White House Issues Press Release And Statements From President Obama For Michael Brown, But Not For Samantha Ramsey
Under The Radar Media
Aside from the obvious problem of having a enemy-occupied media, there is also the problem of the controlled media’s willingness to collude with its controlled assets within the enemy-occupied government, when convenient.
While it is not certain if the plan to “eventize” the shooting incident of Michael Brown (while downplaying similar events) came from the Obama Administration, or the Democratic National Committee(DNC), or some American intelligence agency, or from the smokey backroom of some major advertising agency, or some combination thereof, it is certain that the incident was intentionally manufactured to promote the idea of a nation-wide crisis.
This theory can be easily verified by examining the cases of the police shooting of Samantha Ramsey and the police shooting of Michael Brown. These were two similar incidents that happened just months apart from each other. The only two differences were that one of the victims was African-American and the other was Caucasian, and one incident was completely blown out of proportion and the other was mostly ignored. Interestingly enough, the Huffington Post let their readers know that the incident involving Samantha Ramsey was a “crime,” while the Michael Brown incident is “political” (see screenshot above).
On August 18, 2014 President Obama issued a statement on the shooting of Michael Brown and Ferguson, MO; announcing that his Justice Department was going to involved in the promotion of this event. Then on November 24, 2014, the president issued yet another statement on the Ferguson incident.
“As you know, a few moments ago, the grand jury deliberating the death of Samantha Ramsey issued its decision. It’s an outcome that, either way, was going to be subject of intense disagreement not only in Boone County, but across America. So I want to just say a few words suggesting how we might move forward.
First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make. There are Americans who agree with it, and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction. But I join Samantha’s parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully. Let me repeat Samantha’s father’s words: “Hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my daughter’s death to be in vain. I want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the Boone County region better for everyone.” Samantha Ramsey’s parents have lost more than anyone. We should be honoring their wishes.
I also appeal to the law enforcement officials in Boone County and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur. Understand, our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. They’ve got a tough job to do to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law. As they do their jobs in the coming days, they need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the handful of people who may use the grand jury’s decision as an excuse for violence — distinguish them from the vast majority who just want their voices heard around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact.
This audio file, documenting the mainstream media news coverage from Election Night 2008, is crucial listening. Consider this information as you sit glued to your TeeVee set Tuesday waiting for the results from Election Night 2012.
The 2012 Presidential Election Debate (Part 1)
Under The Radar Media
So what did you think of tonight’s first presidential debate/reality show? The two candidates sure did come across as awful convincing and quite caring about the concerns of the average American citizen didn’t they?
It’s obvious that the economy is the most important issue on the table at this time, so it goes without saying that this key domestic issue will dominate the first debate, if not all three of them. The candidates and the media-sponsored talking heads are perfectly comfortable in discussing taxes, tax cuts, job creation, Medicare/Medicaid etc, but there is no point in debating the current state of the economy if none of the key fundamental causes of the problems aren’t going to be addressed.
Another issue that won’t be discussed is a topic that the majority of Americans simply will not face; the issue of Jewish/Zionist dominance of the American political system. In fact, on December 4, 2009, the Israeli news service Ha’aretz reported that “every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.”
This stipulation is not limited to just US-Israeli policy; it has enumerable effects on both US domestic as well as US foreign policy issues. Perhaps some of the effects of those issue will be addressed over the next few posts.
What’s also most interesting is that the debate moderator Jim Lehrer, had to try to create and present a contrast between Obama and Romney. The not-so-dirty-secret is how similar these two clowns are on most if not all of the key issues that are likely to be addressed during the debates.
This is a video that explains in layman terms what happened to the housing market and the economy crash from the end of the Bush Administration and into the Obama Administration. Narration and research by Ryan Dawson of Rys2Sense.com. Please share this video with as many people as you can.
Under The Radar Media
In an interview given to Arab Voices, a Pacifica radio program, anti-war activist Denis Halliday was on to discuss President Obama’s announcement on the U.S. withdrawal of some of its troops from occupied Iraq. Halliday is a former UN Assistant Secretary General, and former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq (1997-1998). He resigned after a 34 year career with the UN to free himself of the constraints imposed on him and thereby speak out publicly on the terrible impact of UN economic sanctions on the people of Iraq.
At 49m55s into the interview, Halliday was posed with a question on whether American citizens, given the nation’s current Anti-Muslim hysteria and climate of fear, coupled with the desire to invade Iran should be concerned about the possibility of a false flag terror attack which could be used as another pretext for war.
Halliday anknowledged that Pearl Harbor was invented, as well as used as a pretext for the US to enter World War II, yet admitted that he was not so sure if he believed that 9/11 was the same type of event. Completely sidestepping the issue of a terror attack being used as a pretext to attack Iran, Halliday admitted he was well aware that people doubted the official story of 9/11, yet he could not wrap his mind around the concept that 9/11 could be anything other than Muslim retaliation against US military aggression.
Surprisingly, he seemed to blame 9/11 on Muslim anti-American sentiment over the military presence in Saudi Arabia. The host of Arab Voices, Said, countered that US foreign policy in the Middle East could not have been a justification for the 9/11 attacks as an act made in the name of Islam, since the killing of a human is forbidden according to the Quran.
It is almost unimaginable that someone with the breadth of knowledge of history and current events that Mr. Halliday holds could still be laboring under the delusion of 19 Muslim hijackers with the intent of committing Jihad as being the real culprits of the 9/11 staged media terror event. One must wonder if Mr. Halliday simply hasn’t bothered to review the extensive and exaustive 9/11 research that is easily available, or if he is aware of it but is worried about the stigma of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist,” or worse.
Mr. Halliday’s willingness to promote the government storyline is consistent with the other left leaning individuals and media outlet’s efforts to stifle any unapproved debate on 9/11 and US foreign policy. Liberal funny man John Stewart of the Daily Show recently took a swipe at anyone doubting the 9/11 Commission’s findings as he promoted his ‘Rally to Restore Sanity’.
Dr. Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff from the non-profit national media watchdog group Project Censored have recently been blackballed by the left-leaning Minuteman Media and Washington think tank The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) for suggesting “that the events of September 11th have all the trappings of a potential state crime against democracy.” Project Censored have long been well receieved by the liberal establishment, and has put its reputation on the line for daring to challenge the 9/11 Commission’s findings, and for promoting the controlled demolition theory of World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7.
David Ray Griffin’s excellent article Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement documents the phenomenon of left-leaning anti-war activists such as Mr. Halliday opposing the war, yet neglecting the very obvious reasons and machinations that got the US into these Middle East quagmires:
The Fear of Being Discredited
You are certainly right to fear that the left would be discredited by being aligned with a conspiracy theory that is scientifically unsupportable and even absurd. It is hard to imagine, however, what could discredit the left more than having many of its recognized leaders endorsing the Bush-Cheney administration’s 9/11 conspiracy theory, especially at a time when more and more scientists and people in relevant professions are pointing out its absurdities.
The Fear of Being Distracted
The second fear – that the focus on a false conspiracy theory has been distracting many people from more important matters – is equally valid. But this fear has been directed toward the wrong conspiracy theory. Nothing has distracted the United States and its allies from issues such as global apartheid, the ecological crisis, nuclear proliferation, and corporate power more than the “war on terror” – with its huge operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, its incessant terror alerts and stories of attacks prevented, and its depletion of our national treasuries. Lying at the root of this so-called war on terror, both historically and as present justification, is the official account of 9/11. So it is, as I wrote in response to Cockburn in Le Monde Diplomatique three years go, “The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.”
I recently completed a 15-city tour, presenting a lecture entitled “Is the War in Afghanistan Justified by 9/11?” My hope was that, by providing clear evidence that it is not – because the official account of 9/11 is false from beginning to end – “the 9/11 Truth Movement and more traditional Peace and Anti-War groups [would] be able to combine forces to oppose this illegal and immoral war.” I have written the present essay with the same hope.
President Barack Obama’s recent bizarre statement about “absorbing a terror attack”, along with Senator Lindsey Graham’s outrageous assertions that “there’s going to be an attack,” and “we have to get hit again,” have spurred a false debate on the political left and the right as the mainstream media/banking/military complex appears to be conditioning the public for a host of horrible events.