This is a random collection of ten documentaries, with my description of each. I post a different documentary, every time I watch a new one. To prevent the documentary page from taking an extremely long time to load, I create separate pages for older documentaries. This is page 7. The Boer War (1899-1902) - A Documentary Film(added 04/03/14)
This film is a quick 26-minute documentary about The Boer War in South Africa. This documentary can give someone a quick overview of the history of The Boers, the people who began leaving the English coastal settlements of Africa, and moving inland. Once gold was discovered in their new settlement area, the Boer area began booming, which caused Britain to look to become involved. Eventually the Boers and the British began fighting. The British put the Boers into concentration camps, and burned Boer houses, and farms, and destroyed cattle. The average person, unless highly interested in English history, will not find this documentary to be very entertaining.
To some people, Agenda 21 is an evil plan for the further creation, and control, of a world government, by the non-elected bureaucrats at the United Nations. To other people, Agenda 21 is a just well-meaning, harmless, non-binding set of recommendations, created by a group of men, and women, at the United Nations, that care about the preservation of the world's environment.
Before debating the true intentions, or effects, of Agenda 21, we must first understand the details of this document.
In can be difficult, and confusing, for the average person who hears about Agenda 21, to really understand it, through a simple search. The program is hundreds of pages, and not too many people will take the time to read all of it. An internet search of UN Agenda 21 will lead to a lot of information, but much of it is without reference to the actual document, thus seemingly just an opinion. I have took the time to read the document myself, and will chronicle my findings, and thoughts, here.
(It should be noted that I am not going into this examination completely ignorant of Agenda 21. I have, in the past, written critically about events taking place in my local community, that are connected to United Nations Agenda 21.)
The full document is 351 pages, however Agenda 21 is much more complex than just what is written in this action plan, due to the fact that there are numerous other resolutions referenced, and recommended, for further implementation, such as the Healthy Cities Programme of WHO, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and many more. I have yet to read all of these other resolutions, conventions, and programs, but as I do, I will document, and update, my research, at TheGoodmanChronicle.com. For now, I will just examine the text of this specific document, which can be viewed, in full, online here.
Let us start with the front cover of the hard copy version of Agenda 21 (picture below), which reads:
"EARTH SUMMIT - AGENDA 21 - THE UNITED NATIONS PROGRAMME OF ACTION FROM RIO".
Agenda 21, Front Cover
By using the words "programme of action", the creators of this document are informing the reader that this is a plan, or program, that they intend to have performed, or put into action, and not just some ideas that they hope for people to consider.
Agenda 21 is broken up into forty chapters, divided into three sections, and nearly every part of this document revolves around the idea of creating, what they refer to as, "a new global partnership for sustainable development." (Chapter 1, Section 1). Though the adjective "sustainable" is used numerous times, and in conjunction with various other pleasant sounding nouns, to create ideas like "sustainable livelihood" (Ch. 3, Sec. 4-a), and "sustainable city networks" (Ch. 7, Sec. 20-d), throughout Agenda 21, what is meant by "sustainable" is never really made clear, or specifically defined.
The opening preamble of Agenda 21 alludes to the idea that the term "sustainable development" means an "integration of environment and development concerns", which, according to the United Nations, will lead to "the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future." (Ch. 1, Sec. 1) This sounds nice, but again, is not specific, and could mean anything.
As the reader progresses through the document, a more sinister, controlling, agenda seems to emerge, that is ingrained in this plan, but it is masked with nice sounding phrases, and friendly language. The United Nations claims to want to create a sort-of utopia, where the environment is clean, nobody is hungry, everyone has a home, etc., but to do this, they need to have the power to create laws, or recommendations, that effect changes in your local community.
The Connecticut Senate approved a hike to the minimum wage, last week. The Senate voted 21-to-15 on Thursday to increase the current wage of $8.25 an hour to $8.70 on Jan. 1, 2014. It would increase to $9 on Jan. 1, 2015.
I believe it is important to point out that raising the minimum wage, or even having a minimum wage, does not help the lower class. If minimum wage laws actually worked the way these politicians pretend they do, then why wouldn't government just raise the minimum wage to $100/hour? If every employer was forced to pay their employee $100/hour, then, by this logic, we could help the lower class come out of poverty. But, of course, this logic is wrong.
It tends to be Democrats that push for the minimum wage, but you won't see the Republicans point out the absurdity of politicians trying to manipulate economics, because they benefit from having control of the economy, when they're in power.
For those that don't know, President Barack Obama used to go by the name "Barry Soetoro", while living in Indonesia, and he even registered for school as a INDONESIAN MUSLIM student. Did he renounce his citizenship? When did he change his name back? When did he change his religion? Your being lied to about everything. If there was a movie made about the true story of Barack Obama's origin, we wouldn't believe it. This man is a fraud, a phony, an ACTOR, a CIA asset, and much more, but your FRIEND, he is not!
A judge in Hamilton, Ohio, called the red-light-camera operation being run in the village of Elmwood Place a "scam that motorists can't win", comparing the system to a "high-tech game of 3-card Monty."
In his decision, Judge Robert Ruehlman decided that the operation failed to provide due process. The judge also exposed the many corrupt practices involved with the red light camera operation, being run by the for-profit company Optotraffic, in the village of Elmwood Place. Judge Ruehlman noted that the cameras are calibrated only once per year, as well as criticizing the administrative hearing process involved with the operation, when a person wants to challenge the allegation made by the camera. "If the owner of the vehicle wants to contest the liability, he or she must pay $25.00 to the Village of Elmwood and request a hearing before a hearing officer and there is no assurance that the fee will be returned if the appeal is successful. However, the hearing is nothing more than a sham!", says Judge Robert Ruehlman.
Also discussed in the judge's decision was the effect that the red-light-cameras had on the community. "Businesses have lost customers who now refuse to drive through Elmwood. Churches have lost members who are frightened to come to Elmwood and individuals who have received notices were harmed because they were unable to defend themselves against the charges brought against them."
Optotraffic, like most of these red-light-camera operators, has come under heavy criticism for their role in this highly profitable scheme. In the case of Elmwood Place, which is capable of collecting over 2 million dollars, in a period of six months, Optotraffic receives 40 percent of that revenue. In the state of Maryland, there have been reports that Optotraffic cameras have shown to be inaccurate, as well as a class action lawsuit involving Optotraffic and the town of River Park, challenging the town to refund citations bearing the forged signature of a police officer. Also in Maryland, a representative of AAA, Lon Anderson, said he believes that the red-light-camera operation being run is "not being used primarily for safety" but instead is "about making money for the city and camera producer Optotraffic."
There are legislators in the state of Connecticut that are attempting to change the law to allow red-light-cameras to go up, throughout the state. I have written about this push for red-light cameras in Connecticut involving corruption, United Nations Agenda 21, and the Rockefellers Brothers Fund, and I will continue to document, and expose, this scam, and do my best to prevent it from taking hold in Connecticut.
Related Stories:
Red Light Cameras In Connecticut; Corruption, Agenda 21 & the Rockefellers - March 01, 2013 (link)
(America's 2nd Revolutionary War - documentary by VICE)
I have seen several interesting documentaries by the filmmakers at VICE. They have a cool, entertaining way of presenting their information, which is why, I believe, they are popular today. While I do not deny that you can learn some interesting facts or details about a topic, when presented by VICE, I am always skeptical about where an operations funding comes from, and if there is an agenda that is not being openly presented.
The filmmakers of VICE get flown all over the planet, but at whose expense? I could not find any reports of direct funding, so I can not make any claims or speculations regarding the specific financial backers of the operation. What we do know is that SOMEONE is funding VICE, and, inevitably, that person(s) has SOME agenda, as everyone does. (Sidenote: The agenda of The Goodman Chronicle is to find truth, and promote liberty.)
What first made me skeptical about the truth in the reporting of VICE, was a documentary they made titled "How to sell drugs". (video below) The description to this video reads like this:
"Ever wonder how to sell $100,000 worth of drugs in a week? We learned the secrets of a drug dealer in NYC - a man who will deliver any substance you want, 24/7. He told us everything - from where he gets his drugs to how his crew operates. Come with us as we take a rare look into the dangerous life of a NYC drug delivery-man."
As I watched this video, I kept thinking to myself, 'this is bullshit'. Everything about the video seemed to be made up. The 'drug dealers' in the video all seemed to act, and talk, like cops, probably under cover NYC drug detectives. The 'drugs', and drug transactions, they were showing did not seem to justify the claim of making $100,000 a week. And besides, if someone is making that kind of profit, and running a large scale operation to that extent, why would they risk it all, to let a documentary film company, who may be working with the police, or one day be able to provide police with information, follow him? It just didn't make sense to me.
I didn't give VICE much further thought, until this month, when they released a documentary titled "America's 2nd Revolutionary War." (video at top of page) I am now convinced VICE has some hidden agendas in their reporting. I know a great deal of information on the topics discussed in this particular documentary, and in "America's 2nd Revolutionary War", I can see obvious one sided reporting, as well as an attempt to portray organizations like Oath Keepers, and individuals like radio talk show host Alex Jones in a negative light, using distasteful tactics.
The documentary opens up with a clip from the Alex Jones radio show, where Alex is discussing the fraud of the two-party political system, class war, tyranny, etc. Throughout this documentary, VICE is showing backstage video, which I assume they shot, of The Alex Jones Show, and only playing clips from Alex Jones's radio show. What is strange to me is that they never once showed any footage of them, interviewing Alex Jones. If they flew down to Texas, and went to his studio, I would assume they would have asked him some questions for the documentary they are making, right?
Ryan Duffy, of Vice, then sets the tone for the rest of this documentary with his opening statement on the current feelings of Americans, after the election of Barack Obama in 2008, "There was this growing movement of people who really feared the government and rejected this idea of hope all together."
The documentary then proceeds to do a soft 'hit piece' on the "liberty movement." Instead of interviewing people who are well established and have credibility, VICE interviews people like an elderly gentleman who was protesting for the first time in his life, as well as an overweight, middle aged white woman, who they never name, smoking a cigarette on the sidewalk, holding an American flag, on a rant about the country 'going down the tubes' and saying how we need to 'stop Obama and Pelosi or else "we're going to be in a civil war in a very short time." They then cut to her screaming on the sidewalk, with some elderly woman sitting down holding a sign, that you can't read, shouting "Deport Illegals" and "No bail out for Mexico".
One of the main people that VICE chose to focus on in this documentary was Sgt. Charles Dyer, USMC. Dyer had a Youtube channel, and would wear a scary mask when broadcasting. Dyer seemed to be fairly level-headed, but admittedly was very new to the resistance movement and was only awake 'with the situation' for about a year, when VICE decided to follow him. If you looked for recent headlines involving Dyer, you would find that, in 2011, he was arrested in Texas after becoming a fugitive, on the run for allegedly raping a six year old girl.
Throughout this documentary words like "The New World Order" and "Global Government" are used, but never once does VICE try to look into what "the new world order" means, or if there really is a "global government" being set up. They could have at least played the infamous George Bush speech, when he called for a 'New World Order'. But they did nothing! After watching this documentary, the ignorant masses will assume these terms to be associated with the 'weirdos' that are shown in this documentary.
Former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges, seems to be brought into the documentary as the 'voice of reason.' Chris Hedges attempts to brush away any conspiracy talk, by explaining, "Conspiracy theories become a way to explain the chaos of a world people don't understand. What conspiracy theorists don't grasp is that the elite is also inept. And conspiracy theorists frighten me because they can't read reality any more than people who naively believe that a corrupt elite is going to bring back the salad days of casino capitalism, can read reality."
I can keep going on with the dubious film making tactics that were used for propaganda purposes throughout this documentary, and there are many more that you can find yourself, but you get the point. Though, there is a final example I want to use to show the tastelessness, and potential hidden agenda, of the producers at VICE. I watched the whole documentary, with closed captions on, and everything matched word for word throughout the entire film, except for one part. At 23:14 in, Alex Jones says "We are going to KICK the new world order's butt", but is quoted in the captions as "we are going to LICK the new world order's butt." Coincidence?
I don't believe VICE is a bad organization. They make entertaining, and sometimes informative, films. I am just giving my opinion on what I have been noticing about the things I have been seeing, coming from VICE.
Also, last November, Shane Smith, co-founder of Vice, was on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. He was talking about the need for alternative energy, and the threat from global warming/climate change, but when Joe Rogan asked him about Nikola Tesla, Shane Smith claimed to never have heard of him. I am not saying you need to know about Tesla, to be an expert on alternative energy, but I thought someone in Shame Smith's position would know about Tesla's experiments.
After the shooting in Newtown, CT, the NRA, National Rifle Association, released a statement saying "The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again." The NRA plans to hold a major news conference on Friday, December 21, and maybe we can learn exactly what they mean by that statement.
The NRA presents itself as one of the leading voices in Washington, fighting infringements on the 2nd amendment, with over 4 million members registered with the organization. There are some gun-rights advocates that believe the NRA is a fraud, and the organization has been co-opted by the Washington establishment, now giving you the illusion that they are fighting for your 2nd amendment right, but instead having hidden agendas, like doing anything to increase their revenues, which in 2010, reached $228 million.
One gun-rights organization that never seems to compromise is 'Gun Owners of America', an organization that has, in the past, publicly criticized the NRA for 'selling out'. After the CT shooting, many politicians began calling for gun control legislation, but the NRA has remained silent. The executive director of Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt, on the other hand, has chosen to come out and publicly defend the 2nd amendment, with as much zeal as ever. In a video that is now going viral, Larry Pratt went on the Piers Morgan show on CNN, and completely embarrassed Morgan in a debate, to the point that Morgan resorted to name calling. (video below)
Two days ago, I reported how I believed the picture (above) of an NYPD cop buying a homeless man shoes, that went viral, to be a publicity stunt. (Was The Photo of an NYPD Officer Helping A Homeless Man A Publicity Stunt?) I also noted how there were rumors that the homeless man in the picture, is a well known con artist in that area. Today, the rumors of the homeless man were confirmed.
"sources unmasked the homeless man as 54-year-old Jeffery Hillman, a petty criminal who has been arrested nearly a dozen times since 1983. Most of his 11 collars are for drug possession, but others include criminal mischief and public lewdness.
A police source said Hillman is often seen strolling barefoot in the area and suspect it’s part of a scam to squeeze donations from tourists. Hillman, who last lived in a Harlem YMCA in April, could not be reached Friday for comment."
On Friday, I reported on the man:
How about the homeless man? What is his story. Well one website is claiming that this "bum" is a well known con man in that area, and claims "The guy sits around, as homeless people tend to do, only he's shoeless. All day long, unassuming good Samaritans and tourists buy him socks and fresh kicks. Then, after the do-gooder walks away—feeling like Johnny Philanthropist—the homeless dude takes the socks and shoes back off, stuffs them in his bag that's BRIMMING with other shoes, and begs for more. He then go on to tell me that this goes on EVERY DAY." The website even posts a picture of a man with no shoes, who they claim is probably the same guy, shortly after this whole incident.
Now we just have to sit back and wait for the rest of the story to be a confirmed hoax, because while The New York Daily News still reports the police officers act of kindness to be authentic, I believe otherwise.
(UPDATE: The New York Times found this man, still shoe-less, and he now says he wants "a piece of the pie" because the photo was posted online "without permission." Also, The New York Daily News now finds that the homeless man is actually not homeless at all. For the past year, Jeffrey Hillman has had an apartment in the Bronx paid for through a combination of federal section eight rent vouchers and Social Security disability and veterans benefits)
David Rennie, the former executive director of a Salvation Army facility, has been charged in the alleged massive theft of thousands of toys and donations from the charity's Toronto warehouse. The Salvation Army announced the theft last week, saying up to 100,000 items worth about $2 million were allegedly stolen from the facility in Toronto's North End over nearly two years. The thefts took place over two years. Police were alerted Nov. 6 after the missing items were detected in an internal audit by the Salvation Army, Gotell said.
Rennie was on paid leave after an employee blew the whistle on the theft in August. He was fired in mid-November. In 2001 Rennie declared bankruptcy, with debts of $280,000. His Salvation Army salary in 2011 was $111,215.
Rennie is believed to be in cahoots with a company called Northern Sales Group, a wholesale business who are involved in the scheme on some level, according to the Toronto Star. In a warehouse northwest of Toronto, police found 146 wooden platforms stacked with toys, baby cribs, strollers, porcelain dolls, Axe body spray, fruit cups, two missing CCM bicycles donated by Premier Dalton McGuinty's office for children at a Salvation Army camp, and other items.
I have documented past cases of theft, and fraud, involving big charity organizations. I believe the majority of big charities are too corrupt for me to ever give support to. I feel we should all give our time, energy, and money to causes we directly involve ourselves in, physically.
This photo has gone viral, and has made front page news all over the country. We are told this is a photo of an NYPD police officer who had just given a shoe-less, homeless man a new pair of boots. We are also told that this photo was taken by a tourist from Arizona, visiting Times Square, who just happened to capture the apparent act of generosity on camera, and then sent the picture to the NYPD, who posted the picture on their Facebook page.
While watching the various news video interviews of Officer Larry Deprimo, the police officer in the picture, I noticed a few interesting things about this whole story. First, in the different interviews conducted, Officer Deprimo always has a new part of the story, that makes this story seem more and more "movie-like". In one interview Deprimo claims he heard people laughing at the homeless man with no shoes, and that prompted him to go into a shoe store and tell the clerk, "I don't care about the price, gimmie whatever it is, that you have the best of!" In another interview Officer Deprimo talks about how he had two pairs of socks on, combat boots, and his feet were still freezing, which made him feel more sympathy for the shoe-less, homeless man. Deprimo also claims to have, afterward, offered the homeless man to come and "grab a cup coffee" or get "something to eat", to which the homeless man supposedly declined, and replied with "I love the police." Also, the lady who took the picture, claims that the officer didn't see her taking the picture, and she just snapped the flick and left. She says she didn't say anything to the officer, but still managed to get the picture to the NYPD. If you were writing a script, it couldn't come out much better than this.
I do NOT donate any money to any big organization, voluntarily. (Of course, the government takes money out of my check, involuntarily, to pay for their big, corrupt organization.) I have learned that any organization with a huge budget, lets say over a million dollars, cannot be trusted to distribute the money fairly, and in the manner that is expected of it. With money, comes power, and with power, comes psychopaths that want that power.
Pink Ribbon - Breast Cancer "Research"
Let us examine the logic behind charity organizations that are set up to "fight" certain diseases, like the various "pink ribbon" charities set up to fight breast cancer. These charities always stress the importance of finding a "cure", instead of finding a "cause". If you are the head of one of these big "charities", you are probably flying around on private jets, living in a nice home, driving a nice car, and have a good salary. But what happens if a cure for breast cancer is found? Then you no longer have the jets, home, car, and salary. There are doctors who claim to have the cure for cancer already, like Dr. Burzynski, and patients who have claimed to have been healed, but these doctors are never given any light, or any funding from these pink ribbon charities. There is an incentive NOT to find a cure for these diseases. There is a documentary that touches on what the writer calls "Pink Ribbons Inc.", the origins of this pink ribbon craze, and the hypocrisy of the corporations that make money off of it. You can watch the eye-opening documentary here:
