator Udall proposed their own solutions to the detainment provisions before Congress on Thursday this week.

Although he signed the NDAA into law, President Obama has opposed the own legislation that his administration helped create. Since being authorized last year though, some lawmakers have proposed solutions of their own even before Smith and Udall offered their alternative.

Elected officials in the states of Virginia, Washington and Utah have already drafted legislation of their own that reverses the indefinite detention provision, Section 1021 of the NDAA, in their own state. Additionally, Texas congressman and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has offered a bill on his own that would negate the controversial conditions within the act.

As none of these laws have yet to be approved, though, Smith and Udall hope that the federal government will give in to increased pressure and pull the plug on their own provision.

“More than 10 years later, one thing has become absolutely clear: our criminal justice system in the US is 100 percent adequate to take care of this problem,”says Smith in discussing America’s post-9/11 courts. “But at the same time, on the books we have a law that gives the executive branch the power to indefinitely detain people here in the US, even US citizens. And we believe that we should take that off the books.”

CNN Reports:

Lawmakers announce bill prohibiting indefinite detention in U.S.


Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado said the legislation would ensure that anyone captured, detained, or arrested in the United States on suspicion of terrorism will go through the civilian justice system and be provided due process rights awarded under the Constitution.


“The goal here is to have clarity, first of all, on how these people are handled in the U.S., and second of all, to reassert the primacy and the importance of our civil justice system,” Smith said. “It is our contention that our civil justice system absolutely protects us from the threat in this case.”

The bill is aimed at amending a controversial provision added to the National Defense Authorization Act that gave the military the authority to indefinitely detain anyone suspected of terrorism in the United States.

“More than 10 years later, one thing has become absolutely clear: our criminal justice system in the U.S. is 100% adequate to take care of this problem,” said Smith, who claimed that more than 400 terror suspects have been tried successfully by U.S. civilian courts. “But at the same time, on the books we have a law that gives the executive branch the power to indefinitely detain people here in the U.S., even U.S. citizens. And we believe that we should take that off the books.”

Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California, is worried the language in the new bill goes too far.

“For example, under the guise of providing ‘access’ to civilian courts, the Smith/Udall bill would actually require that foreign terrorists like the underwear bomber be held by civilian authorities and tried in civilian courts as common criminals,” said McKeon spokesman Claude Chafin. “Those who attack us are not mere criminals, but terrorists, often carrying vital information about future attacks that our military can exploit to keep us safe. They should be treated as such.”

The National Defense Authorization Act was strongly contested in Congress last year, with the issue of indefinite detention being high on the list of concerns for those who opposed its passing. President Barack Obama threatened to veto the bill, but after amendments were made, he relented.

“I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” he said of the $662 billion legislation last year.


“I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in a statement last year. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

Smith argued that the current administration’s policy is not enough.

“Even though you can make the argument that this executive will not exercise the authority, has not exercised the authority, we don’t believe that you can afford to allow that kind of power to reside in the executive branch,” he said.

Source: CNN

Related Posts :




The “Dead Americans” Problem


By George Ure

March 08, 2012


Since we last coffeed on Tuesday, there’s been a lot of discussion in such esteemed journals as the NY Times around when the government has the right to kill Americans without trial or due process.

 Granted, I’m not an attorney as is  US AG Eric Holder, but seems to me that when America was founded there wasn’t any exclusion of rights mentioned by the Founders. 

 Yeah, yeah, on the battlefield – fair’s fair, however even here, if there’s a battlefield, there’s supposed to be a clear Declaration of War by Congress. 

 It’s a sad morning when I have to point this out, but sorry, without the daylight of due process in a public charging and trial, the US is going down the road of such despicable government-sponsored killing supporters as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Vlad the Impaler

 This “trust us., we’re the good guys” BS isn’t Constitutional, at least in any copy I have read.  To the contrary, free speech and a right to pursue happiness is there is black and white.  But no death squads are mentioned.

 A partisan office-Holder is NOT a disinterested party and the corpgov stance against real free speech has been deteriorating since the institution of “free speech zones” and other rights-destructive practices.

 I do not defend those who would take up arms against this Great Nation. However, law governing treatment of Treason and Insurrection are pretty clear.  But it’s the powers and the disappearing (and maybe the Breitbart heart attack) that concern me here.

 Dare I speak high obviousness?  If government was truly responsive to We the People, rather than “Them Corporate Interests” would there be a need to contain – or even kill – Americans in secret? The argument that  “It’s legal because we say it is...” is insufficient – equivalent to We kill because we can get away with it and it’s a policy shortcut…”  To me, that’s morally bankrupt. We can’t have a nation of law just some of the time.  To put it in Pogo terms:  We is, or we isn’t.

 People in high office seem to forget: More than half the country didn’t vote for present office holders, either by (directly) voting for someone else, or (indirectly) by casting a vote with their feet – staying home and wanting no part of government above (rather than by) the People.

 Worst of all, such corrupted thinking changes the flavor of the Presidential selection process.  To me is stops being Who can best harness the great energy and spirit of the American People and move us forward to a brighter future? to instead become tainted by askingWould I trust this guy not to have me whacked if I speak my mind and speak freely?

A curious linguistic hole emerges, by the way – one that deserves some serious thinking out here in VoterLand:  Why is it that we don’t have a specific word for government-sponsored killing?

 Take guys like Hitler and Pol Pot.  We assign used-up words like “madmen,” “despot” and so forth.

 Not that “despot” doesn’t come close being a “A ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically exercising it cruelly.”  But it misses an essential point:  The term “despot” is distance.  Not in my ‘hood.  It was somewhere else, and some other time.

 Nope, we need a better bitter, as it were.  I like the term “killercrat” which would be a democratically elected killer, but this would miss Stalin (commukiller), Hitler who was more of a (haplokiller), or Pol Pot who might be a (megalokiller).

 As I got to the polls here in May, as much to vote against born-again disgraced house speaker, as anything else, I’ll be mindful to try and pull the lever for whoever would make the “most trusted killer” to hold office.

Still, it’s my duty as an American to offer solutions to the problems I inconveniently mention and this whole debate is easily solved by these simple steps:

 1.  Have Congress pass a law stripping those who join groups which advocate taking up arms against America of their citizenship.  Has to be done in open court, however.

 2.  Once stripped of their citizenship, such persons become non-grata and have a free ticket anywhere in the world that will take them.

 3.  Persons so stripped of citizenship will be subject to life in prison if they return, no chance of parole.

 4.  Once stripped of citizenship and dumped in a foreign land, shit happens.

We do not, however, have to kill Americans.  Nor is that provided for in our Founding documents except for treason and sedition.  That’s abhorrent to sensible people.  Charging and trying, however is provided for.

 Thus, by simply go through some due process in the bright light of day, each of us is not made to be complicit a killercrat.

 I’ll end with a question deserving of great study:  Is it that there is some hidden rite – some nefarious and pervert energy in play here – promoting this paranoid and animalistic behavior? 

 Is it just wildly possible that the argument is construed?  And to what end?  Why, to make us forget we are a great and moral people and above all else a just people. 

 I don’t know how well-read you are, but I can sure think of some enemies of America in their dark cabals who would have no qualms about using the specious “killing Americans’ argument” to take us down; yet another notch.

 “And toward what end?” you’re wondering.   It’s obvious isn’t it?  Once the public approves of killing Americans (and the mass media stampede is on as the Holder stories repeat) then the blood of those killed is not on the hands of the one issuing the orders, but instead on the hands of all who were complicit.  And our moral high ground is thereby eroded much to our enemy’s delight.

 I think in software engineering the term is “design pattern.”


AND A LITTLE EXTRA SOMETHING FROM GEORGE URE :  ‘ Luck and the power of positive thought ! ‘

While we continue to pull together formulations that seem to increase “luck” (Saturday for Peoplenomics readers) we’ve gotten some darned interesting feedback:

“Hi George, I don’t know if you saw the story about the woman who won a $112 million lottery by visualizing it? Here’s a link:

In my own life, my “luck” has also usually come when my state of mind is open to it. For example, when something goes wrong, trusting it will be righted, even when in the moment it might seem pretty hopeless.

One time I was driving across country with a friend, my car a Saab (in the 70’s before it was a popular car in the US), and it stopped running in rural Oklahoma on a back country road, 30-60 miles from a town in either direction, no cell phones, etc.

I didn’t freak out, coasted to the side of the road, popped the hood, and sat outside on the grass and enjoyed the sun. Within 15 minutes, a guy comes along (first car we’d seen in an hour), stops, checks it out, goes to his car and comes back with the exact ignition condenser I needed, still in it’s package, popped it in, and the car started right up.

He wouldn’t even let me pay him for it. This all took maybe five minutes from when he arrived, solved the problem, and left. (We were left singing the twilight zone theme music.)

I have had many such experiences, but only at times when I stay positive in my thinking. I do think luck has a lot to do with the power of positive thought.






From Anonymiss Express Cyberguerrilla

December 28, 2011

   via @ConQueso1

Bloggers cause anxiety. Governments are wary of these men and women, who are posting news, without being professional journalists. Worse, bloggers sometimes raise sensitive issues which the media, now known as “traditional”, do not dare cover. Blogs have in some countries become a source of news in their own right.

Nearly 120,000 blogs are created every day. Certainly the blogosphere is not just adorned by gems of courage and truth. It is also often the source of confusion and dis-information and not all bloggers have the souls of reporters. That is why this handbook contains advice on creating and updating a blog, with no other ambition than that of free expression.

For others it will be a struggle to draw attention to a particular issue. The first concern therefore is to make a publication visible (see the Jotman article). This hand-book also suggests ploys to get your blog well referenced online (see the Olivier Andrieu article) as well as “editorial” recommendations (Get your blog to stand out, by Mark Glazer).

Let’s acknowledge that blogs are a fantastic tool for freedom of expression. They have unloosed the tongues of ordinary citizens. People who were until now only consumers of news have become players in a new form of journalism, a “grassroots” journalism, as expressed by Dan Gillmor (Grassroots journalism — see the chapter What ethics should bloggers have?), that is “by the people for the people”. Blogs are more or less controllable for those who want to keep them under surveillance.

Governments that are most up to do date with new technology use the most sophisticated filtering or blocking techniques, preventing them from appearing on the Web at all. But bloggers don’t just sit back and let it happen.

The essential question becomes how to blog in complete safety. With a normal IP address, a blogger can be tracked down and arrested. Anonymity allows them to keep their freedom (See “How to blog anonymously).

In countries where censorship holds sway, blogs are sometimes the only source of news. During the events in Burma in the autumn of 2007, pitting monks and the people against the military junta, bloggers were the main source of news for foreign journalists.

Their video footage made it possible to gauge the scale of the protests and what demonstrators’ demands were.

For more than two months, marches were held in the streets, then a massive crackdown was launched against opponents that only the Burmese were able to show, so hard did it become for the few foreign journalists who managed to enter the country to get back out with their footage.

And bloggers could not get the footage out without getting round online censorship imposed by the government.

This handbook seeks to help every blogger to fill in the “black holes” In news. The second part is devoted to techniques which can thwart filtering technology (Choosey our method to get round censorship by Nart Villeneuve).

With a little good sense and persistence and above all finding the technique best suited to the situation, every blogger should be capable of shaking off censorship.

Clothilde Le Coz
Head of the Internet Freedom desk

Note Anonymiss Express: contains





Download The HandBook from mediafire or read it on or download it from scribd 

Related posts:

  1. How To Bypass Internet Censorship

  2. Help users in Iran (and elsewhere) reach the internet

  3. #EGYPT: In case internet goes down 




The New Energy Movement



The New Energy Movement is dedicated to the study and promotion of advanced, clean, and sustainable energy sources for our imperiled planet.

We recognize that the single most highly-leveraged opportunity for advancement towards solving our complex global problems lies in a transformation of the way human civilization generates and utilizes energy.

We intend to lead humanity toward an enhanced economy and society made possible by exciting scientific advances in New Energy research and development.

Our primary task is to encourage intelligent public debate and action on how best to accelerate these advances, making a rapid transition away from our dangerous dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Our priority is to educate the general public, investors, journalists and energy policy-makers about the necessity to support the development of advanced energy technologies now emerging from the laboratories and work spaces of scientists and inventors all over the world.

These powerful New Energy sources include zero-point energy devices, magnetic generators, and advanced hydrogen processes.

Coupled with wind, solar, geo-thermal and other conventional alternative technologies, these advanced energy processes must be employed if we are to accomplish the Herculean task of shifting rapidly from our dangerous dependence on polluting technologies to clean, sustainable energy sources.

It is clear that without these advanced energy sources, we will not be able to act with the speed and scope demanded by the immense global emergency we face.

The New Energy Movement Educational Programs


The first international The New Energy Movement conference was held in September 2004 in Portland, Oregon. The next conference will be held again on the West Coast in 2007.

Beginning this fall, The New Energy Movement will also hold regional conferences and co-sponsor events developed by other prominent New Energy organizations such as Integrity Research Institute, New Energy Foundation, New Energy Congress and Tesla Tech.

Interaction with related organizations in Canada, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East is likely to result in co-sponsored gatherings elsewhere in the world.

Briefings for Journalists

The New Energy Movement will conduct briefings for mainstream print and broadcast journalists in North America. These events are designed to familiarize journalists and editors with the history, current status and future prospects of New Energy R&D.

Our purpose is to improve the currently inadequate coverage of New Energy, moving from benign neglect, censorship and distortion to fair and complete coverage of current developments.

We hope to stimulate a rebirth of investigative journalism, as well provide a context for accurate reporting by reporters covering science, the environment and business.

Briefings will also be held for other specialized audiences, including investors, public officials and leaders of environmental and social justice organizations.

New Energy Outreach

The New Energy Movement will develop audio-visual and print materials designed to reach out to specialized audiences and the general public.

We also envision the creation of local The New Energy Movement chapters and outreach to groups which will help spread the word about the importance of New Energy R&D. Possible groups include global climate change coalitions, Rotary International, the Sierra Club, etc.

New Energy Movement Foundation

Acting as a Foundation, The New Energy Movement will provide grants for vital complementary programs of closely allied New Energy organizations including New Energy Congress, Tesla Tech, New Energy Foundation, Integrity Research Institute and other prominent groups in North America and elsewhere.

Providing support for these organizations will assure a strong and cooperative movement, with results reflecting the strength of a united movement working together.

The New Energy Movement is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. For more information on The New Energy Movement, new energy technologies, becoming a member, and how you can help, contact us. Please share this information with others. Thank you.

Read complete Mission Statement



Fair Use Notice ):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~ Xaniel777


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: