This week, we take a look at the absolute clusterfuck that is the redesign of the Gawker Media group’s wesbites. They don’t want to be seen as blogs aymore, so have decided to rebuild them as SERIOUS NEWS OUTLETS, and in the process managed to drop site traffic and piss just about all their readers off, eventually caving into the baying crowd so much that they have cobbled together some stuff to pacify them that effectively makes the whole damn enterprise redundant in the first place. Like putting wheels on a hovercar because people just prefer wheels.

Gotta love that schadenfreude feeling. We are proud to say we are a blog, will always be a blog and will never change that.

Point and laugh at the fat websites with bad glasses right here.

Entering a URL into a status update on Facebook usually renders a link, but in the case of www.collateralmurder.org this is not the case. Many of our readers have expressed concern that given the nature of the material at that web address it would seem apparent that an attempt to censor or restrict the user’s right to disseminate the address is being carried out by Facebook.

It would be very unfortunate for Facebook – whose profile page carries the motto “Giving people the power to share and make the world more open and connected”  – if this turned out to be anything other than unintentional filtering or scripting glitch. We asked Facebook about this apparent restriction of free speech, and they quickly responded, advising:

“To protect our users, we have automated systems in place that block the dissemination of links to known malicious websites, including phishing and malware sites.  On rare occasions, these systems wrongly identify a legitimate link as malicious.  We have reinstated this one and apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.”

It should be noted that  the URL www.collateralmurder.com was not restricted and that the .org address is posting into notes.

(Update:  oops, I forgot to link to the source of that image, my bad: click here )

Wikileaks has just released video it has obtained showing the killing of fifteen unarmed civilians without provocation by two U.S. Apache helicopters in Iraq in 2007.  Wikileaks further claims this exposes a military cover-up that painted the incident as a battle with armed insurgents in which civilians were killed.

The film was taken by the crew of an Apache helicopter on July 12, 2007 over New Baghdad. Two Reuters News Agency employees, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen, were out in the area, and as the film starts you can see Eldeen carrying his camera. Both were amongst the fifteen or so civilians killed, and, it seems, were the unwitting cause of the attack. More info and the film after the jump. Facebook readers, click here to see the article and the video.

The air crew misinterpret the camera as an AK47 and then further misinterpret something else carried by a different civilian – it is not clear what – as an RPG. Despite the fact that no fire was received by either of the attack helicopters – as no one was actually carrying a weapon – permission to engage was asked for and received. The two craft then proceed to deal with the perceived threat with 30mm fire. 

Saeed survives and as he tries to crawl away the air crews are heard urging him to pick up a weapon so that they can open fire on him again. As they wait, a civilian minivan arrives to pick him up – again, with no evidence of arms or threat to the aircraft – and the crew curse impatiently as they ask for permission to open fire on the van.  They eventually receive the permission.

There were two children in the van.

As ground troops arrive and take the wounded children away, the air crew are heard to remark that is “it’s their fault for bringing kids into a battle”. This was not a battle.  At no time were any shots fired at the two aircraft, nor were any weapons in play.  Throughout the film, the crews are heard to be casual and almost pissed off that permission to fire is taking so long. One is heard to laugh when an armored vehicle drives over one of the dead civilians.

There is a certain amount of leeway to be granted by the “fog of war”. You can understand the perceived threat of a crowd of people in a street where two seem to carry something that, from a helicopter,  could look like a weapon. But aren’t you supposed to have absolute certainty, or actually be fired upon before firing back?

The U.S. military initially stated that the victims died during a battle between military and enemy insurgents, and that there was “no question that coalition forces were engaged in a battle against a hostile force”. Reuters spent three years demanding the release of the film to try and verify these claims, but the U.S. military refused its release. Only now, with a leak, is it in the public domain.   The U.S. Military did eventually carry out an investigation and ruled that all was in accordance with the rules of engagement.

It takes you to a place where a very disturbing thought becomes apparent: had there not been two internationally respected journalists involved, and had Reuters not pushed for the truth, and had these just been Iraqi civilians, the “no question” statement – clearly a lie – would have never been exposed (or rather, would never even have been required). It is very easy for the troops on the ground to make mistakes and errors of judgement, and for this there is a certain amount of forgiveness. What is egregious here is how far the miltary then go to keep that quiet, and maybe just how often it happens.

Think carefully before viewing these films: you are watching a moment when, for many innocent people and the families they left behind, life simply stopped.

You can read the Wikileaks article for more information here.

UPDATE 6/4/2010:  it is now reported that an official response to the Wikileaks release and article is being planned, in light of this story being picked up by just about everybody and the mainstream media.

Controversy has surrounded the case of Binyam Mohamed, 31, who since his return to the UK earlier this year has accused his captors of carrying out acts of torture including beatings, threats, the ever controversial “waterboarding”, and having his genitals cut with razorblades. A UK citizen since 1994, Mohamed was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 on suspicion of terrorism, and under the guise of the U.S. “rendition” programme was  ferried to Morocco, then Afghanistan and then finally Guantanamo Bay. He was released without charge earlier this year. Mohamed alleges that MI5 personnel provided key background informaton to his captors, advised of specific questions to be asked, and that at some points were also involved in the questioning and torture. 

Originally, Milliband reluctantly ruled that previously classified CIA documents relating to the case against Mohamed and his treatment whilst “in the care” of the U.S. government could be released to the public – but with seven key paragraphs relating to matters unkown redacted on grounds of “national security interests”. It was feared that releasing sensitive information that has passed between the UK and the U.S. intelligence services would cause irreparable harm to the intelligence relationship they share, and make the U.S. less keen to share furutre intelligence with the UK for fear it would be made public.   

Mohamed, backed by legal counsel and supported by human rights organisations, demanded that these paragraphs be made public also, as it would be more in the public interest to know if the Government was complicit and aware of acts of torture carried out on British subjects with the full knowledge of both them and British intelligence agencies. Many people felt at the time that the desire to “black out” these paragraphs supported these claims, and that the Government was putting the “special relationship” with its allies ahead of the protection and rights of its citizens.

In today’s landmark judgement at the High Court Lord Justice Thomas and Justice Lloyd Jones ruled that the paragraphs should be released for public consumption as this material and similar claims had already been released in a separate legal action in the United States, and verified as true by a U.S. Judge. It was ruled that, as the information was no longer unavailable to the public, its release could no longer be considered a threat to national security. The Government immeduately appealed the ruling.   Milliband stated:

‘At the heart of this case was the principle that if a country shares intelligence with another, that country must agree before its intelligence is released. ‘This ‘control principle’ is essential to the intelligence relationship between Britain and the US. The Government fought the case to preserve this principle, and today’s judgment upholds it.

‘It agreed that the control principle is integral to intelligence sharing. The court has today ordered the publication of the seven paragraphs because in its view their substance had been put into the public domain by a decision of a U.S. court in another case. Without that disclosure, it is clear that the Court of Appeal would have overturned the Divisional Court’s decision to publish the material.

‘The Government has made sustained and successful efforts to ensure Mr Mohamed’s legal counsel had full access to the material in question. We remain determined to uphold our very strong commitment against mistreatment of any kind.’

Interestingly, the Court they also came to a similar decision last year, but this was kept secret to allow the foreign secretary leave of appeal.

When questioned directly about the issue of collusion and torture, Milliband replied:

“Although it is not necessary for us to categorise the treatment reported, it could be readily contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of Binyan Mohamed by the United States authorities.”

He also stated to Jon Snow of Channel 4 News that it what was done to Mohamed may not necessarily be defined as torture because torture needs to be something carried out regularly. Personally, if you hack my man-parts around even once with a razorblade to extract information from me then I am pretty much 100% certain that constitutes torture.

Finally, and somewhat irnocally, despite Milliband’s assertion that “Mr Mohamed’s legal counsel had full access to the material in question”, it was soon after revealed that  a senior lawyer acting for the foreign secretary wrote to the Court of Appeal criticising some key phrases in the draft judgement without making Mohamed’s counsel aware at all. Jonathan Sumption QC suggested that certain points in the draft gave the impression that the ”Security Service does not in fact operate a culture that respects human rights or abjures participation in coercive interrogation techniques” and requested they be removed.

This is a legal right – for all parties to be allowed to make recommendations on the draft of the judgement before it is finalised. However, it has become clear that  although Sumption passed this request to the Court, he did not pass it to the team working for Mohamed – which is illegal. Any recommendations made must be disclosed to all parties in the proceedings simultaneously. The Government is not permitted to have secret dialogues with the High Court, who are independent of the Government. The letter stated that it had been cc’ed to Mohamed’s barristers, when it was in fact only passed to them the next day. On the assumption that Mohamed’s counsel was aware and had raised no counter-recommendation, the Judges redacted their comments.

With the whole affair a complete shambles, the foreign secretary reduced to scrabbling over paltry arguments about “what constitutes torutre”  and fielding accusations of “nobbling the Judges”, and with MI5 and Security services coming out looking like they were aware of and participated in illegal torture of a UK citizen, it has been announced in a hilarious comedy move that MI5 are now being investigated by the police. There are also now demands for a full public inquiry into the affair. Human rights organisations are now also investigating if allegations of war crimes against both the U.S and UK governments and intelligence services should be considered.

It wouldn’t be so bad if Milliband didn’t look like the nerdy kid next door that stayed in playing D&D and practising twirly-wirly writing all day. Prat.

(Facebook readers click here for the full video)

New! Britains Ugliest Dumb Child! Phone in and vote for your favorite!

Every time you turn the damn thing on it is some pointless, no-brain-required phone-in votey type bullshit that has absolutely no value whatsoever, and is annoyingly followed by 80% of the brain-dead population who probably couldn’t even spell “anathema”.

However, what I do like to do is watch those programmes that I enjoy on BBC’s iPlayer. I refuse to use the other players from the other channels. ITV’s is a pile of utter wank that seems to only have soaps and celebrity phone-in nonsense (Britan’s Hardest Street Gangs vs. Chopper Coppers Buying Houses To Do Up, On Ice!! Phone in and vote for your favorite!) and pretty much  nothing that may have been on in the last few days (kind of missing the point of a ‘catch-up’ service there, ITV). Channel 4′s 4OD service does have a few good programmes but the service and player itself is so janky and broken that I refuse to use it (oh dear, lost your stream half way through after waiting five minutes for the damn player to load up on your third attempt watching Time Team? Tough shit, sit through all the damn adverts at the start again, please. And wait whilst the player spools for a minute after you drag the slidey thing across).

So I depend on the iPlayer. It is awesome. Missed your favorite show? Then it is probably on the iPlayer straight after broadcast for 7 days. Slow connection mean you can’t stream for shit? No worries, just download it and watch it within 7 days. Fast connection? Great, enjoy the HD versions of most programmes. Connection dropped half way through? No problem, refresh the page when you are back on and it will carry on where you left off. Oh, and there are NO ADVERTS because your license paid for this stuff. Enjoy!

But you know what would be even better? Watching this stuff on my big-ass shiny LCD, with surround sound. Not my pokey litte PC screen with two dodgy speakers. And I just happen to have a games console connected to it. And games consoles are becoming the new media hubs. And you know what else? Seems good old Auntie Beeb agrees, as they provide the iPlayer to Playstation 3 owners who have the consoles connnected to their big-ass TVs. Great.

Except, yeah, it’s an Xbox 360 that I have hooked up. But now the 360 is no longer just a console, with facebook, Twitter, streaming instant-on movies, Sky TV and Last FM, we’ll be getting the iPlayer soon as well then, yeah?

Um…no. Although the BBC is mandated by its Royal Charter to provide its service by any and all current means possible, which it does, and really, really wants to let console owners access the content, they have basically told Microsoft to go fuck themselves. Maybe not exactly said that. But it was intoned.

The problem is that Microsoft want to leverage as much content on their service as they can to paid Gold Live subscribers. That’s fine, it’s their service, and the Gold subscribers pay to keep it going. No worries there. I happily pay for my Live. However, whilst this is fine, Microsoft can’t understand why the BBC are refusing to allow the iPlayer on Live.

It’s really simple, Microsoft: the BBC are not allowed to charge for streaming or broadcast of  their programming outside the Licence Fee that we all pay. It is a non-profit organisation. So there is no way in hell the BBC are going to let iPlayer be exclusive to Gold Live subscribers. This would, effectively be charging people for something that they have already paid for – with their licence fee. The only way around this would be if Microsoft purchased the broadcast rights – the BBC can charge distributors. This is how channels like Dave can broadcast on a paid service like Sky or Cable, and broadcast BBC programmes – they have bought them first.

Somehow, I don’t see Microsoft doing that any time soon. Apparently so far they are refusing to back down.

MS:   ”We want to make iPlayer exclusive to our Gold members”
BBC: “What, so people have to pay to get what they have already paid for, and can get free on the internet because they have already paid for it by default?”
MS:   “Oh yes.”
BBC:  ”Er…I don’t think so. We’re a public service.”
MS:   “But Sky do it!”
BBC: “Then Sky subscrbers are idiots if they don’t realise they are paying twice. Good day to you sir.”

So don’t hold your breath. Irony is, if Microsoft offered it to Gold and Silver subscribers BBC would be happy, and Xbox Live would be in a win-win because demand would be increased - especially for those who don’t  want to pay twice for Sky. And, who knows, getting a lot more Silver subscribers can’t be a bad thing – the other features on there may encourage them to go Gold.

Bah.

Wikileaks has not revealed the source of the intercepts, but claims that the context in which the data was sent to them a few weeks ago along with other information confirms their validity.

The messages were broadcast “live” online on the wikileaks site and also Twitter between 25th and 26th November, with each message posted at the same time it was originally sent. More details after the jump.

Messages released range from the almost mundane everyday chatter of civilians enquiring about lunch to haunting automatic alarm messages issued to engineers and maintenance companies from servers and systems in the World Trade Center buildings. Although they help to provide an often jarring look at people’s thoughts on that day, the real meat is in what appear to be the more “official” messages, which can be grouped together into coherenet streams from the sender/receiver ID number: :

2001-09-11 12:26:59 Skytel [005206261] B ALPHA vze2j729@verizon.net|I’m At Home With Classified|Ray, I am waiting for the traffic to subside. Then I will take classified to Naval Secu
2001-09-11 12:27:01 Skytel [005206261] B ALPHA rity Station or some other installation. Bryan (36

2001-09-11 14:27:44 Skytel [005206261] B ALPHA vmaq1vmaq4ecmo@hotmail.com|I’m okay|Ray, I wasn’t not at the pentagon this morning as had previously planned to be for the PE JWCA. Any news on the rest of our guys?????????? CAll me at home if you can. If
2001-09-11 14:27:46 Skytel [005206261] B ALPHA not PLEASE email me at my be

2001-09-11 15:42:44 Skytel [005206261] B ALPHA vze2j729@verizon.net|Talked to Sgt Fisher and SSgt Webster|He OK’d me to stand fast until traffic subsides. Then
2001-09-11 15:42:46 Skytel [005206261] B ALPHA I am to try the old Naval Security Station for an SSO or return to HQMC if traffic is open to it. (40

2001-09-11 15:54:59 Skytel [005206261] B ALPHA david.whitney@verizon.net|Ray, Please Call me at home 780-3123, Dave|Also, need to give your muster to Mark Silver. Not sure where he is but = work is 614-4317 (41

2001-09-11 16:49:44 Skytel [005206261] B ALPHA vze2j729@verizon.net|Classified Material|Ray, I turned the classified material over to Sgt Fisher. Mission accomplished. (43

Still other messages suggest either confused Chinese whispers in action or events that were not made public:

2001-09-11 09:52:02 Metrocall {1175659} 1 2400 Frm: MSN Txt: Kavitha Sunand Nair: bomb was diffused at the heliport at pentagon. white house and pentagon being emptied…..

All very interesting stuff. Whether this illustrates perfectly the “fog of war”, or adds grist to the mill for those who do not believe the offical story of events, who knows? As Wikileaks describes the event:

Text pagers are usualy carried by persons operating in an official capacity. Messages in the archive range from Pentagon, FBI, FEMA and New York Police Department exchanges, to computers reporting faults at investment banks inside the World Trade Center.

The archive is a completely objective record of the defining moment of our time. We hope that its entrance into the historical record will lead to a nuanced understanding of how this event led to death, opportunism and war.

Go have a read for yourself  here, and see what you think. As ever, I am remaining respectfully mute on the subject.

Oh, Alex Jones. That decibel-heavy, shouty loud protester of all things New World Order and conspiracy. Many people dig a good conspiracy theory; many people seek the truth where they feel there are lies. But not all charge for their services. And for those that pay for such services, they expect, well, from a self-confessed truthseeker, the truth. Funny that.

So what has the internet’s number one cause of earache done to illicit the ire of may conpiracy theorists and truth seekers around the world? Find out after the jump!

While brash, loud and usually utterly annoying, Jones does seem to go out of his way to chase down truths and misdeeds as aggressively as possible – often with a bullhorn as a tool – with the apparent intent of educating the mindless masses out of their torpor.

From time to time he does seem to come up with some good points. And, of course, as befitting any web host who has a message that despeartely needs to get to the ears of the public at any cost lest they be blinded by government misdirection and sleight of hand this information can be found in handy-dandy purchaseable items such as books and DVDs. A guy’s gotta eat, right?

So over the last few days the buzz has been built up with an announcement from Jones that (and I paraphrase here):

“ZOMGWTFBBQ I HAEV TEH MOAST AMAZEING THING COMING UP THAT IS TEH MOAST ASTOUNDING THING EVER IN THE HISTORY OF EVERTINK I HAEV DONE EVAR!!!one!!eleven AND U MUST BE HEAR TO WITNESS IT!!!!one!!”

So, understandably, with Jones’ overbearing reputation for fighting for the common man, people watched infowars.com and waited.

What did they get?

They were presented with a transcript of an interview granted to Charlie Sheen by President Barack Obama, in which Sheen harangues and cajoles the POTUS about 9/11 and the lies surrounding it. Think of it as a 21st Century version of David Frost grilling Nixon about Watergate. Quite impressive. The Pres. himself comes off as a bit of a jerk, ducking the issue and patting Sheen on the head like an annoying puppy.

Quite groundbreaking you think? A testament to Jones’ common man spirit and journalistic ability?

Well, actually, no. Not in the slightest. A testament to Jones’ ability to shill, deceive and misrepresent, in the name of site traffic, most likely. See, about an hour and a half after the interview transcript was posted, it was pulled. Then reposted with a slight addition: right at the bottom, after you have read the whole thing and believed every word, is the tiniest of disclaimers: 

Author’s Note: What you have just read didn’t actually happen… yet.

This is an open letter to the President requesting a new investigation.

Charlie Sheen.

So, in essence, what you have now just wasted 10 minutes reading is utter and complete bullshit. Fan-fiction from a Z-list celeb that no-one alive actually gives a fuck about, and of no greater value than someone posting on in the Skunkworks forum on AboveTopSecret.com saying that they are a Zeta Reticulan here to warn us of impending doom.

What this faux interview does  – apart from open Jones up to the possibility of libel lawsuits from the Whitehouse – is reinforce, to the common man, that a) all conpiracy theorists are nutjobs; b) Jones is an ass of the highest order and is simply fawning like a schoolgirl because he knows a faded celeb; and c) this was the most underwhelming piece of faux-journalism in the history of bullshit.

Whatever credibility Jones may have had before is now shot to pieces. He is no more than your typical tinofoiler, except he probably has a nice car and house thanks to you buying his material. And a bullhorn.

If any of his work ever was valid or correct before, well, that’s gone now.

Jones is purported to have stated that the reason for the lie was a psy-ops tactic to get the mainstream media to pick up the story and get the important questions about 9/11 raised into the public consciousness. Unfortunately, presenting the article as genuine with a big hoo-haa and then only confessing an hour and a half later in a tiny tiny postscript (so missable that even most of the commenters on the article missed it) that it is a work of fiction invalidates the entire thing, effectively calls those who believed it fools, and more egregiously risks the dismissal of all of the points that Sheen raises in his faux-grilling. “This is all a matter of public record, reported through mainstream media, painstakingly fact checked and verified” he states. Well, unfortunately, because the interview is a lie, this statement rings hollow – nothing in the article can therefore be trusted, and most people will investigate no further.

As one reader comments at the end of the article: 

“Wait a minute. All that hype for an imaginary interview with Obama? About 9-11? About Sheen going on the Alex Jones show presenting evidence WE ALREADY KNOW? I’m a believer but I DON”T like being sucked into a “News at 11″ teaser.”

Oh, Alex. Time to shut the fuck up and go get a job, I guess, What a cockbollock.

In case you require proof, here is the original posting of the interview sans disclaimer, that most people assumed was the real deal, thankfully saved by a canny member at ATS. 

Jones gets an honorary “Retard Of The Week” tag on this article for being such a dick.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, I am not a disinfo agent in the employ of some shadowy government enclave. I’m far too hopeless for such shenanigans like that.

UPDATE: a half-assed missive has been posted on Jones’ sister site, prisonplanet.com, addressing the issue. It includes:

“Separately, a few other blogs were up in arms about Sheen’s letter being a “hoax” because the disclaimer clarifying that the meeting with Obama was a stylized fictional account and not a real event did not get added to the bottom of the article until a little later due to technical snafus and a bombardment of traffic that shut down servers and locked out Infowars and Prison Planet webmasters. With the Infowars version having been copied across from Prison Planet, both original versions did not contain the disclaimer until the error was brought to our attention and promptly fixed as soon as we could gain access to servers that kept crashing, as many readers noted at the time. We added the disclaimer as soon as possible as well as other information that should have been included at the bottom of the original article regarding Sheen’s appearance on the show. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused and are trying to move our servers in house to prevent this routine occurrence from happening again.”

That’s no moon apology. Nor is it a believable excuse. Firstly, we are expected to believe that after over apparently many, many hours of perparation for the whole week’s events, someone misses out a line of text? Then we are expected to believe that the demand on the sites causes overload so that the updated article could not be corrected. I don’t think so. Research has revealed the hosting for both sites is outsourced and of a nature that is specifically designed to avoid such scenarios for high-traffic sites. Plus, it would have taken all of a few seconds to add the line, re-upload the page file and voila! no one is the wiser, and this cold have been done the moment the original upload went live. You show me someone who writes and article, puts it on the web and he doesn’t read through it? Even the most modest of writers reads through the published piece to make sure it all came out ok (and to get a little tickle to the ego – don’t deny it). Lastly, it does not explain why someone so dedicated to freedom of speech would cull negative comments on forums (as has been reported by many posters) and why comments are now turned off on all articles on Prisonplanet. He wants free speech for all, but not when you might be critical, obviously.

And one last nail in the coffin – if this had been my mistake, you know what I would have done? Included an apology or explanaton there and then, maybe even with the disclaimer that was added. But no, we get a very subtle and seemingly reluctant apology the next day, amidst self-congratulatory boasting.

I call foul. My gut feeling is still wilful deception to raise traffic and hits – not to break the story. 

End. 

NASA, 17/7/09: Finally, after many years of myth and tin-foil conspiracy, NASA has released the first ever post-Apollo images of the equipment the astronauts left behind on the lunar surface.

Taken by the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter, the series of images – although not the sparkly close up beauty passes that show every little detail that the conspiracy nuts would like – show the presence of all the lunar landers (save Apollo 12) on the surface of the moon – and in one low pass, scientific equipment and even the trails left behind by the boots of the astronauts in the lunar dust.

It is important to note that these are “first pass” images – lower pass flights are scheduled that should give more detailed images:

The satellite reached lunar orbit June 23 and captured the Apollo sites between July 11 and 15. Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.

The future can only bring better images from the orbiter – we hope – but these images are the first of hopefully many that will prove once and for all that, yes, we did fucking go there.

To read the full NASA article and see all the images close up, click here.

The world apparently on the threshold of a Swine Flu pandemic. Millions could be at risk. No one is safe. Governments positioning themselves for mass enforced vaccination programs. Ever get that hit of “I’m sure I’ve been here before”?

You should do, at least in the U.S.

You have been here before. Except last time, one person died, a handful of unconfirmed cases were noted around the world, and the U.S. government forced millions to take enforced flu shots.  

Oh, and one other difference – that time, the CDC was fully aware that that particular strain of the vaccine had not been tested as safe for humans and could lead to severe neurological disorders, paralysis, and even death. Thing is, they kinda forgot to mention this to the 46 million people that were forced to take the shot.

The above CBS 60 minutes film was broadcast once in 1976, and then never seen again. Until now, when it has ben unearthed. It’s quite satisfying to watch the former head of the CDC squirming when he denies ever being told of the risks, only to then be confronted with one of his staffers stating “well, actually, you knew because I told you so.” Fucker.

So, when the government tells you that you must take the shot to stave off the risk of death, make your own decision. But remember this and my earlier posts. And don’t think for one minute that your government isn’t capable of putting your life at risk by feeding you with propaganda and not quite giving you the full picture.

Me? I think I’ll pass and take my chances.

Facebook readers click here for the video.