Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Documentary Movie Review: In The Shadows (Core of Corruption Part 1)

Movie Review: Core of Corruption: In The Shadows

Click Here to watch this film

Guide to my movie reviews

Core of Corruption is a series by Jonathan Elinoff, and "In The Shadows" is the first of the series. It takes a look at the persons, places, and events behind the 9/11 tragedy.

One of the most common complaints about the "9/11 Truth Movement" is its focus on "Controlled Demolition." This film touches on it, but focuses more on the background of the individuals directly related to the incident. I'm disappointed when these films focus so heavily on intelligence and government failures and still feel the need to get into a physics argument. Occam's Razor is the concept that you provide only the information that you need, the information that is relevant to your argument. I don't see how these films benefit from the Controlled Demolition theory. It becomes an argument on what is possible and what is probable, and not necessarily documented, proven events that are easily agreed upon to have happened. Much evidence supports the Controlled Demolition theory, however, the "how" is not as important as the "why" or the "who." Controlled Demolition would have been better covered in the sequel being released soon, or another film.

A heavy focus in this film is on what Porter Goss and Bob Graham Knew before the attack, and what power they had to pass on the information so something could have been done about it if they had. The film shows how these two men were privy to warnings beforehand and were involved in the failure of investigation.

Able Danger, The Dr. Graham 9/11 Report, John O'Neill, Randy Glass' letters to Bob Graham, and several other warnings were filtered through our government and almost every warning went unheard and this film wants you to ask why. And those are the warnings that we KNOW our government had, when you see the Fox News report on Comverse Infosys and Amdocs you begin to really understand how the attacks could not have been pulled off without foreknowledge.

The secondary question is why we don't hear more about the Israeli spy ring found in our nation? This film takes the Fox News report's exposure of the problem of Israeli espionage, and asks about the odd secondary events on 9/11, and what the FBI could know about ties between some of these 9/11 events and this spy ring.

If you don't believe that the United States could have stopped the attack of September 11, you will understand that this becomes more than a mere one-day-one-event failure when you scrape the surface.

This film is almost comparable to Jason Bermas' "Fabled Enemies," only this film gives you more information and more ties to Graham and Goss. This film gathers more mainstream news reports and more clips of first-hand witness accounts.

Information: Very informative. If you don't know the information behind 9/11 you will after seeing this film. - 5 Stars

Source Documentation: News reports and first hand interviews. - 5 stars

Presentation Method: News Clips inter-cut with First Hand interviews. – 4 stars

Visuals/Sound: Great music score, great graphical elements. - 4 stars

Political & Social Spectrum: 9/11 transcends political party to the point where it is shunned by mainstream politics. There is no political angle here. - 4 stars

Solution, Constitution, or Pollution: Constitution. 9/11 becomes important to a person, but in the end, that won't protect our liberties. This film is a great research project, and perhaps a good movie to hand out, but other than that, 9/11 truth is a cause that becomes ever harder to act upon. - 2 Stars

Overall Wake-up-ability: Truth is made fun of in the mainstream and claimed to be discredited several times over, however, with more films making the inside connections between persons, places, and things, we may just have justice one day. If you can get someone to watch this, they will understand why 9/11 is still important to much of America. – 4 stars

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Documentary Movie Review: American Drug War - The Last White Hope

Movie Review: American Drug War

click here to watch this film on Google

click here for a guide to my rating system

With the release of Kevin Booth's new film I thought I'd take a look back this week at his last film, American Drug War. I'll have a review up soon of “How Weed Won The West.”

American Drug War points the finger at the effectiveness of the “war on drugs” and its progress in the self-destructive culture saturated with legal mind-and-body-altering substances. Kevin Booth offers his own family's plight with drugs, both legal and illegal, and alcohol addiction as inspiration for his journey.

Along the way we meet several persons touched by the drug war in their own way. We hear from Freeway Ricky Ross via prison telephone, who was known at one time as the “wal-mart of crack” because of his wide distribution in southern California. His story of regret for selling his community out, inter-cut with former DEA agent Celerino Castillo's discussion of the South American drug running of the CIA becomes the most damning story of our Federal Government's hypocrisy.

Kevin also gets Tommy Chong to tell how he was set up by a government sting operation to get his son's pipe company to send a pipe to a county that banned paraphernalia.

This isn't a one sided argument though, we hear from Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County, often thought of as the toughest law enforcement official in the country when it comes to enforcement and incarceration. His opinion on combating drugs and listening to him brag about treating the K9 units better than the prisoners makes one re-think the sanity of law enforcement.

We also hear from Clinton's Drug Czar. (Go Czars!) Kevin ambushed him disguising himself as a conservative lecture-attendee to get him to speak about the importance of the drug war, and it becomes clear that the Federal Government and its heads really have no idea what is going on in the streets of big-city-USA.

One of the most shocking things about the drug war is the ability to use inmates as slave labor. When you hear the true motives for why some drugs will never be de-criminalized, you might just start speaking out about the issue yourself.

Most films about drugs are often criticized by mainstream America as biased, not stating the dangers of the drugs, or for advocating their use. Kevin, on the other hand, shows you the harm drugs create in our society, and then shows you why the Federal Government's solution is no better.

Information: The camera takes you to the streets, in the jails, in Kevin's family, and in the face of government officials. The only thing missing is a Doctor's perspective - 4 Stars

Source Documentation: First hand interviews, along with scenes from C-Span of congressional hearings - 5 stars

Presentation Method: Rugged HBO-style documentary. (fitting since it aired on Showtime) – 4 stars

Visuals/Sound: Nothing fancy. But for this film it doesn't need to be. - 4 stars

Political & Social Spectrum: Completely Neutral in my opinion, however some of the more family-oriented conservatives might not like the angle. But in my opinion that's their bias, not Kevin's - 4 stars

Solution, Constitution, or Pollution: Pollution. While this film is great information, with the best interviews, it leads nowhere. At the end, you're left feeling that it's someone else's problem and that you, as an individual, or community, cannot change this giant scheme between government and security contractors. - 2 Stars

Overall Wake-up-ability: This film will give a slap in the face to anyone in the country who still thinks that the CIA or privatization of government entities are good things. Almost anyone in society can take a new point of view from this film, the only problem is lack of a solution. This film doesn't even give firm examples as to where our values can be improved. Sure, it's a Must-See movie, but it should be accompanied by a talk about what we can do to at least fix the mindset, if not start fixing the problem, but maybe that's the point of the film, to fix the mindset...but if that were the case, it would be free-distribution, which it isn't. – 4 stars

Friday, February 12, 2010

Documentary Movie Review: Camp Fema

Movie Review: Camp Fema
Click Here for the guide to my reviews and rating system
Watch this film on Youtube
It was World War II and our nation faced an enemy that was percieved to be walking among us.

The response by the United States Government was to utilize the results from the Census to identify potential threats to our nation and create internment camps to house thousands of Japanese-Americans, including American citizens.

Fast forward 80 years. Our media and government point out how the war on terror includes the domestic front, including American citizens.

The latest film by filmmaker William Lewis and producer Gary Franchi looks at the lessons of history and examines current government programs and bills to simply ask about the possibility of the War on Terror could be used in such a way that would target political enemies of those in power in our nation and marginalize, criminalize and detain people who may disagree with the party line. Primary source documentation and testimony from several experts who have researched the modern political culture make a compelling argument that could frighten even the most avid skeptic.

Every so often we hear about the threat of Martial Law, however this film takes and in-depth look at recent political developments and asks the viewer to determine if there could very well be a dangerous path in store for this country if more people do not make civics education and accountability a priority in their lives.

From provisions of the Patriot Act (Which William outlined in his film, Washinton You're Fired), to government misuse of watch lists and threat reports, to quotes from our President about indefinite detention and a well funded "civilian" national security force, things begin to rhyme with history's worst actions in the name of "Nationalism."

While one hopes that we never have to worry about such a control grid, nor fear-mongering thereof, it becomes ever important when examining the current direction of the country and the way our government assesses what an enemy is, that we are able to continue to exercise our rights.

Information: When you first pop this DVD in, you think "Conspiracy Theory" but the relentless onslaught of informative content leaves you wanting more - 5 stars

Source Documentation: Clips from mainstream media, several constitutional researchers, and in your face screen captures of websites and government documents. - 5 stars

Presentation Method: One of the best parts of this film is a skit detailing a martial law force raiding someone's home. It is very entertaining, however, with a topic already struggling with legitimacy issues, it probably would have worked better as a dvd extra. Otherwise, the interviews and narration were flawless. - 4 stars

Visuals/Sound: Beautiful Graphics, seamless transitions, decent sound. - 5 stars

Political & Social Spectrum: This film confirms the fears of the conservative/patriot movement. Some of these things may have non-constitutionalists asking why they should care. Obama supporters will hate this film. - 3 stars

Solution, Constitution, or Pollution: Part Solution/Part Pollution. So you're afraid of Fema Camps, what next? There are several options at hand, and preparation is key, but so is Activism. While there is a great call to represent your values, it is a little fear based, and your left feeling that your fate relies solely upon your communication with your state legislature, although, some filmmakers would not give you that much. - 3 stars

Overall Wake-up-ability: This film suffers from the opposite of the "title misleading" problem most films have. No, the title is straight forward, unfortunately it's on a topic that avg. Joe dismisses as fear mongering. If you can get people to watch it, this film will change their outlook on the "good of Government" - 4 stars

Documentary Movie Review: Architects of Control - Program One

Movie Review: Architects of Control – Program One

Michael Tsarion has given several presentations on the origins of the elite and the mystery religion and its ties to modern society. This film is a diet, more presentable version of the information he talks about.

As with all of Michael Tsarion's information, you really have to go into this film understanding that he's not going to tell you anything you expect to believe. He gives you thoughts on how you can inform yourself with knowledge to decipher the symbolism, codes, and propaganda that are out in the open in every day society.

“Talismans” are around us everywhere. Seemingly innocuous logos and icons are actually part of language going back centuries. Using clips from major motion pictures and examples in mainstream media right into real-life prophetic events and persons, This film makes you question whether reality is truly “stranger than fiction” or if reality is something that is straight out of what is written in fiction, guided by those who want to make those sci-fi books and films a reality.

As with most of Michael Tsarion's stuff, it's meant to make you question, not give you answers, so there is little proof involved other than whether you can believe what you're hearing. But that's the point.

Perception is everything, and when it comes down to downright facts, nothing is proven until you physically sense it in-person, and even then you must trust that what you've perceived is exactly what happened. So, when you're questioning a “reality” what you're questioning is the reality we've been told and sold through external sources.

Some in the movement, and really much of the skeptical society would attack Michael Tsarion and other alternative theological researchers for being too “out there” or for putting out information that they cannot “100% prove” however, the important thing to remember, is that SOMEONE believes it. Someone with POWER. Someone who wishes to control you. If you can prove at least that much, then the information is sound enough that the people should know about it.

It's good to finally get Tsarion and other experts in a format that isn't behind a podium with a slide show. The Graphics are amazing and the presentation is wonderful. The message of the film is to be an individual which, while positive, is a double edge sword.

You almost get the feeling after watching this, that being involved in government and activism is pointless as long as you have love in your heart and are freedom within your mind. Almost as if slavery is okay as long as we have spiritual freedom. But that's just one possible misinterpretation of the end part of the film that someone could possibly take away from this film, so if you get this feeling too, don't blame the person on the other end of the phone for your hearing aid malfunction.

This film goes into Mind Control at every level, from MK Ultra to subliminal advertising. Understanding what is possible is just as understanding what is known, and that is the point of this film. Getting to know deeper different important events in society in a light where you can see beyond the known into the potential that these events are also methods of rounding up the hive into a single mindset that is willing to submit to the proposed agendas of the elites.

Information: Informative to those who want to know about talismans and the depth of what the mind is capable of, with great comparisons to sci-fi media. - 3 stars

Source Documentation: Michael Tsarion is recognized as an expert in his own right when it comes to esoteric information, however there is no “proof” in philosophy and religion, and that's what this film is. - 2 stars

Presentation Method: Mixing Science Fiction with real study of reality is often used by the mainstream media to misinform or make fun of important issues, Michael shows us how the same tactics can be used to inform the people of these same issues when you point out how blatant and in your face these stories can be. - 4 stars

Visuals/Sound: The music is a bit annoyingly creepy on purpose, but the camera work and graphics are great. It's good to see Michael Tsarion somewhere other than a dark room behind a podium. It really gives pop to the information he's presenting. - 3 stars

Political & Social Spectrum: Neutral/Alternative Philosophical. Not biased, but a little too “alternative” for most social groups. - 3 stars

Solution, Constitution, or Pollution: Part Solution/Part Pollution. The information is good for anyone learning about individualism, but this is also pretty much brain candy that could potentially be a diversion for the active. - 3 stars

Overall Wake-up-ability: I hate to give this such a low score, but even the “Alternative” movements are not open minded enough for this information, and those who are, might not care about the spiritual/philosophical enough to believe in the individuality message. If you are open minded and like to wax philosophically then this movie is a must, and if you think you know people who may be open to questioning their reality, this movie is for them, but this movie is pretty far out there and the majority of even awakened people will shut down their eyes and ears to this message pretty quick. - 2 stars

Guide to navigating my movie reviews

I review documentaries on the important issues for Patriots and Constitutionalists in the modern era.

Often these reviews will be based on how useful of an educational tool the film is, because that is the whole reason for making a documentary.

I will often compare these films to other films, and comparing filmmaking styles.

Following my deconstruction of the film, I will provide my "Ratings" followed by short explanations as to why I rated each category the way I did.

Here I will explain what the categories mean.

5 stars per category

Information: How much information on the complete state of things can one expect to take away from this film?

Source Documentation: Does this film show the documents? Does it provide terms you can research? Does it contain experts that you can verify? Does it have mainstream news reports confirming this information?

Presentation Method: What is the production style of this film? How well is the story being told through the teaching techniques used? Does this film feel like a Hollywood movie or a History Channel special, or a college lecture?

Visuals/Sound: How flashy are the graphical elements? how well is the narration and music? Could I get too bored, or could this be too cheesy and over the top?

Political & Social Spectrum: Does this have any socio-political leanings or biases?

Solution, Constitution, or Pollution: After watching this film, will I be motivated to do something about the state of affairs? (Solution) Or will I be warned that my values are in jeapordy unless I figure out a solution for myself? (Constitution) Or is this just a lot of fear-mongering and getting people angry with nothing to do about it?

Overall Wake-up-ability: How broad of the population should seek this film? What type of people can you show it to without them shutting the information down or dismissing it as biased, and would it be useful enough for people already researching the types of issues discussed in the film to take away something new?

Reviews to Date:
Shadow Government
Architects of Control - Program One
Camp Fema
American Drug War: The Last White Hope
Core of Corruption: In The Shadows
How Weed Won The West
Secret of Oz (with Special Commentary on the Currency Solution Debate)
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined
The Alex Jones "Police State Trilogy" (Flashback Review Special)
Police State 4
King Corn

Documentary Movie Review: Shadow Government

Movie Review: Shadow Government

Click Here for the Guide to My Movie Reviews and rating system

Watch this film on Youtube

When I first heard of this film, the same thing happened that almost always happens when I first hear about a documentary. I get the wrong idea about the title. I had first assumed that this film was going to be about Continuity of Government or the UN takeover of several local governments.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that this film was actually about the big brother surveillance state and Agenda 21. Watching the first half of the film, I was greatly impressed by the depth in which they go into the information surrounding the use of Internet 2, RFID, and smart tech. You really start questioning the reality of the devices and software you've allowed into your life. “What could a computer in MY refrigerator tell the government?” However, when they shifted to Agenda 21, I was watching closely. The Agenda 21 control grid was covered with a lot of depth, but the “Global Warming” issue was not really brought out as the selling point of the tyranny. One issue I take with most people in the movement, is that we don't focus on using the term “Agenda 21,” and neither did this film, but it did gather quite a few of the experts.

I was delighted to see Michael Shaw, G. Edward Griffin, and Catherine Albreicht in this movie along with several experts that I hadn't heard of before. That is excellency in documentary film making, to gather known experts and persons mostly unknown within the movement. The one issue I have with the cast of experts is that no “Fusion Center” experts were used when the MIAC Militia report was brought up. In fact the film did not go very deep into the issue of Fusion Centers. As with most reporting on MIAC, there was no coverage of the library of reports, only the Militia report.

I find most coverage of MIAC nauseating because this seems to be the focus, due to the left-right paradigm and how this report attacked mostly mainstream right wing ideals, whereas the Fusion Center issue is dangerous for everyone. Especially when you dig deeper into the other leaked MIAC reports.

This movie is no different, for after MIAC is covered, religious freedom of expression is then focused on for the rest of the film. I have no problem with coverage of Christianity and Christian values, however, by the end of this film, you tend to come away not thinking “I need to worry about my rights,” instead you tend to feel “I need to worry about my rights if I'm a Christian.”

I hate to focus so hard on the negativity, because most of the information is awesome and sound, and anyone who is concerned with the massive categorizing of private information by Corporations and Governments can really get a complete breakdown during the first half of the film.

Presentation is clever when compared to most modern documentaries, however, clever isn't always entertaining or informative. While the graphics and production are remarkable, the style of the film is too much like a Junior High Health Class film. Narrator talks in monotone, cuts to a “skit” to provide an example, then the expert interviews, rinse, repeat.

Information: Superb on Big Brother / Great on Agenda 21 / Mediocre on Fusion Centers / Decent but biased on Religious Freedom - 4 stars

Source Documentation: Light on actual Documentation, however any of the experts can be trusted and verified. – 4 stars

Presentation Method: 80's Educational Film. – 3 stars

Visuals/Sound: Spectacular graphical elements provide emphasis on how all of this information is related to databases and control. - 5 stars

Political & Social Spectrum: Partially Neutral with some “grassroots” Conservative focus and a Christian message. - 3 stars

Solution, Constitution, or Pollution: Constitution. A ton of information, but pretty much a call to stand up for your values. - 4 stars

Overall Wake-up-ability: Great film for anyone looking specifically for a big brother breakdown, but potentially too “preachy” to wake up “Newbies” and lacking pop to “Preach to the choir.” If you have, or expect to have a friend or a family member asking you about Big Brother, definitely keep this on hand, otherwise, grab a more neutral film on Agenda 21, such as Endgame or Esoteric Agenda. – 3 stars

Love Hate & Co-intel-pro. What are Catherine Bleish's motives? Even I don't Know

Once again, Wednesday, Alex Jones referred to the "event" that happened last month at the gun rights protest "Co-intel-pro."

A few weeks ago, I had spoke my mind about certain issues between myself and the person in question, Catherine Bleish. Catherine and her allies immediately went on the defensive, claiming to be the victims of my "vicious attacks."

I will not repeat the entire exchange here, nor bring up all the details of the bad blood, however, since then, this thing with Alex Jones has happened, along with the fallout thereof, and several people have been asking my opinion. They want to know if I think Catherine Bleish is Co-Intel-Pro.

First of all, my "vicious attack" was not against Liberty Restoration Project or Catherine Bleish, nor the wonderful things accomplished by either. I never attacked Catherine on a personal level, nor as an activist. Nor did I claim she was completely wrong in her criticisms of Ron Paul, Campaign for Liberty, and Alex Jones. It was a timing issue. I had kept my mouth shut about problems that I had with an unfortunate situation, and I've tried my best to "just move on."

However, the claim of Catherine and John that they wanted to "protect the movement from being misled" by the likes of a Ron Paul or Alex Jones, who were labled as treasonous and harmful, It was a calling that I had then the duty to mention some of the misleadings I had percieved in these critics only in their direction of "Leadership."

I only wish to offer a warning to those who wish to follow Catherine Bleish and John Bush.

Do the research. I left the LRP and Operation Defuse leadership at the beginning of December 2009. Before I left, I was going to volunteer to spearhead the Missouri Operation Defuse actions. In the 3 1/2 months since my initial intention to volunteer, I have recieved no less than three warnings about John Bush. I don't care enough about John to do the research on his backstory, but I've heard some gossip that does not surprise me.

As far as Catherine goes, let me point you to the collaborative projects Catherine has worked on over the past 3 years. Ask people she was involved with in her dealings with Rule of Law Radio, Revolution Broadcasting, Midwest Liberty Fest 2009, the Kansas City Ron Paul movement, the Saint Louis liberty movement, and Revolution March.

If you still aren't satisfied, let me take you on a journey of what I've seen in this infight, and how I percieve it, so that you will stop asking my opinion.

Fast forward to 11/22/2009. End the Fed rallies were being held across the country, Continental Congress 2009 was ending, and Alex Jones and Jason Bermas were doing their Sunday shows. To me, this is where the calls of "Co-Intel-Pro" and infighting began.

I got off of work and took a shower and headed to the KC Federal Reserve. I hosted a very successful rally, and went home to celebrate, before deciding to go to the KKFI (Kansas City public radio) studio to sit in with the overnight Monday morning host, Ben.

The next day, Catherine contacts me, I had spent the day posting videos from the KC rally, as she posts videos from the Chicago rally, that many members of Continental Congress attended (being the closest rally to the event). She starts telling me of how things broke down at the end of Continental Congress, and how she was trying to advocate civil disobedience, and was being called a "Provacatuer"

I listened to the podcast of the Sunday Jason Bermas "Infowarrior" show, and 2 people called in stating that there were provacatuers at CC2009, calling for people to break laws.

The only documentation I've seen to this day, of the actual arguments that happened, is a video from Brooke Kelly's "Puzzled" vlog, showing several older folks asking for more peaceful solutions and the younger persons being fired up against tyranny. One thing in this video stood out to me. John Bush dramatically giving a speech wearing handcuffs. It reminded me of Glenn Beck and his chalkboard. Anyone that needs a visual aid to get a point across must not believe that they are talking to adults with rational thought. But that's really my only personal criticism of John.

I can agree with Catherine's explanation that this was the idea of civil disobedience a la Rosa Parks, but I still have no solid proof that this was the spirit of the discussion.

The next week I start seeing things of Operation Defuse, around the same time the press reports that Missouri State Rep. Bob Dixon, chairman of the interim committee reviewing the practices of the fusion center states that "closing the MIAC center is off the table."

Which brings me back to why I "viciously attacked" Catherine in the first place. Again I want to attempt to show you that It's not Catherine as a person, or as an activist, nor the organization Liberty Restoration Project, that I'm against. It is the failed leadership strategies of Catherine when it became clear that the organization had grown to big for her, and at the same time she had grown to big for it.

I began immediately thinking strategy, and start to visualize a protest in Dixon's district in Springfield Missouri. I was told by Catherine and John that attacking the problem from the outside would be too great of a task, and that instead I should head up citizens committees where "oversight" alternatives could be offered up and draft legislation could be passed to the state legislature.

Let me show you why this is ironic by taking you back 9 months to when the MIAC story broke and explaining the birth of Operation Defuse and the background of the fusion center fight. It was the Alex Jones show that broke the story. So without the help of and a brave Missouri Law Enforcement official there would have been no fight for LRP to recieve national attention.

But the call for support is sent out, and America responded to our action plans. People called demanding a retraction, it was retracted...people called the tourism thing you know the head of MIAC was reassigned. We were making waves in the country in our quick response to this attack.

Then LRP broke the "Armies watch End The Fed Rallies" story, which Alex Jones jumped on and still harps on it, without "giving LRP any credit"

LRP was too busy at the time to act on the Army document because we were in full call to duty against the MIAC Militia report. We had taken multiple trips to Jefferson City to testify about Real ID, as Missouri was passing a repeal bill last session. During these trips, we confronted staff members in Governor Nixon's office for dodging the Sunshine Law (state level FOIA) requests and for not responding when requests for a meeting with the governor were requested. You can find two of these videos on YouTube, the second of which we were escorted out by MO Highway Patrol (Governor's Security detail) and Catherine states "We'll be back with a lawyer" as the camera fades. We never returned to the Governor's office. LRP did not get the Sunshine documents until late December, and there was never anything more said about a meeting with the Governor.

June 10th the Missouri State Legislature started hearings on state intelligence gathering (in other words, they wanted to look like they were taking care of the problems MIAC caused) Catherine testified at all 4 hearings, I testified at two of them, and in the meantime, I was hosting street actions and events in Kansas City, while Catherine was working on Midwest Liberty Fest and doing speaking engagements at Jekyll Island, Freedom 21, Porcfest, and various Tea Parties in the Saint Louis area, as well as appearing in the documentary "Camp Fema".

Shortly after the release of "Camp Fema," (I can't remember the date) Catherine called into Alex Jones' show on a day where Alex was repeating the whole show how depressed he was, and how bad things are. She talked about how the Missouri Legislature is waking up to the Constitution and are beginning to understand the 10th Amendment and how the MIAC issue is a federalism problem. Alex examined this in the same way I did, that if the State kicked out the Federal Government, the feds would just work through the local levels to get to the databases maintained by the state, and kind of talked down to her for being a bit gullible when told by government to have hope.

During Freedom 21 Catherine and I begin talking about different strategies for a Veto Session protest. Ideas were thrown out to call for 10th Amendment resolutions and to call out Governor Nixon to respond to the grassroots. During this event, Catherine and I were consistantly at odds with each other, but this was one thing we both could get behind.

During that weekend, she told me that she didn't see much point in Federal Reserve rallies. She told me that I should trust the Neocons in the tea party movement because they were waking up to our way of thinking.

I began advertising for this grand State Capitol rally, and I eventually took hell for doing so, Catherine had a better idea, to join with the 10th Amendment Center to join their rally, so I was wrong for going out on my own and promoting our own thing that wasn't going to happen.

So we weren't going to call out the Governor. In fact that battle was completely dead. Nixon was essentially "Off Limits" as far as LRP was concerned.

Here's a Governor who had 5 scandals in his first 6 months in office, and we were told to back off. So, the 10th Amendment thing wasn't a total waste...although I chose not to attend after the previous drama.

They lobbied several legislators and Catherine had talks with several persons associated with Bob Dixon and incumbent republicans. They expected her to cowtow to the Republican party line if she wanted any support for real 10th Amendment issues, and insulted Ron Paul to her.

Then the End The Fed and CC2009 happened and the rest is history.

So imagine my surprise when John and Catherine, on a conference call, months later, tell me that "protesting Bob Dixon isn't a solution."

So don't go after the Governor whose name is on the documents, and don't go after the Chairman of the whitewash committee.

This is just one example of one ongoing project where I have had questions about Catherine's leadership capabilities.....I wouldn't say my dealings have enough for me to call her Co-Intel-Pro but I previously outligned LRP's 2009 Action Plan and the failures within, and she responded by saying we were too busy fighting MIAC to do most of it, and the rest was my fault for not picking up her projects when she left KC.

The question I still have to this day is where did the Donations go? We fundraised like a mofo to try to get a house....then we fundraised like a mofo in the name of getting more sunshine and FOIA requests, and when neither of those happened, we were once again asked to fundraise for Operation Defuse.

When I proceeded with my examination, she then shifted the focus onto my motives for questioning her. She claimed that I was doing this because "She rejected my advancements towards her." You have to understand that Catherine and I were very close in each other's lives for the past year. Often closer than my wife and her boyfriends when it came to the passion of fighting for our freedoms. She began putting my wife down, along with her boyfriends. She told me that I "...needed a woman in the movement who understands me." She constantly compared me to other men in the movement, so when my wife and I went through a rough time and split up, and she was talking about her reasons for leaving Kansas City for opportunities in Saint Louis and stated that if she could find those things at home, she did not want to move. Specifically, a new boyfriend who "gets" her, $100/month rent, and the ability to start new LRP chapters. With LRP KC already in disarray, and my attraction to her style of civil disobedience, along with the advice that I should find a woman with passion, yes, I did make a pass at her. But I would NEVER let my love life affect an organization that I worked for a year and a half to improve and streamline. In the very words of Catherine "I don't shit where I sleep."

In the eruption of criticism also criticized Josh, her beau during much of this madness, now her ex, for similar motives, which I can neither confirm nor deny.

However, Catherine is a person who claims to operate on the principal that people "agree with" her decisions.

At the time of the Operation Defuse launch, which was apparently birthed out of the Alliance she made with John during CC2009, I had no clue of Catherine's immediate plans. Josh was against the idea of a southwest US speaking tour, which she dismissed as jealousy of John.

So, she worked against one of her organization's area director's wishes, and didn't even discuss it with the other area director until fundraising was beginning. Motives or not, I can provide example after example as to how LRP was never "grassroots" nor operated through agreement with her decisions.

But what of her motives? These examples do not provide my opinion on why she would act this way? Is she really Co-Intel-Pro or not?

She attacks Ron Paul and Alex Jones two weeks after a report by Cass Sunstein is released calling for infiltration and infighting of "conspiracy groups."

Again, not enough for me to call "Co-Intel-Pro" but why else?

Well Ron Paul backed out of the campaign, calling for a grand march on Washington DC. Catherine began mobilizing people toward Revolution March.....while Ron Paul was telling people to buy tickets to Rally for the Republic. The Grassroots Campaign tried to get Dr. Paul a speaking slot at the RNC Convention.....Ron again was worried more about Rally for the Republic.

Catherine and I tried to get people to understand the complexity of MIAC and the Army End The Fed report. But usually it was just broken down by Alex Jones' constant focus on how he broke the Militia Report and how He was the one being watched at the End The Fed rallies.

When Catherine tried to cheer Alex up during a bad show, he marginalized her as gullible.

Catherine looked up to the top two figures of the movement and they disrespected her hard work. I'd say their actions in January finally pushed Catherine over the edge.

I'd say if anyone had a personal grudge against the people they were criticizing, it would be her.

Again, I wouldn't say she's "Co-Intel-Pro" but I don't know enough about John to say either way. I find it very odd that the beginning of their alliance was muddled with calls of provocatuerism, and that ever since then, they have gone after the top two names in the movement, not on a point by point basis, but relentlessly, devoting several hours to attacking the negative actions of Ron Paul and Alex Jones.

And now I understand that Catherine has begun using this "Cointelpro" slogan as a joke.

Is this not the same tactic used by mainstream media to make certain important, serious, issues look like unimportant, light, child's play? (for example, the Audi super bowl "Green Police" commercial)

I'm airing the laundry with this, and I know to the majority out there this is going to seem like an attack. I assure you, I have nothing but the ultimate respect for Catherine, or at least who she was, and for my LRP family who we've fought so many battles together and got things done no matter how small our membership became.

That is truly my motives for airing this dirty laundry, I worked for so hard to give myself to LRP and this one person's improper role hardened me against the ability for this movement to live up to its potential. I either want Catherine to admit that her leadership has spun out of control and into negativity and step down as Executive Director of Missouri's most well known freedom group, or I want to educate the future LRPers so they don't waste their efforts on the ego of one person.

I don't blame her, nor John, for her actions. Sometimes people just cannot see when they are destroying something they love and must grasp it harder and suffocate it.

Again, this is just a scraping of the surface of the problems I've had with the top leadership of LRP, however, I feel honored to have had the experiences I've had and to have known Catherine when she went through her "positivity" phase.

I pray for the movement that through the cointelpro, and the infighting, and the Tea Party Takeover, that we can somehow come out with something vigilant and positive. That we can suck out these poisons and understand our role in the cure.

I hear Catherine is moving again, out of Missouri. I hear she may finally be heeding my call for her to step down as head of Missouri's most well known patriot group.

I hope this can be a growth period for all of us, and that I can finally open my email, or answer a phone call, or check facebook, or listen to the Alex Jones Show without listening to someone talking about the infighting and "cointelpro" tactics described here. I pray that this is the last time I have to type or speak the names of Catherine Bleish or John Bush.

I want to see new patriot activist groups pop up in Kansas City and will devote my resources and connections to helping make that happen if the right persons want to step up with me. I want to see Missourians reclaim the state legislature, starting with my own campaign. I want to focus on my life with my reconciled wife, my adolesent son, and my daughter whom I've missed 6 years of her life. I want to finally close the book on the influence Catherine has had over my life.

However, I've since seen another hot story broke by and another call to action from Catherine Bleish.

It seems that Governor Nixon is on the plate again, this time in Obama's Executive Ordered "Council of Governors"

I pray for Missouri.

Please, God, let this time be Different.