Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
Daily ReCasts 7pm Central-Standard-Time
ANOMALY RADIO NETWORK
Mike Ruppert addresses those police officers who have begun a campaign of violent and brutal attacks at some of the Occupy Wall Street protesters around the country, and around the world.
Posted in CommUnity, Parapolitical Friday, Police State, Politics | No Comments »
Scott Horton On Iran’s Nuclear Program.
In a panel discussion, Scott Horton dispels the myths about Iran’s nuclear program.
Posted in Military, News, Parapolitical Friday, ParaPolitics, Politics, Science, Technology, Video | No Comments »
Posted in Globalism, Government, Parapolitical Friday, ParaPolitics, Video | No Comments »
Posted in Conspiracy, Drugs, Government, News, Parapolitical Friday, ParaPolitics, Video, War | No Comments »
WARNING: Graphic Before and After Images Later in Video
Santa Ana – Police officers who continued to taser a homeless man as he lay in a pool of blood, so badly beaten he was unrecognizable, are facing charges which could lead to prison sentences.On Sept 5 Thomas Kelly, a 37-year-old schizophrenic homeless man, was so badly beaten and tasered by Fullerton California police officers that he was left unrecognizable. He died five days later. The attack by six police officers was captured on
Read more: Fullerton police officers behind bars for taser death.
Posted in News, Parapolitical Friday, Police State, Video | No Comments »
By David Icke
David Icke.com
October 21, 2011
The little boy in short trousers and school cap who claims to be US president says that the demise of the man who took Libya from one of the poorest countries in the world to the highest standard of living in Africa is a ‘momentous day’ for Libyans as they survey the mass death and destruction in their country wreaked by their NATO ‘liberators’ (new colonialists).
Gadaffi was no ‘angel’, but what will follow will be far worse. It already is.
No words suffice to describe this man who is so dark of eye and dark of soul.
—————————————————————
Uploaded by TheJay4louise on Oct 20, 2011
Uploaded by TheJay4louise on Oct 20, 2011
Posted in News, Parapolitical Friday, ParaPolitics, Video, War | No Comments »
Song of the Day: ‘Electric Avenue,’ Eddy Grant
By Tris McCall/The Star-Ledger
Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 3:00 PMIn May, the warning shots were fired in Madrid. This weekend, Rome was burning. Even in New York City, where the marches were peaceful, more than 70 people were arrested. In what must have felt like a flashback to the 1968 Democratic Convention, 175 were cuffed by Chicago police in Grant Park on Sunday evening. Saturday was another international Day of Rage, and, increasingly, that is no hyperbole. The anger is palpable, and the action is real.
It is right, but irrelevant, to point out that many of the protesters don’t exactly know why they’re there. For better and for worse, that is the hallmark of a consequential movement. It may yet end in tears, but it’s not going out in a whimper. During the revolutions that swept through Europe in 1848, few of the rioters on the barricades had full understanding of what they were doing on the streets and why they were risking their lives. They were there because they felt like they had to be; that it was the only recourse available to them. Pull aside a protester at Zuccotti Park, or in Grant Park, or in Puerta del Sol in Madrid, and you will find the same resolve. People are there because they feel like they have to be. At the moment, that’s the only rationale that matters.
Populist uprisings often act as inkblot tests. After time has passed, those who appoint themselves the narrators of history conduct a public search for reasons. Ask five political theorists or newspaper journalists to explain why London rioted this August, and you will get five different answers — each one tailored to reinforce the storyteller’s version of events. One will tell you that it was a blow struck against capitalism, another that it was a reaction to a runaway police force, and another will blame it on hooligans who need to meet the business end of a billy club. But history is not logical, and effects proceed from causes messily at best. A spontaneous action is something like a Spin-Art: colors splattering all over a canvas that’s anything but fixed, and nobody really sure what it’s going to look like when it sets. The middle of a popular uprising is a zone of pure kinetic energy, one that shares much of the hypnotic power of the disco (which is why so many of the songs that come from uprisings are so danceable). How that energy will be channeled on any given day is impossible to predict — and impossible to recover afterward. Historians are still arguing about what happened in Brixton and Lambeth in 1981. Margaret Thatcher and Eddy Grant will never see eye to eye about Bloody Saturday and the riots that shook Brixton in ’81, and again in ’85. They’ll go to their graves with separate and wholly incommensurate accounts of the events; both will walk away, as Phil Ochs put it so forcefully in “Flower Lady,” knowing they are right.
Grant’s account has the force of documentary realism. Electric Avenue is not just a metaphor for the high street during a protest — it’s the main shopping district of Brixton, and the first market in Greater London to be lit by electric streetlamps. Many of the complaints in “Electric Avenue” resonate strongly with the feelings of inequality that make these days smolder with rage. And in Grant’s attempt to determine “who is to blame in what country?,” there’s that inevitable search for a scapegoat. What would Grant’s narrator do if he ever could “get to the one,” as he sings in verse three? What would the current worldwide protesters do?
I was ten years old when I first saw this video. I knew nothing about the Brixton riots and little about the reggae tradition of dissent that Grant was drawing from; I might have heard Bob Marley on the block, but his struggle wasn’t mine. At least I didn’t think so. All I knew was that it bugged me out.The graininess of the film, the seediness of the avenue, the faceless paramilitary motorbikers, the self-righteousness of the narrator, the weird whiff of eugenics in the last stanza; none of that made sense, but it sure was suggestive. A few years later, I would realize why Grant kept drowning and washing up on the beach — I’d understand why he couldn’t make it to the television set that he abhorred. Years after that, I’d see friends of mine falling in that bottomless pool between the sofa and the TV, and I’d even see a few wash up on the shores under police searchlights. Everything Grant communicated so effectively in “Electric Avenue” still applies. The resentment is still with us; as the dollar continues its inexorable fall, it’s going to get worse. Anybody who is not worried right now — police, protesters, and Presidents, bankers and broke students all alike — hasn’t been paying attention.
More #OccupyNews
Posted in CommUnity, Government, Humanity, News, Parapolitical Friday, ParaPolitics, Politics, Video | No Comments »
Press TV taken off air in UK – war for freedom of speech now on
Patrick Henningsen
Infowars.com
October 14, 2011
In case you are not yet aware, OfCom, Britain’s Office of Communications, decided to take Press TV off air in the UK this week. The significance of this move by the state regulator should not be underestimated. The battle for free speech is definitely on.
With this move, the state apparatus has all but declared war on a foreign network’s ability to broadcast a political perspective that differs from the consensus reality line. Note that the state, particularly in the UK, will spend millions per year in order to enforce a rolling agenda of talking points. In the US will also spend billions to ensure the same thing.
Today London’s Telegraph newspaper reported:
“The foreign arm of the Iranian state broadcaster is to pulled off the British airwaves after media regulator revoked its broadcasting license.
Press TV, the channel which acts as the overseas mouthpiece of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government, has been told by Ofcom that it breached broadcasting rules with its interview of a journalist who was imprisioned in an Iranian jail and forced to read from a prepared script.
The ruling comes after a year-long investigation by Ofcom into the claims made by Maziar Bahari, a journalist for Newsweek, the US magazine, who was filmed by Press TV while imprisioned in Tehran for nearly four months. He was arrested while covering the 2009 Iranian Presidential elections.”
With this move, a new front in the infowars has truly opened up. It’s not just about winning over minds and getting the info out. It is now about being able to get that info out there. It’s about preserving the free speech platform where we can receive and deliver all that valuable information. And we are up against the state.
Over the last eight years, I’ve involved myself in the battle- the one which Alex Jones and others have referred to as the Information War. The first step was getting informed, and the second step was getting involved by creating content which, up to this point, has relied heavily on the internet’s free speech platform. From this open platform, even an individual could broadcast locally, regionally and globally, disseminating information that would otherwise not get to these audiences.
Active internet news hounds like this writer, in search of alternative views that differ from the corporate mainstream media conglomerates could not believe their eyes when Press TV, a 24-hour English language global news network launched online in January 2007, followed by the TV launch later. It seemed to be the only place in the UK where one could go to catch a completely different, fresh take on domestic and world events. For sure, it had an edge.
Ofcom’s legal reasons for pulled down the network was an administrative one, citing a breach in the broadcasting code and some administrative problems with Press TV’s application as the reason.
Press TV’s response today was at the UK ban was predictably defiant:
“The British media regulator’s decision is considered to be an abuse of the UK media law and the result of mounting pressure on the organization by certain members of the royal family and government.
As an alternative international media outlet, Press TV took pains to break the mainstream media’s total silence on the violations of international law and human rights committed by the UK government at home and abroad.
The fact that Press TV is Iranian owned and operated, has drawn heavy fire from certain establishment and government critics who accuse it of being ‘bias’ towards an Iranian agenda. If only that were a prerequisite for taking a media network off the air. If it were, you could expect that Britain’s state broadcaster, the BBC, would have its license revoked overnight in foreign countries around the world.
certainly, the main reason for the west’s aggressive attitude toward Press TV is that, according to the US State Department, Iran is meant to be an enemy of the United States, Europe and Israel. If you’ve been paying attention, the war drum against Iran has not stopped beating since Dick Cheney and John Bolton began pounding it early in 2004.
If a war with Iran is on the cards, eliminating Press TV in the UK and the US will be a top priority for governments in those countries, as Press TV will be broadcasting a different view than the BBC or CNN. This would be very problematic for the establishment.
The US and Britain, who built their empires on the powerful illusion of media, simply cannot accept that a country like Iran could win-over English speaking audiences, doing a better job reporting the news than the likes of CNN or the BBC. Worse yet, they cannot accept anything other than an anti-Iranian perspective portrayed through the TV lens.
Chris Bambery, a political analyst in London explains the possible motivation behind Britain’s move:
“To me Press TV has a much wider range of debate than it is available on BBC, with views of people who support their Republican Party in the United States, who support free market policies in this country. I have debated with those people and I think Press TV has done an startling job here and that is precisely why, I believe, it is being taken off because as the reporter just said, we know there has been pressure from a number of lobbies in this country, from the Foreign Office and inside the BBC to take Press TV off the air.”
Will the state be moving in on another foreign network next?
Following the strength of Press TV, in August 2007 arrived Russia Today (RT), another 24 hr global news network that offered an incredibly diverse band of news and opinion, not seen before on TV. Before long, RT became the second most-watched foreign news channel in the United States, after the BBC, and also set a TV News Channel record after exceeding a view count on YouTube of half a billion.
Like Press TV, the staff at RT remained committed to delivering an even more challenging slate of programming, with it’s strap-line, “RT: question more.” It has kept its overwhelmingly anti-war, anti-globalist and pro-humanity agenda, and is generally resistant to the usual propaganda lines which are streamlined through the Murdoch media press, routinely churned out of the Whitehall, Tel Aviv, White House and US State Department.
I found myself becoming RT’s number one fan, so I did not hesitate when I was invited by them to contribute on air. I didn’t know anyone in the organisation, had no contacts and no introductions. They simply liked my writing and were willing to give me a shot on live TV. To date, no editor at RT has ever censored or attempted to censor anything I have said, or even ask me to alter my opinion on any subject.
This type of network practice is very, very rare in today’s corporate media matrix and for this reason, interested audiences around the world need to be vigilant and support free speech when it comes under attack from the host state.
The Britain’s unofficial censorship unit Ofcom has obviously recognised the ability of countries like Iran to produce slick, polished and balanced programming- and deliver it with a high degree of professionalism. And in TV, the rating don’t lie. The establishment know full well that both Press TV and RT have attracted millions of viewers- viewers who will never go back to the BBC News, SKY News or ITV News.
The battle begins. Today it is a ‘foreign’ TV network like Press TV that is being targeted, and taken down by the state.
Tomorrow, it could be RT… and after that, who knows? Will it be hundreds of ‘foreign’ internet news websites like Infowars.com.
This latest victory for the censors is a move backwards for Britain, and it strikes deep into the heart of our free society- a society that generations have fought long and hard to arrive at.
Support Press TV, support RT. If you really live in a free society, you should be able to watch and support any network that you choose to.
Have no doubt, the infowar is well and truly on.
-
Author Patrick Henningsen is an Associate Editor for Infowars, Editor of 21st Century Wire and news analyst for TV network Russia Today.
Posted in News, Parapolitical Friday, ParaPolitics, Politics, TV News | No Comments »
Jake Tapper vs. Jay Carney on President Killing U.S. Citizens.
@ 4:28 — Scahill: “President Obama has made it acceptable for many liberals who otherwise would have been protesting or objecting to it…”
…
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 30, 2011 Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/30/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney
…
Q Thank you, Jay. On the killings of al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, does the President believe a different standard applies when the target, in this case al-Awlaki, is a U.S. citizen? Does the President view al Qaeda senior operatives in the same vein, or does he have a different standard of proof when the target is an American citizen?
MR. CARNEY: Jim, you heard the President speak today about al-Awlaki’s death and why that is a significant event. He was a principal leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the most operational affiliate, if you will, of al Qaeda. And he himself was directly involved in plotting terrorist attacks against the United States and American citizens, including the so-called underwear bomber who attempted to bomb an airliner in December of 2009, and the failed attempt to bomb cargo planes headed to the United States.
So in the overall effort, the sustained effort to continue to put pressure on al Qaeda, this is a significant fact that al-Awlaki is dead. Questions about the circumstances of his death I’m not going to get into. So I think the question that you just asked contains within it assumptions that I just won’t address.
Q The question is, is there a greater burden of proof simply because he’s a U.S. citizen than there would be if you were going after another –
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think that just goes to the assumptions about the circumstances of his death, and I’m not going to address that.
Q Well, is the administration prepared to lay out the evidence that it had against him? You spelled out the instances where you think he was operational, but can you show where that could be –
MR. CARNEY: Separate from, again, the events, the fact of his death today, that he was a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and was operationally involved in serious attempted terrorist attacks against the United States and Americans is an established fact that we’ve talked about for a long time from here, and we have talked about for a long time about how dangerous AQAP is, and that’s been a focus of ours.
And that’s why our cooperation with Yemen, militarily and with intelligence and diplomatically with Yemen, has been so important. And this is — it certainly reflects on the partnership that we have had in that effort with Yemen and with the Yemeni officials and why that is so important to continue. And that’s the same — in to overall effort that we’ve made there are many components to it. And when we talk, as I did yesterday, about Pakistan and the complicated but important relationship with Pakistan, our cooperation with Pakistan has helped us in the efforts against al Qaeda. And certainly our cooperation with Yemen has done the same.
Q Does the administration make a distinction between his role as an inspirational leader and an operational leader? And was their a tipping point — is there a tipping point that you guys can point to?
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, he certainly — there is no question he was engaged in inspirational efforts, or that he was a recruiter for al Qaeda. But he was also very demonstrably, and provably, involved in operational aspects of AQAP. He was a senior leader. But those are statements of fact, same as I would have said last week if you’d have asked me. But again, in terms of everything relating to the circumstances, I think I’ve said all I can say about that.
…
Q Getting back to the events in Yemen. Did the President personally order or approve the attack?
MR. CARNEY: I’m going to go back to what I said to Jim. The circumstances of his death I’m not going to address. And what I will say is what I said to Jim about who he was, the threat he posed. The fact that — and this is significant, and it goes to our cooperation both with Yemeni officials and counterparts, but also around the region and why it’s so important — because we cannot forget that the victims, the principal victims of the violence perpetrated by AQAP — al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — were Muslims, in Yemen. And as a leader of AQAP he was responsible for that.
Again, going into the circumstances of his death is not something I’m going to do from here.
Q Well, his focus was primarily international, though, because of his English language capabilities, his abilities on the net in radicalizing English-speaking Muslims. What effect do you think his death will have on efforts by AQAP to destabilize the governments of Yemen and Saudi Arabia?
MR. CARNEY: Well, there is no question that this is a serious blow to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. But we remain extremely vigilant. That affiliate, that organization remains very dangerous and very — has proven itself to be operational and capable. So the vigilance continues — as it has in the wake of the successful mission against Osama bin Laden. Obviously al Qaeda remains a threat, and a serious threat, and one that we continue to confront in a variety of ways.
So while this is an important milestone, it is not the end of AQAP and it doesn’t change our posture, if you will, towards that organization.
…
MR. CARNEY: I mean that he was notified when he was still in the residence. And then this morning, once he came to the Oval, he had his normal PDB daily briefing, intel briefing, and this was obviously a subject there in that discussion.
Q So going back, nobody questions that both this administration and the prior have identified AQAP as a threat. Other U.S. officials have said this was a U.S. drone, and we know this is an American. So don’t the American people deserve to understand our government’s justification for killing — or deciding where and when an American can be killed, in this case someone who is unindicted? Can you speak at least hypothetically to legal justifications for killing Americans?
MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to speak hypothetically, and I’m not going to speak about the circumstances of his death. And I don’t — I’m not aware of anyone by name who has made the kind of statements that you’ve said who is a member of the government.
Q Can you explain then why you won’t get into any of the specifics of what’s gone on here? We know that — we’ve all been reporting that a U.S. drone has been involved, that there’s U.S. involvement in this attack, that this is an American. Help us understand why you’re not sharing any more detail.
MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not going to get into the circumstances of Awlaki’s death. I would simply say that we are asked questions like that all the time, and our response is the same, which is that we cooperate with partners around the world — whether it’s in Pakistan or Yemen — in taking the fight to al Qaeda, and that cooperation takes many different forms. It’s vital to the success that we’ve had in degrading al Qaeda — and by “we” I mean collectively with our partners. And that effort continues. But I’m not going to get into the specific circumstances of his death.
Jake.
Q You said that Awlaki was demonstrably and provably involved in operations. Do you plan on demonstrating –
MR. CARNEY: I should step back. He is clearly — I mean “provably” may be a legal term. I think it has been well established, and it has certainly been the position of this administration and the previous administration that he is a leader in — was a leader in AQAP; that AQAP was a definite threat, was operational, planned and carried out terrorist attacks that, fortunately, did not succeed, but were extremely serious — including the ones specifically that I mentioned, in terms of the would-be Christmas Day bombing in 2009 and the attempt to bomb numerous cargo planes headed for the United States. And he was obviously also an active recruiter of al Qaeda terrorists. So I don’t think anybody in the field would dispute any of those assertions.
Q You don’t think anybody else in the government would dispute that?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I wouldn’t know of any credible terrorist expert who would dispute the fact that he was a leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and that he was operationally involved in terrorist attacks against American interests and citizens.
Q Do you plan on bringing before the public any proof of these charges?
MR. CARNEY: Again, the question makes us — has embedded within it assumptions about the circumstances of his death that I’m just not going to address.
Q How on earth does it have — I really don’t understand. How does — he’s dead. You are asserting that he had operational control of the cargo plot and the Abdulmutallab plot. He’s now dead. Can you tell us, or the American people — or has a judge been shown –
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, Jake, I’m not going to go any further than what I’ve said about the circumstances of his death and –
Q I don’t even understand how they’re tied.
MR. CARNEY: — the case against him, which, again, you’re linking. And I think that –
Q You said that he was responsible for these things.
MR. CARNEY: Yes, but again –
Q Is there going to be any evidence presented?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything for you on that.
Q Do you not see at all — does the administration not see at all how a President asserting that he has the right to kill an American citizen without due process, and that he’s not going to even explain why he thinks he has that right is troublesome to some people?
MR. CARNEY: I wasn’t aware of any of those things that you said actually happening. And again, I’m not going to address the circumstances of Awlaki’s death. I think, again, it is an important fact that this terrorist, who was actively plotting — had plotted in the past, and was actively plotting to attack Americans and American interests, is dead. But I’m not going to — from any angle — discuss the circumstances of his death.
Q Do you know that the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU tried to get permission to represent Awlaki? And his father had asked them to do that. But they needed to get permission from the Treasury Department so that they could challenge his being on this targeted killing list. And the administration, the Obama administration refused to let them represent him, to not even — he couldn’t even have the ACLU representing him.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would send those questions, or take those questions to Treasury or Justice. I don’t have anything on that for you.
Q What do you think constitutional law professor Barack Obama would make of this?
MR. CARNEY: I think he spoke about it today.
Norah.
Q Sorry, just one more time on this. Can you just explain more broadly under what legal authority the U.S. government can kill an American citizen abroad?
MR. CARNEY: I think I’ve had that question. It’s not a question, taken out of context, that I would have an answer to. Generally speaking — and I’m certainly not going to answer a question like that in any way that relates to the events of today. I’m not going to talk about the circumstances of Awlaki’s death, and I’m not going to acknowledge or concede or accept premises embedded in questions. And you should take no response that I give here to have done that because I’m not talking about the circumstances.
Q I mean, after 9/11, President Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, the authority to kill a U.S. citizen abroad if they were plotting attacks on the United States. And then, it is correct that President Obama continued that — yes?
MR. CARNEY: That’s a question I would have to take, and I think would probably be best addressed to the Justice Department.
…
Q Can you explain to us how the U.S. confirmed his death, since there have — he’s been dead before and then found alive. Is it only a Yemeni source, or did the U.S. government –
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have an answer to that, actually. I don’t know.
Q — U.S. government confirmation, but U.S. government is 100 percent sure that he’s dead?
MR. CARNEY: As I understand it, but I don’t have a specific — in terms of whether that came from the Yemenis or –
Q Samir Khan — there has been a report that he was also killed in this strike. Do you have confirmation on –
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any information on anyone except for Awlaki.
Q And again, you don’t know how that confirmation was — is there a way to get an answer –
MR. CARNEY: I’m not saying I don’t have that confirmation, so I wouldn’t know where others are getting it. I’m just saying I don’t have it to give.
Q So what are the chances of organizing a briefing on these questions today? Could we do that?
MR. CARNEY: Well, actually, I think — what I’m saying here is that we’re not going to address circumstances of his death. So I wouldn’t anticipate a briefing on it.
Q I thought you were making some distinctions between what you can’t answer because you don’t know the answers and maybe –
MR. CARNEY: Well, that’s true. But specifically in terms of notification and things like that, but –
Q Well, can we get a briefing to at least –
MR. CARNEY: We’ll see. I’ll take that question about notification and where it came from.
Q Is there DNA? Because with bin Laden there was DNA.
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have any details on that.
…
Q Jay, separate from the Awlaki matter, can you say or confirm that the President is able to designate individuals on a CIA capture or kill list?
MR. CARNEY: Mark, I can’t. I don’t have an answer to that. So if there’s anything that we’re able to say about that, I can take your question. But, again, I’m not going to get into backdoor ways to try to discuss the circumstances of that.
Q Didn’t Panetta confirm that earlier in the year?
MR. CARNEY: I would have to — again, I don’t know what discussions have been had about that in the past. I can look at that. But I want to make clear that in doing that I’m not discussing the circumstances here.
…
Q Again on Awlaki, at Fort Myer, the President said that this operation was a tribute to our intelligence community and to the efforts of Yemen and its security forces. Can we then infer that this was a covert CIA operation without U.S. military involvement?
MR. CARNEY: No.
Q — did not mention the military.
MR. CARNEY: I think the point is, is that we, broadly speaking, have had a cooperative relationship at a variety of levels with our Yemeni counterparts, and that has been the case for a certain amount of time now and continues to be the case today.
Q Well, I’m just — the reason I ask is that obviously in the case of the bin Laden raid where there was a JSOC involvement, that was pretty clear from the outset. Based on what the President says, it appears there is no such JSOC involvement in this operation.
MR. CARNEY: Again, I’m not going to — by parsing his words or anyone else’s — get led down the path of trying to — of discussing details of the circumstances of his death. I’m just not going to do it.
Q And then just one more. You said that the U.S. decision on Saleh and the disposition of Saleh is not related to the Awlaki operation. Does that also mean that the timing of Saleh’s return to Yemen has no connection to what happened with Awlaki? There’s no linkage between that — he arrived one week before Awlaki was killed?
MR. CARNEY: There is no connection to my knowledge.
…
Posted in Parapolitical Friday, ParaPolitics, Video | No Comments »
Posted in News, Parapolitical Friday, ParaPolitics, Politics, Video | No Comments »
