I Have a DreamWorks

Moderators: Project Willow, DrVolin, Wombaticus Rex, Jeff

Re: I Have a DreamWorks

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:21 am

More accurately named-

the Pentagon Recruiters' DREAM Act.

"Yum yum. Hungry brown people ready to sign up!"
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Jim Morrison pardon, Wesley Snipes to prison, "don't ask"

Postby MinM » Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:22 pm

Image
On the Radar: Jim Morrison pardon, Wesley Snipes to prison, "don't ask" – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs
Image
Image
The Sarah Palin fan that gave you the 1993 piece of counterpropaganda to Oliver Stone's JFK (1991).

Is coincidentally enough coming out with his own East(Holly)wood version of Hoover "History"

Eastwood on Hoover film: DiCaprio in, Phoenix out | Reuters

Just as Wesley Snipes is trying to do what Oliver Stone did 20 years ago.
Image
Wesley Snipes Backs Film About CIA-led MLK Project
streeb wrote:
Wesley Snipes Backs Film About CIA-led MLK Project

Wesley Snipes is involved in the 1960′s-set thriller “Code Name Zorro,” a biopic of the man who headed up the CIA’s top secret Zorro project designed to destroy Martin Luther King’s credibility.

According to Deadline, the film centers on the final moments in the life of William Sullivan, who’s Zorro project was initiated by J. Edgar Hoover and included tactics such as wiretapping and fraud to set up numerous illegal schemes.

Sullivan intended to air all of the dirty laundry about the project to a journalist, but was killed in a “hunting accident” shortly thereafter.

Justin Stamm penned the script and Snipes has received endorsement from Martin Luther King Jr.’s son, Martin Luther King III.

Snipes will produce, be involved in selecting cast and director, and will likely play a role though which one is presently undetermined.


link

Government-by-Blackmail: the J Edgar Hoover edition - Democratic Underground

viewtopic.php?p=309181#p309181

viewtopic.php?p=119507#p119507

Image
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I Have a DreamWorks

Postby brekin » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:08 pm

streeb wrote:

Quote:
Wesley Snipes Backs Film About CIA-led MLK Project

Wesley Snipes is involved in the 1960′s-set thriller “Code Name Zorro,” a biopic of the man who headed up the CIA’s top secret Zorro project designed to destroy Martin Luther King’s credibility.


Wonder if the above is related to the below:

Wesley Snipes Reports To Prison
'Blade' actor begins three-year sentence in Pennsylvania jail Thursday.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/165393 ... tory.jhtml

Wesley Snipes reported to jail Thursday (December 9) to begin a three-year sentence for failing to file his tax returns.

Snipes turned up at the Federal Correctional Institution McKean in Lewis Run, Pennsylvania, a little before his noon surrender deadline, according to The Associated Press. Snipes, who has starred in hit films such as the "Blade" trilogy, "White Men Can't Jump" and "New Jack City," will be known as inmate #43355-018 at the minimum-security facility, ABC News reports.

The actor was convicted in 2008 of three misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file income taxes and was handed down a yearlong sentence for each conviction, which Snipes will serve consecutively. The "Undisputed" star reportedly owed $2.7 million in taxes from 1999 to 2001.

Snipes has spent the past two years vigorously fighting to avoid jail time by appealing the ruling, including a last-ditch effort to get a new trial on Wednesday, arguing that the judge should have allowed lawyers for the defense to interview jurors about accusations of misconduct. However, a Florida judge threw out the motion Thursday.

In his final TV appearance before he began his prison sentence, Snipes admitted on CNN's "Larry King Live" Tuesday night that he was apprehensive about heading to jail.

"I think any man would be nervous if his liberty is at stake," he said. "I'm disappointed that the system seems not to be working for me in this situation."

He also maintained that he has paid the government what he believed he owed and shifted some of the blame of the tax debacle to those who handled his financial affairs.

"This is another thing that has been misreported: It has been framed that I was a conspirator and that I was an architect in a scheme by an organization that has been characterized as tax protesters," Snipes said. "The press hasn't reported that I was a client of people who I trusted [who] had knowledge and expertise in the areas of tax law that would protect my interests."
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Wesley Snipes' appeal turned away by Supreme Court

Postby MinM » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:43 pm

Image
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-2 ... 91698.html
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Snipes
Snipes's apartment was destroyed by the collapse of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers during the September 11 attacks...
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I Have a DreamWorks

Postby Nordic » Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:53 am

"This is another thing that has been misreported: It has been framed that I was a conspirator and that I was an architect in a scheme by an organization that has been characterized as tax protesters," Snipes said. "The press hasn't reported that I was a client of people who I trusted [who] had knowledge and expertise in the areas of tax law that would protect my interests."


Why wealthy Hollywood people who have hit it big continue to let other people handle their financial affairs is WAY beyond me.

I mean, it's expected of you, like how they try to manipulate you into buying a big house (so you need to continue to get the work that the others get their percentage of) and all of that, but how about a little common sense?

I mean, how many times do these people have to be ripped off and manipulated and lied to?

And in this case, possibly framed?
"Whatever deceives men seems to produce a magical enchantment." -- Plato
User avatar
Nordic
 
Posts: 11157
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: West Los Angeles, CA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: I Have a DreamWorks

Postby MinM » Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:57 am

Image
Image
The Sarah Palin fan that gave you the 1993 piece of counterpropaganda to Oliver Stone's JFK (1991).

Is coincidentally enough coming out with his own East(Holly)wood version of Hoover "History"

Eastwood on Hoover film: DiCaprio in, Phoenix out | Reuters

This WTF? moment -- which seems conveniently timed to come out on the heels of Eastwood's wikified whitewash of MLK's nemesis -- comes from former RIer Gary Buell @ http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2012/ ... ay_20.html
Image
Clint Eastwood’s Dishonest ‘J. Edgar’ | Consortiumnews
November 30, 2011

Much of the controversy around Clint Eastwood’s J. Edgar has swirled around screenwriter Lance Black’s depiction of the late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover as a closeted gay man, since Black is a gay writer-director and most of his previous projects featured gay themes.

But even more important in any critical analysis of the movie is Eastwood’s work as director. Because that informs us about why the American film business has come to a point when a mediocre, compromised and dishonest production like this much ballyhooed film gets praised for “being candid” about one of the worst Americans of the 20th Century...

Most of the film’s 137 minute running time consists of five episodes: 1.) Hoover’s relationship with his mother; 2.) His relationship with his assistant Clyde Tolson; 3.) Hoover’s role in the World War I-era Palmer Raids; 4.) The FBI’s role in the Lindbergh child kidnapping case; 5.) The composition of a letter to Martin Luther King in which the FBI implied that he should commit suicide or else the Bureau would blackmail him about his infidelity.

The first two are personal matters of course. But before we get to them, it is interesting to explore how Black deals with the latter three since they are the incidents he uses to elucidate Hoover’s professional career...

Lindbergh Case

Let us now look at the film’s depiction of the 1932 kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh’s infant son.

As Black and Eastwood show, the local and state authorities did not want the Bureau involved. But it is also true that Hoover had the opportunity to stake out the meeting at which ransom money was exchanged for information on where the child was being held. Hoover decided not to do so. [Gentry, p. 150]

This turned out to be a mistake since the child was not at the location where the kidnapper’s said he was. He was already dead. And the decomposed body was within five miles of Lindbergh’s home. This discovery finally got the Bureau involved through the orders of the president. And shortly after Congress passed what became known as the Lindbergh Law, making kidnapping a federal offense and giving Hoover jurisdiction.

But this expansion of his authority became a problem since Hoover had great difficulty solving the case: the arrest of Bruno Hauptmann was not made for over two and a half years.

In fact, Hoover always thought that more than one person was involved and that there was likely an inside agent as part of the plot. Hoover first suspected for this role the baby’s nursemaid, Betty Gow, who was the last person to see the infant in the crib and the first to discover his absence. [Lloyd C. Gardner, The Case that Never Dies, p. 32]

Also, unlike what the film shows, Hoover’s certainty about the guilt of Hauptmann was not close to absolute. Indeed, his agents told him that the local authorities had fiddled with the evidence.

We now know today, through the work of Anthony Scaduto in his 1977 book Scapegoat, that the prosecution had employment records in their possession that they hid from the defense that made it very difficult to believe that Hauptmann could have driven from New York City (where he was working that day) to New Jersey, the scene of the crime, at the time he was supposed to be there.

Further, the prosecutors even tampered with the start date of Hauptmann’s New York job to make it appear he was not even there on the day of the kidnapping. (For a brief overview of the case, click here)

As Curt Gentry notes, in October 1934, three months before Hauptmann’s trial began, Hoover called a press conference to announce the FBI was withdrawing from the case. [Gentry, p. 162] From then, until Hauptmann’s execution in April 1936, there was a long series of FBI memoranda marking the Bureau’s and Hoover’s doubts about the case.

Agent Leon Turrou, Hoover’s main liaison to the local authorities from the time of the indictment, called the proceedings against Hauptmann “a mockery” of a trial. For instance, one of the main witnesses used to identify the defendant was a Dr. Condon, who met in a cemetery with a man sent to collect the ransom. Yet Condon failed to pick Hauptmann out of a line-up.

And two days after, Condon told Turrou that Hauptmann was not the man he met. The man he met was much heavier, had different eyes, different hair etc. [Ibid, p. 163] Yet, by the time of the trial, someone had changed his mind and he was now positive it was Hauptmann.

Same thing with Charles Lindbergh who only heard the man’s voice in the cemetery. At first, Lindbergh said he could not positively identify the voice as Hauptmann’s. But by the time he took the stand, Lindbergh positively identified it.

A witness who placed Hauptmann near the Lindbergh home was characterized in an FBI memo as “a confirmed liar and totally unreliable.” [Ibid, p. 163]

Hoover himself doubted some of the evidence in the case. For instance as he admitted in a memo of Sept. 24, 1934 — before the trial started — the defendant’s fingerprints did not match “the latent impressions developed on the ransom notes.”

And as Lloyd Garner writes, Hauptmann’s fingerprints were not on the ladder allegedly used to climb to the infant’s window at the Lindbergh home. The local authorities then washed the ladder of all prints and failed to disclose that Hauptmann’s were not there. [Gardner, p. 344]

This is why when Lindbergh praised the FBI for its work on the case, Hoover was not thankful but indignant. [Gentry, p. 163] Of course, the FBI later concealed its doubts and made the case a hallmark of the official tour for propaganda purposes.

Eastwood and Black, again, sell the public the amended version, with both Hoover and Tolson in daily attendance at the trial, which was not the case...

If Black didn’t have an agenda, if he had been interested in who Hoover really was, what he represented, and what his pernicious impact on America really was, he would have shown us a different confrontation, such as the one that went on between Hoover and Director of Domestic Intelligence William Sullivan.

To my knowledge, Sullivan was the only man in the executive offices who ever stood up to Hoover. About a year or two before Hoover died, Sullivan wrote a series of memos criticizing Hoover’s performance as Director on issues like his gross exaggeration of the Communist threat inside the USA, his failure to hire African-American agents, and his failure to enforce civil rights laws. Sullivan also had tired of Hoover’s blackmail surveillance on presidents and began to think the Director was not of sound mind. [Summers, pgs. 397-99]

This culminated in a meeting in Hoover’s office where Sullivan said Hoover should retire. Hoover refused, and it was Sullivan who was forced out of the Bureau. Sullivan later testified before the Church Committee and gave Congress much inside information about Hoover’s illegal operations.

Sullivan once told columnist Robert Novak that if one day he would read about his death in some kind of accident, Novak should not believe it; it would be murder.

In 1977, during the re-investigations of the killings of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Sullivan died in New Hampshire as he was meeting with friends to go deer hunting. Another hunter, with a telescopic sight, mistook Sullivan for a deer and killed him with his rifle.

The book that Sullivan was working on about his 30 years in the FBI was then posthumously published, but reportedly in much expurgated form. He was one of six current or former FBI officials who died in a six-month period in 1977, the season of inquiry into FBI dirty deeds and FBI cover-ups of political assassinations.

If this film had ended with the Sullivan-Hoover feud, it would have told us something about both America and about Hoover. But it would have been dark and truthful. Evidently, Black and Eastwood were not interested in that.

Black’s agenda is pretty clear. Why Eastwood went along with this pastel-colored romance about a man who was a blackmailing monster is difficult to understand. But it proves again, as Pauline Kael explained decades ago, why Clint Eastwood is no artist. Artists don’t compromise. And they don’t falsify.

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/11/30/cl ... t-j-edgar/

Show #554
Original airdate: Nov 27, 2011
Guest: Jim DiEugenio, Lisa Pease, Ira David Wood III
Topics: J. Edgar, RFK, The JFK Assassination Chronology

Play Part One - Jim DiEugenio (47:18) Real Media or MP3 download

*Jim received an award from the Lancer group in Dallas, spoke about Kennedy's foreign policy, a lot of young people there
*J. Edgar, Clint Eastwood's movie, angered Jim, a falsification of the man and his history, by screenwriter Dustin Black
*Concentrates on the Palmer Raids, the Lindbergh Kidnapping case, the letter to MLK in 1963
*Thousands were arrested, without evidence, the ACLU began over this case
*Bruno Hauptmann, the Lindbergh Kidnapping, Hoover mistrusted the evidence, a mockery of justice, changed testimony
*Film has Hoover gung ho against Hauptmann, using FBI technologies to link him to the crime, falsifies Hoover's certainity

*Hoover authorized a letter trying to get King to commit suicide, film concentrates on Hoover wiretaps of King
*Prior to JFK, the FBI had no more than five 'black Agents', each served as a chauffeur or a butler for Hoover
*The FBI never enforced civil rights laws, the FBI intended to derail the entire civil rights movement
*The composite wiretaps tape and letter sent to King's wife, caused King a lot of emotional stress
*Almost none of Hoover reciting the blackmail letter is in the movie, film trys to soften the facts of Hoover's racism

*Leaves out the worst aspects of Hoover's careeer, left out key facts, an agenda, what a PR man would do for Hoover
*Clint Eastwood, has a reputation of being a serious director, 137 minutes, counted two scenes above the pedestrian
*DiCaprio, doesn't capture Hoover's stacatto speech pattern, or malevolence, Tolson is a disaster, Judi Dench
*The climax of the movie is a quarrel between Tolson and Hoover, a fist fight, a kiss, a lover's spat
*Black has an agenda to soften the image of Hoover, bring out the homosexuality, like he's a normal person
*Who Hoover really was. his pernicious impact on America, should have the fight between Hoover and William Sullivan
*William Sullivan was killed by a hunter, he was mistaken for a deer, before testifying about FBI dirty tricks
*Jim saved Len the price of admission, Len questions whether it was actually King on those tapes, may have been faked
*Hoover is a very important figure in the Kennedy case, he covered up the facts, in the assassinations of the 1960s
*Why aren't the media going after Black and Eastwood for distorting the record?, because of the Warren Commission?
*The reviews, no in-depth analysis, the movie ignores Hoover ignoring organized crime until Kennedy came into office
*Hoover put agent provocateurs in the Panthers, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, murdered while sleeping, Geronimo Pratt

http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black554a.mp3

Dustin Lance Black: Crafting The Story Of 'J. Edgar' : NPR

http://pd.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/fa/2 ... _fa_01.mp3

rigorousintuition.ca :: Hauptmann Murdered by Lindbergh

rigorousintuition.ca :: 11/22/63 CIA coup in the USA kills President Kennedy
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I Have a DreamWorks

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:15 pm

Wow. Pretty thorough demolition by DiEugenio. And a lot of history learned, as always with this scholar.
THREE great emotions bowled over him; understanding; a vast philanthropy; and finally as if the result of the others, an irrepressible, exquisite delight; [as if! i wish! thanks Virginia!]

Top Secret Wall St. Iraq? flamewar & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I Have a Dream Act

Postby MinM » Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:44 pm


The bill gives young illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they enroll in college or enlist in the military. Supporters call its passage historic — but Democrats probably don't have enough votes to get it through the Senate...

House passes immigration Dream Act -- latimes.com

'Act Of Valor': Navy SEALs Talk Recruits, Buzz Around Film
Image
WASHINGTON — Navy SEALs never expected the film "Act of Valor," starring real, active-duty Navy SEALs, to be this big.

Five years ago, commanders allowed a small, independent film company into their elite ranks to turn real-life training exercises into a feature-length movie in hopes of drumming up recruits fast.

SEAL officers thought the film would open in a couple of theaters in military towns, then quietly move to cable television, where re-runs would draw likeminded youths to join the special operations world...

"It was initially started as a recruiting film so we could help recruit minorities into the teams," Task Force 121-JSOC-Vice Admiral William H. 'Billy' McRaven explained. He said he didn't think the film gave anything away to the enemy, nor would it put in danger the SEALs who starred in it.

McRaven told a Washington audience recently that he'd signed up for special operations forces after seeing the 1968 John Wayne film, "The Green Berets," and that he had worked on the movie "Raise the Titanic" as a young ensign, also to drive recruitment...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/2 ... ertainment
***
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/ ... efine.html
***
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/53800
Image
rigorousintuition.ca :: Brazen propaganda movie hitting us in February

rigorousintuition.ca :: Why the Oscars are a Con

rigorousintuition.ca :: Disney Trademarks 'Seal Team 6'
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I Have a DreamWorks

Postby MinM » Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:35 am

US military says Martin Luther King would be proud of its weapons

A repellent piece of propaganda appropriates the words and images of this nonviolence advocate to glorify US militarism


Glenn Greenwald
o guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 January 2013 16.34 EST

ImageA posting from the US Air Force's Global Strike Team claims Martin Luther King would be "proud" of its weapons. Photograph: screen grab of US Air Force release.

(updated below)

Yesterday, I highlighted the extraordinary anti-war speech Martin Luther King gave in 1967, in which he said, among other things, that the US government is "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today" and the leading exponent of "the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long." The speech was devoted to arguing that America's militarism and war-fighting were degrading the soul of the nation and the citizenry and - for financial, political and cultural reasons - were making domestic progress impossible.

The US Air Force's Global Strike Command yesterday posted a truly vile bit of propaganda in which it appropriates King's image, name and words in order to claim that he would "be proud to see our Global Strike team . .
Image
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ry-weapons

@kevinjonheller: Seconding @ggreenwald -- the #AirForce invoking the legacy of #MLK to celebrate American militarism is truly perverse. http://opiniojuris.org/2013/01/22/kevin ... epeatedly/

https://twitter.com/kevinjonheller/stat ... 6255758336

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 2750
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I Have a DreamWorks

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:13 am

holy fuckaronie that is the most upsetting and disgusting piece of twisted propaganda I've seen in years from the US military. What the what...wow.
I know out of "polite"isms a lot of liberals will say they support the military even if they disagree with policy. Yeah no, FUCK the military and this government.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 11083
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I Have a DreamWorks

Postby Pele'sDaughter » Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:50 am

Wow, that's a "jump the shark" moment if there every was one. :wallhead:
Don't believe anything they say.
And at the same time,
Don't believe that they say anything without a reason.
---Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pele'sDaughter
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Texas
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I Have a DreamWorks

Postby 82_28 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:13 am

I "love" the amount of FB "likes" in this screenshot I just took at the military site as of now.

Image

:trippin: :trippin: :trippin:
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I Have a DreamWorks

Postby NeonLX » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:48 am

I think I just officially threw in the towel. I simply can't witness this sh!t anymore.
Politics is mostly marketing, and power is mostly pursued by those who would abuse it.--Wombaticus Rex
User avatar
NeonLX
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Enemy Occupied Territory
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: I Have a DreamWorks

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:44 pm

NeonLX wrote:I think I just officially threw in the towel. I simply can't witness this sh!t anymore.


Shhh. It will be fine.
THREE great emotions bowled over him; understanding; a vast philanthropy; and finally as if the result of the others, an irrepressible, exquisite delight; [as if! i wish! thanks Virginia!]

Top Secret Wall St. Iraq? flamewar & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests