Oops….another paid actor/MAGA fake whistleblower has been caught lying under oath to congress, Garret O’boyle.
He definitely lied about being suspended from the FBI for illegally downloading classified FBI data and handing it to Project Veritas, claiming he had never talked to the media despite the FBI producing proof he had.
I would say another fraudulent MAGA witch hunt “investigation” falls apart, but this one fell apart before it started. An investigation on other “weaponization of the federal government” that doesn’t investigate anything before Jan 20, 2021 and uses disgraced ex agents and paid actors as “witnesses” and “whistleblowers”, has no actual evidence presented just baseless accusations, and the MAGA chair of the committee himself is engaged in weaponizing the federal government to attempt to shield Trump from prosecutions is obviously deeply flawed on its face and illegitimate from the start.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Peter Garret, Oils, Protest Rock, Australian, 80s, Midnight Oil, Power and the Passio' to 'Peter Garret, Oils, Protest Rock, Australian, 80s, Midnight Oil, Power and the Passion' - edited by lurgee

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Peter Garret, Oils, Protest Rock, Australian, 80s' to 'Peter Garret, Oils, Protest Rock, Australian, 80s, Midnight Oil, Power and the Passio' - edited by lurgee

With all due respect, hijackings are not the primary threat as the means to accomplish such deeds have been handily remedied by fairly simply and minimally intrusive procedures and technology.

Things that go boom....
>> ^L0cky:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You all know who we REALLY need to profile: primarily swarthy Middle Eastern men ages 18 - 40 and behind them Middle Eastern women wearing any kind of "cloak". Unfortunately, the acolytes of political correctness don't give a sh!t if their cowardice is lethal.
I challenge that as an assumption, one that is generally held by most people (even liberals). So I actually decided to do some research; imagine that!
Before I started I'd say my opinion was that I was sceptical about any useful correlation between terrorism and race or citizenship but if any strong correlation could be found then it may be possible to convince me that it becomes a question of weighing the security benefits against the offence caused to individuals.
It's also my opinion (and still is) that the mainstream media continues to portray correlation between terrorism in the US and UK and Islamists through consistent inference, without ever stating it as fact; and therefore not requiring validation or providing opportunity to be directly contested.
I looked at the list of notable aircraft hijackings on wikipedia and followed them up via the references and/or additional searching. My conclusion is that if any profiling is used in America then it would be most useful to target middle aged white American men; and any Americans citizens with flying experience.
Here are names of people who did board a plane at a US airport and then subsequently hijacked the aircraft:
John J Divivo
D. B. Cooper (pseudonym)
Billy Gene Hurst Jr
Garret Trapnell
Melvin C. Cale, Louis Cale, Henry D. Jackson, Jr.
Clay Thomas
Aubern Calloway
There was a spate of hijackings by both Americans and Cubans in the 60's and 70's; mostly for political reasons that was mostly quelled by a Cuban-American agreement; and there was a notable incident of a hijacking by Croatian separatists in '76. Other than that, hijackings were overwhelmingly committed by white and black Americans.
Doing a more general search I couldn't actually find any hijacking of aircraft by middle eastern or Muslim passengers who boarded a plane at a US airport, apart from 9/11.
The most recent hijacking prior to 9/11 was Aubern Calloway; a black American and former pilot for FedEx who had a personal beef with his employees.
I also continued reading about non air related terrorism in the US and UK and found that the vast majority of incidents are domestic and carried out by non Muslim, non middle eastern men. I also noticed that whenever the individual perpetrators of an incident are unknown, then it will generally be attributed to an Islamic organisation; but when the perpetrators are found they are almost always non Muslim. This remains true in recent times, as well as in past history.
You can make a pretty decent start with this list of terrorist incidents; however it must be pointed out that it's generally difficult to define what is and what is not an act of terrorism; and as the issue is about security then I think what we're really interested in is any destructive and harmful incident.
To be honest I was quite surprised by the extent to which there is a lack of correlation; as well as the extreme rarity of terrorist incidents when compared to the media representation that we get of them.
If you ever find yourself wondering if anyone around you is a terrorist then the only people you can really discount are women and children. I'd therefore offer that it would be much more useful and give you a much happier day if you just stopped wondering altogether.
Hey, maybe D. B. Cooper was secretly a Muslim.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You all know who we REALLY need to profile: primarily swarthy Middle Eastern men ages 18 - 40 and behind them Middle Eastern women wearing any kind of "cloak". Unfortunately, the acolytes of political correctness don't give a sh!t if their cowardice is lethal.

I challenge that as an assumption, one that is generally held by most people (even liberals). So I actually decided to do some research; imagine that!

Before I started I'd say my opinion was that I was sceptical about any useful correlation between terrorism and race or citizenship but if any strong correlation could be found then it may be possible to convince me that it becomes a question of weighing the security benefits against the offence caused to individuals.

It's also my opinion (and still is) that the mainstream media continues to portray correlation between terrorism in the US and UK and Islamists through consistent inference, without ever stating it as fact; and therefore not requiring validation or providing opportunity to be directly contested.

I looked at the list of notable aircraft hijackings on wikipedia and followed them up via the references and/or additional searching. My conclusion is that if any profiling is used in America then it would be most useful to target middle aged white American men; and any Americans citizens with flying experience.

Here are names of people who did board a plane at a US airport and then subsequently hijacked the aircraft:

John J Divivo
D. B. Cooper (pseudonym)
Billy Gene Hurst Jr
Garret Trapnell
Melvin C. Cale, Louis Cale, Henry D. Jackson, Jr.
Clay Thomas
Aubern Calloway

There was a spate of hijackings by both Americans and Cubans in the 60's and 70's; mostly for political reasons that was mostly quelled by a Cuban-American agreement; and there was a notable incident of a hijacking by Croatian separatists in '76. Other than that, hijackings were overwhelmingly committed by white and black Americans.

Doing a more general search I couldn't actually find any hijacking of aircraft by middle eastern or Muslim passengers who boarded a plane at a US airport, apart from 9/11.

The most recent hijacking prior to 9/11 was Aubern Calloway; a black American and former pilot for FedEx who had a personal beef with his employees.

I also continued reading about non air related terrorism in the US and UK and found that the vast majority of incidents are domestic and carried out by non Muslim, non middle eastern men. I also noticed that whenever the individual perpetrators of an incident are unknown, then it will generally be attributed to an Islamic organisation; but when the perpetrators are found they are almost always non Muslim. This remains true in recent times, as well as in past history.

You can make a pretty decent start with this list of terrorist incidents; however it must be pointed out that it's generally difficult to define what is and what is not an act of terrorism; and as the issue is about security then I think what we're really interested in is any destructive and harmful incident.

To be honest I was quite surprised by the extent to which there is a lack of correlation; as well as the extreme rarity of terrorist incidents when compared to the media representation that we get of them.

If you ever find yourself wondering if anyone around you is a terrorist then the only people you can really discount are women and children. I'd therefore offer that it would be much more useful and give you a much happier day if you just stopped wondering altogether.

Hey, maybe D. B. Cooper was secretly a Muslim.

ohh read my sifttalk. Garret Johnson coins the term "hypercapitalism"
http://www.videosift.com/talk/Economic-Policy-is-A-Tool-For-Capitalists

Good government is hard to engineer, but anyone can tell when it goes bad.
Yes?

OMG, that bad guy is played by Garret Dillahunt, who played two different roles in the brilliant HBO series "Deadwood", both of them of the coolest ever created! I really need to see this movie!

Wow. Who thought it was a good idea to invite Brad Garret onto Fox and Friends? He was only operating at like half capacity there and was still accused of being offensive.

in the thumbnail, mrs. garret is seen holding her 18" double ended black-mambo

There was an excellent article written about this very idea in Harper's by Garret Keizer titled Specific Suggestion: General Strike, quote:

"Of all the various depredations of the Bush regime, none has been so thorough as its plundering of hope. Iraq will recover sooner. What was supposed to have been the crux of our foreign policy—a shock-and-awe tutorial on the utter futility of any opposition to the whims of American power—has achieved its greatest and perhaps its only lasting success in the American soul. You will want to cite the exceptions, the lunch-hour protests against the war, the dinner-party ejaculations of dissent, though you might also want to ask what substantive difference they bear to grousing about the weather or even to raging against the dying of the light—that is, to any ritualized complaint against forces universally acknowledged as unalterable. Bush is no longer the name of a president so much as the abbreviation of a proverb, something between Murphy’s Law and tomorrow’s fatal inducement to drink and be merry today.

If someone were to suggest, for example, that we begin a general strike on Election Day, November 6, 2007, for the sole purpose of removing this regime from power, how readily and with what well-practiced assurance would you find yourself producing the words “It won’t do any good”? Plausible and even courageous in the mouth of a patient who knows he’s going to die, the sentiment fits equally well in the heart of a citizen-ry that believes it is already dead.

Any strike, whether it happens in a factory, a nation, or a marriage, amounts to a reaffirmation of consent. The strikers remind their overlords—and, equally important, themselves—that the seemingly perpetual machinery of daily life has an off switch as well as an on. Camus said that the one serious question of philosophy is whether or not to commit suicide; the one serious question of political philosophy is whether or not to get out of bed. Silly as it may have seemed at the time, John and Yoko’s famous stunt was based on a profound observation. Instant karma is not so instant—we ratify it day by day.

The stream of commuters heading into the city, the caravan of tractor-trailers pulling out of the rest stop into the dawn’s early light, speak a deep-throated Yes to the sum total of what’s going on in our collective life. The poet Richard Wilbur writes of the “ripped mouse” that “cries Concordance” in the talons of the owl; we too cry our daily assent in the grip of the prevailing order— except in those notable instances when, like a donkey or a Buddha, we refuse to budge.

The question we need to ask ourselves at this moment is what further provocations we require to justify digging in our heels. To put the question more pointedly: Are we willing to wait until the next presidential election, or for some interim congressional conversion experience, knowing that if we do wait, hundreds of our sons and daughters will be needlessly destroyed? Another poet, César Vallejo, framed the question like this:

A man shivers with cold, coughs, spits up blood.
Will it ever be fitting to allude to my inner soul? . . .
A cripple sleeps with one foot on his shoulder.
Shall I later on talk about Picasso, of all people?

A young man goes to Walter Reed without a face. Shall I make an appointment with my barber? A female prisoner is sodomized at Abu Ghraib. Shall I send a check to the Clinton campaign? "

Those bongs were later found in Mrs. Garrets room during episode 312, by the coroner.