Why Was President Obama's Seemingly Important Press Release Ignored by Mainstream Media?

On November 21, while aboard Air Force One, President Obama dictated a press release that has been virtually ignored by the Western Press. He announced that the White House was going to investigate and mitigate the possible systematic infiltration of violent traitors within the executive branch. According to Senior editor of Veterans Today, Gordon Duff, "There is, currently, within the U.S. military, the Executive branch of government and among extremist "power brokers" in America an active plot to "alter" America's form of government through "decapitation"

From the White House:

"Presidential Memorandum -- National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs

This Presidential Memorandum transmits the National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs (Minimum Standards) to provide direction and guidance to promote the development of effective insider threat programs within departments and agencies to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security. These threats encompass potential espionage, violent acts against the Government or the Nation, and unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including the vast amounts of classified data available on interconnected United States Government computer networks and systems.

The Minimum Standards provide departments and agencies with the minimum elements necessary to establish effective insider threat programs. These elements include the capability to gather, integrate, and centrally analyze and respond to key threat-related information; monitor employee use of classified networks; provide the workforce with insider threat awareness training; and protect the civil liberties and privacy of all personnel.

The resulting insider threat capabilities will strengthen the protection of classified information across the executive branch and reinforce our defenses against both adversaries and insiders who misuse their access and endanger our national security.

BARACK OBAMA

Or, as one commenter [to the Duff article], Kathryn, said, is this "a government smokescreen to arrest more 'Bradley Mannings'?" In other words, is this another smokescreen to continue the war on whistle blowers? Shielding the real enemy to America, to humanity: the power elite?

Read more...

Under Cover of Darkness: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Increasingly, corporations are gaining more and more access and influence to legislation that the public and even Congress does not have through groups like  ALEC and trade agreements such as NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, that merged the United States, Canada, and Mexico creating essentially a north American continent of supposedly, "free" trade. "NAFTA contained 900 pages of one-size-fits-all rules to which each nation was required to conform all of its domestic laws - regardless of whether voters and their democratically-elected representatives had previously rejected the very same policies in Congress, state legislatures or city councils." After NAFTA was signed, two-thirds of Canadian families saw a decline in real income while two million peasant farmers were displaced from their land in Mexico, forcing many into trying to gain entrance into the United States, adding to our already growing immigration problem.

Now, there is "NAFTA on steroids," the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) (see links below), "a legally binding trade agreement for advancing transnational corporate tyranny and dismantling domestic democratic accountability" that is not only the largest “free trade agreement” ever negotiated, but also the most secretly negotiated, with "no public oversight, input, or consultations". Only two of its 26 chapters deal with trade, the rest grant unprecedented powers and privileges upon Trans-National Corporations (TNCs)while dismantling regulations and laws without any democratic oversight or input."

Take the intellectual property chapter alone, which would extend copyright provisions, if enacted into law,  from a state/federal jurisdiction to a matter of international agreement, and within that framework, plans on extending endless copyright terms across the globe  The U.S. already has the most extensive copyright terms in the world.  This is increasingly problematic for today's remix culture, intrinsic to the health of our economy. Not only can one face statutory damages, with preset fines of up to $150,000 per infringement, the criminal section of intellectual property chapter indicates an individual could face actual jail time.if it's proven that they had direct or indirect motivation for financial gain  Not to mention, copyright expansion can  be used to silence speech as they often do on websites such as Youtube.

In February 2012, powerful content groups such as the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and the MPAA (Motion Pictures  Association of America) met in Beverly Hills along with representatives from nine countries including the United States were secretly meeting in a luxury hotel in Beverly Hills. Public interest groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) were shut out, their hotel reservations canceled without their consent. Another public interest group's representatives were kicked out of the hotel.

For example, public interest groups have been warning that the TPP could result in millions of lost jobs. As a letter from Congress to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk stated, the TPP “will create binding policies on future Congresses in numerous areas,” including “those related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.”

The next round of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement negotiations will take place from December 3-12 in Auckland, New Zealand, and it will be done with the same level of secrecy as the last 14 rounds in order to grant far-reaching new rights and privileges to the 600 corporations aligned with the TPP at the expense of the tax-paying public. This could affect the health and welfare of billions of people worldwide, so where is the mainstream media?

The following is a list of 35 of the 134 lobbying clients who paid more than $1 million on lobbying in 2011-2012 and reported lobbying a federal agency on the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Links:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: This is What Corporate Governance Looks Like


Why So Secretive? The Trans-Pacific Partnership as Global Corporate Coup

Read more...

First Six Amendments Assume Government is Corrupt.

Driving along today, I started fiddling around with the radio stations when I came across this guy explaining what his law professor (Professor Cloud, I think) had explained to him: that the first six amendments are a unified body of logic, based on the assumption that government is bad.

You must also assume that government is your enemy.  That's right, assume that the government will trample your rights, target certain political and religious minorities, and come after you without probable cause (especially when they employ Rape-a-scan to gate rape you and your 6-year old at airports).

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
by Thomas Jefferson

Thus, the first six amendments were created.  So, the First amendment  guarantees free speech, free assembly, free religious expression, and freedom to petition.

However, what's to stop governments from coming after people who partake in these freedoms?  Nothing.

Hence, the creation of the second amendment: the right to bear arms. Why? To protect you from officials who overstep their boundaries.

But what happens when the police force show up at your door? The army? And, rest assured, they will if you dare to pull a gun on a fed. So, that's where the third amendment comes in, as it guarantees that the government will not house troops in your home or private property without your consent.

Nevertheless, who remembers the third amendment, right? No one.

That's where the 4th amendment comes in. So, when the government forgets the third amendment, and sends out the troops to invade your house, the 4th says they cannot go through your stuff. Uhm, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if they kick your door down, they will go through your stuff.

Hence, the creation of the 5th amendment. Anyone who watches the boob tube remembers this one, because of the often recited phrase: "I plead the 5th."  The 5th also guarantees Americans the right to trial by Grand Jury.

Nevertheless, even if that indictment is obtained, the 6th amendment guarantees you the right to a judgement by a fully informed petit jury. Not only does this jury judge the individual facts, but can also judge the law, itself.

The bottom line is that even legally obtained power can, and more than likely will (to some degree) abuse that power and show utter disregard for constituted law and order.

Links:

Freedom Law Self-help law clinic and law library.

Read more...

Project Occupy Wall Street Meet Project Police State

Wall Street is the target of a nonviolent demonstration in which organizers say they want 20,000 people to participate with tents, kitchens and "peaceful barricades" in lower Manhattan. #OccupyWallStreet 's goal is to get President Obama to establish a commission to end "the influence money has over our representatives in Washington," according to Adbusters, the group promoting the demonstration. Adbusters want participants to "occupy" the area for "a few months".

If you are aware of this protest, you are probably not aware that people are being arrested at this non-violent demonstration for exercising their first amendment rights. It's interesting to see how this video's view count is frozen at 307. You can be sure, a lot more people than 307 have watched this video.



Yes, I'm sure the banksters are just loving this, and will do everything in their power to stop this effort to curb their criminal ways. All I can say is that it's about time, considering the banks are the source of most, if not all of our problems.

Unfortunately, unless a miracle happens, the banks will get their way.
.

Read more...

Why Are We So Vulnerable to Propaganda?

The best defense against the deliberately cloaked propaganda in the mass media is recognizing our susceptibility to it. If we refuse to believe that we are vulnerable, we are much more likely to succumb to propaganda's compelling force. And, it's not always the ignorant and uneducated masses who succumb most easily. Very often, the arrogance of the educated and/or "privileged" class renders them defenseless to its insidious pressure; thus, allowing the propaganda to inform and permeate their psyche.

Jacques Ellul on propaganda:

The average citizen wants to have opinions on domestic and foreign issues. But in reality, he can’t. He is caught between his desire and his inability, which he refuses to accept. For no citizen will believe that he is unable to have opinions. Public opinion surveys always reveal that people have opinions even on the most complicated questions, except for a small minority (usually the better informed and those who have reflected the most). The majority prefers expressing stupidities to not expressing any opinion.

For this they need simple thoughts, elementary explanations, a “key” that will permit them to take a position, and even ready-made opinions. As most people have the desire and at the same time the incapacity to participate, they are ready to accept a propaganda that will permit them to participate, and which hides their incapacity beneath explanations, judgments, and news, enabling them to satisfy their desire without eliminating their incompetence.

The individual does not want information, but only value judgments and preconceived positions. Here one must also take into account the individual’s laziness, which plays a decisive role in the entire propaganda phenomenon, and the impossibility of transmitting all information fast enough to keep up with developments in the modern world.

Besides, the developments are not only beyond man’s intellectual scope; they are also beyond him in volume and intensity; he simply cannot grasp the world’s economic and political problems.

Faced with such matters, he feels his weakness, his inconsistency, his lack of effectiveness. He realizes that he depends on decisions over which he has no control, and that realization drives him to despair. Man cannot stay in this situation too long. He needs an ideological veil to cover the harsh reality, some consolation, a purpose, a sense of values. Only propaganda offers him a remedy for a basically intolerable situation …

If we look at the average man, and not at those few intellectuals whose special business it is to be informed, what do we actually mean when we say this man is informed? It means that, aside from spending eight hours at work and two more commuting, this man reads a newspaper or, more precisely, looks at the headlines and glances at a few stories. He may also listen to news broadcasts, or watch it on TV; and once a week, he will look at the pictures in some kind of news magazine (Time, Newsweek, etc.). This is the case of the reasonably well-informed man, that is, of 98% of all people.

Now, what happens next to a man who wishes to be informed and receives a great deal of news each day? First, straight news reporting never gives him anything but factual details; the event of the day is only always a part, for news can never deal with the whole. Theoretically, the reporter could relate these details to other details, put them into context and even provide certain interpretations–but that would no longer be pure information. Besides, this could only be done for the most important events, whereas most news items deal with less important matters.

But if you shower the public with the thousands of items that occur in the course of a day or week, the average person, even if he tries hard, will simply retain thousands of items which mean nothing to him. He would need a remarkable memory to tie some event to another that happened three weeks or three months ago.

Moreover, the array of categories is bewildering — economics, politics, geography, and so on — and topics and categories change every day. To be sure, certain major stories occasionally become the subject of continuous reporting for several weeks or months, but that is not typical.

Ordinarily, a follow-up story on a previous news item appears two weeks to a month later. To obtain a rounded picture, one would have to do research, but the average person has neither the time or desire for it. As a result, he finds himself in a kaleidoscope in which thousands of unconnected images follow each other rapidly. His attention is continually diverted to new matters, new centers of interest, and is dissipated on a thousand things, which disappear from one day to the next.

The world becomes remarkably changeable and uncertain; he feels as though he is at the hub of a merry-go-round, and can find no fixed point or continuity; this is the effect information has on him. Even with major events, an immense effort is required to get a proper broad view from the thousand little strokes, the variations of color, intensity, and dimension the paper gives him. The world thus looks like a pointilliste canvas — a thousand details make a thousand points. Moreover, blank spots on the canvas also prevent a coherent view.

Our reader would then have to be able to stand back and get a panoramic view from a distance; but the law of news is that it is a daily affair. Man can never stand back to get a broad view because he immediately receives a new batch of news, which supersedes the old and demands a new point of focus, for which our reader has no time.

To the average man who tries to keep informed, a world emerges that is astonishingly incoherent, absurd, and irrational, which changes rapidly and constantly for reasons that he cannot understand. And as the most frequent news story is about an accident or calamity, our reader takes a catastrophic view of the world around him. What he learns from the paper is inevitably the event that disturbs the order of things. He is not told about the ordinary — and uninteresting — course of events, but only of unusual disasters and crime, etc., that disturb that course. He does not read about the thousands of trains that every day arrive normally at their destination, but he learns all the details of a train accident.

In the world of politics and economies, the same holds true. The news is only about trouble, danger and problems. This gives man the notion that he lives in a terrible and frightening era. Man cannot stand this; he cannot live in an absurd and incoherent world (for this, he would have to be heroic, and even Camus, who considered this the only honest posture, was not really able to stick it to it); nor can he accept the idea that the problems, which sprout all around him, cannot be solved, or that he himself has no value as an individual and is subject to the turn of events.

The man who keeps himself informed needs a framework in which all this information can be put in order; he needs explanations and comprehensive answers to general problems; he needs coherence. And he needs an affirmation of his own worth. All this is the immediate effect of information.

And the more complicated the problems are, the more simple the explanations must be; the more fragmented the canvas, the simpler the pattern; the more difficult the question, the more all-embracing the solution; the more menacing the reduction of his worth, the greater the need for boosting his ego.

All this propaganda — and only propaganda — can give him.

… An analysis of propaganda therefore shows that it succeeds primarily because it corresponds exactly to a need of the masses. Effective propaganda needs to give man an all-embracing view of the world, a view rather than a doctrine. Such a view will first of all encompass a general panorama of history, economics and politics. That panorama allows the individual to give proper classification to all the news items he receives; to exercise a “critical” judgment, to sharply accentuate certain facts and suppress others, depending on well they fit into the framework.

News therefore loses its frightening character when it offers information for which the listener already has a ready explanation in his mind, or for which he can easily find one. Man is doubly reassured by propaganda: first, because it tells him the reasons behind the developments which unfold, and second, because it promises a solution for all the problems that arise, which would otherwise seem insoluble.

Propaganda is the true remedy for loneliness. It also corresponds to deep and constant needs, more developed today, perhaps, than ever before; the need to believe and obey, to create and hear fables, to communicate in the language of myths. It also responds to man’s intellectual and desire for security–intrinsic characteristics of the real man as opposed to the theoretical man of the Existentialists.

This situation has another aspect. In our society, man is being pushed more and more into passivity. He is thrust into vast organizations which function collectively and in which each man has his own small part to play. But he cannot act on his own; he can act only as the result of somebody else’s decision. He is more and more trained to participate in group movements and to act only on signal and in the way he has been taught.

The individual becomes less and less capable of acting by himself; he needs the collective signals which integrate his actions into the complete mechanism. Modern life induces us to wait until we are told to act.

At the same time, the individual feels himself diminished. For one thing, he gets the feeling that he is under constant supervision and can never exercise his independent initiative; for another, he thinks he is always being pushed down to a lower level. To be sure, we’re talking of the average man; obviously a corporate president, high-level administrator, or professional man does not feel diminished, but that fact does not change the general situation.

The feeling of being unimportant stems from

•general working conditions, such as mechanization and regimentation
•from housing conditions, with small rooms, noise, and lack of privacy
•from family conditions, with loss of authority over children
•from submission to an ever-growing number of authorities (no one will ever be able to assess fully the disastrous effect on the human soul of all the bureaus and agencies)
– in short, from participation in mass society.

But man cannot stand being unimportant; he cannot accept the status of a cipher. He needs to assert himself, to see himself as a hero. He needs to feel he is somebody and to be considered as such. He needs to express his authority, the drive for power and domination that is in every man.

Under our present conditions, that instinct is completely frustrated. Only propaganda provides the individual with a fully satisfactory response to his profound need.

The more his needs increase in the collective society, the more propaganda must give man the feeling that he is a free individual. Propaganda alone can create this feeling, which, in turn, will integrate the individual into collective movements.

Though a mass instrument, propaganda addresses itself to each individual. It appeals to me. It appeals to my common sense, desires, and provokes my wrath and my indignation. It evokes my feelings of justice and my desire for freedom. It gives me violent feelings, and lift me out of the daily grind.

As soon as I have been politicized by propaganda, I can from my heights look down on my daily trifles. My boss, who does not share my convictions, is merely a poor fool, a prey to the illusions of an evil world. I take my revenge upon him by being enlightened; I have understood the situation and know what ought to be done. Thanks to propaganda, the diminished individual obtains the very satisfaction he needs.

In addition, to the extent that modern man is diminished, he finds himself faced with the almost constant need for repression. Most of his natural tendencies are suppressed by social constraints.

We live in an increasingly organized and ordered society which permits less and less free and spontaneous expression of man’s profound drives (which, it must be admitted, would be largely anti-social if completely unleashed). But it is impossible to keep the individual in such a situation for long.

The individual who feels himself in conflict with the group, whose personal values are different from those of his milieu, who feels tension toward his society and even toward the group in which he participates–that individual is in a tragic position in modern society.

To seal all outlets and suppress man in all areas is dangerous. Man needs to express his passions and his desires; collective social repression can have the same effect as individual repression. Either sublimation or release is necessary.

Propaganda offers release on a grand scale. For example, propaganda will permit what so far was prohibited, such as hatred, which is a dangerous and destructive feeling and fought by society. But man always has a certain need to hate, just as he hides in heart the urge to kill. Propaganda offers him an object of hatred [think of the giant pictures of Goldstein in 1984, shown during the Five Minutes of Hate], for all propaganda is aimed at an enemy. And the hatred it offers him is not shameful, evil hatred that he must hide, but a legitimate hatred, which he can justly feel.

Moreover, propaganda points out enemies that must be slain, transforming crime into a praise-worthy act [the Ritual Crime between citizen and state]. Almost every man feels a desire to kill his neighbor, but this is forbidden, and in most cases the individual will refrain from it for fear of the consequences. But propaganda opens the door and allows him to kill the Jews, the bourgeois, the Communists, and so on, and such murder even becomes an achievement.

Authoritarian regimes know that people held very firmly in hand need some decompression, some safety valves. The government offers these itself. This role is played by satirical journals attacking the authorities, yet tolerated by the dictator, or by a wild holiday set aside for ridiculing the regime, yet paid for by the dictator (Friday of Sorrows in Guatemala) Clearly, such instruments are controlled by the regime.

These instruments of criticism serve to consolidate power and make people cling even more to the regime by providing artificial release of tendencies that the state must keep in check. In such situations, propaganda has an almost therapeutic and compensatory function.

This role is even more prominent in the presence of another phenomenon: anxiety. Anxiety is perhaps the most widespread psychological trait in our society. On the one hand, the number of dangers is increasing and, because of the news media, man is more aware of them; on the other hand, religious beliefs, which allowed men to face fear, have disappeared almost entirely.

Finally, as a result of all the threats and contradictions in contemporary society, man feels accused, guilty. He cannot feel that he is right and good as long as he is exposed to contradictions, which place him in conflict with one of his group’s imperatives no matter which solution he adopts.

But one of man’s greatest inner needs is to feel that he is right. First, man needs to be right in his own eyes. He must be able to assert that he is right, that he does what he should, that he is worthy of his own respect. Then, man needs to be right in the eyes of those around him, his family, his milieu, his coworkers, his friends, his country.

Finally, he feels the need to belong to a group, which he considers right and which he can proclaim as noble, just and good. But that righteousness is not absolute righteousness, true and authentic justice.

For what matters is not to be just, or to act just, or that the group to which one belongs is just — but to seem just, to find reasons for asserting that one is just, and to have these reasons shared by one’s audience. [The rallying cries of "multiculturalism" and "diversity" come to mind here.]

This corresponds to man’s refusal to see reality — his own reality first of all — as it is, for that would be intolerable; it also corresponds to his refusal to acknowledge that he may be wrong. Before himself and others, man is constantly pleading his own case and working to find good reasons for what he does or has done. Of course, the whole process is unconscious. Relevant here is the tendency of the individual to reconstruct his past to demonstrate that his conduct was right. But this is justification rather than explanation of behavior. Man thus lives in a seemingly reasonable fiction.

On the collective level one can say that most ideologies and political or economic theories are justifications. A study by M. Rubel has shown that Marx’s rigid and seemingly uncompromising doctrine was one gigantic intellectual justification for sentimental and spontaneous positions taken by him in his youth.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to accept reality as it is and acknowledge the true reasons for our behavior, or to see clearly the motivations of a group to which we belong. If we practice a profession, we cannot limit ourselves to its financial rewards; we must also invest it with idealistic or moral justification. It becomes our “calling,” and we will not tolerate its being questioned.

Obviously, the prodigious universality of justification makes it so effective: the man who justifies himself and unconsciously plays this farce not only believes it himself but also has the need for others to believe it. And, in fact, the others do believe it, because they use the rationalizations and become accomplices of the play in which they themselves are actors.

Justification really attains its effectiveness only on the basis of this complicity, which is so all-pervasive that even those who are victims of justification go along with it.

Propaganda appeases tensions and resolves conflicts. It offers facile, ready-made justifications, which are transmitted by society and easily believed. At the same time, propaganda has the freshness and novelty which correspond to new situations and give men the impression of having invented new ideals. It provides man with a high ideal that permits him to give into his passions while seeing to accomplish a great mission.

Propaganda dissolves contradictions and restores man to unitary world in which the demands are in accord with the facts. Here, propaganda plays an idealistic role, by involving a man caught in the world of reality and making him live by anticipation in a world based on principle.

In conclusion: For all these reasons contemporary man needs propaganda; he asks for it; in fact, he almost instigates it. The development of propaganda is no accident. The politician who uses it is not a monster; he fills a social demand. The propagandee is a close accomplice of the propagandist. Only with the propagandee’s unconscious complicity can propaganda fulfill its function; and because propaganda satisfies him — even if he protests against propaganda in abstracto, or considers himself immune to it — he follows its route.

Propaganda is the inevitable result of the various components of technological society, and plays so central a role in the life of society that no economic or political development can take place without the influence of its great power.

Social work, Human Relations in social relationships, advertising (Human Engineering in the economy) propaganda in the strictest sense in the field of politics — the need for psychological influence is everywhere the decisive factor, which progress demands and which the individual seeks in order to be delivered from his own self.

Read more...

Bill Clinton Wants to Send us Back to the Cave to Watch the Shadows on the Wall or Snooki

As drones become pervasive inside America, Bill Clinton thinks the United Nations or the U.S. government should create an agency to control the "misinformation" on the Internet. We're not supposed to know that our government is going to employ the use of drones to to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions on us.

You see, since warfare is the only means to maintain the hierarchical society of the Ruling Elite, of which Bill belongs, Bill has the "right" to misinform, whereas, we, the muzzled masses, do not.

Read more...

Big Brother Trains Local Law Enforcement to Target Law Abiding Citizens.

Within the last few years, more than  70 fusion centers - intelligence enterprise operations responsible for conducting surveillence on suspicious people - have sprung up across the United States.

According to Police Chief Magazine:

In November 2009, after a six-month review, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Homeland Security Committee said fusion centers should do the following:

•Act as principal intelligence enterprise nodes to connect state and local law enforcement, homeland security, and public safety entities to each other and the federal government

•Harness and apply the collective knowledge of their constituents to address issues related to threat and risk

•Assume the leading role in information-sharing initiatives related to law enforcement, homeland security, and public safety issues

The Police Chief article points out, "the concept [fusion centers] has changed considerably from the original vision." In, and of itself, that is not surprising, as many, if not all, organizations gradually evolve somewhat from the original vision.  However, it's especially concerning in this case, given the exponential growth in technology; the rise of Orwellian doublespeak (analogous to George Orwell's doublethink and Newspeak) by the establishment; the bailing out of banks instead of homeowners; the fact that our nation comprises 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population, and, overall,  the consolidation of power and wealth in fewer and fewer hands at the dawn of the 21st century.

One man, James Wesley, Rawles, in law enforcement for 18-years, compiled a list of things being taught on how to detect domestic terrorists based on the DHS training he has attended:

1. Expressions of libertarian philosophies, statements, and bumperstickers.
2. 2nd amendment oriented view: gunship club membership, holding CCW permit (concealed carry weapon)
3. Survivalist literature and fictional books such as "The Patriot" and "One Second After". 
4. Self sufficiency: stockpiling food, medical supplies, ammo, hand tools, etc.
5. Fear of economic collapse. Buying gold or bartering items,
6. Religious views regarding the Book of Revelation.
7. Involved in home schooling.
8. Express fears of Big Brother or big government.
9. Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
10. Belief in a New World Order conspiracy

Now, based on that list, former President George W. Bush, and over half the Republican party should be rounded up. As for myself, I'm only "guilty" of #4, #8 (Big Brother...who isn't?), #9, and possibly # 1; nevertheless, even if that list only identified people I detest, "W", I can see where this is leading. It's not so important as to who they are targeting - because that could change in an instant - but that they are targeting law-abiding American citizens at all.

Consider the following statement by this ordinary citizens, with a more or less, insiders view.  (There is no way to verify the veracity of the following statement; however, if manufactured out of thin air, he should work for "Big Brother", given his level of creativity).

I just attended the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Denver and took a class hosted by the FBI and Colorado State Patrol about Domestic Terrorism. The FBI's JTTF is urging local law enforcement to have their local fire departments and ambulance districts help to violate illegal search and seizure
The Director of the Joint Task Force was one of the speakers and urged that because we are not able as police officers to search every house due to the 4th amendment. He said that the fire and ambulance guys are in a unique position to enter houses without any criminal probable cause and we shoud urge them to check through houses that they enter for anything suspicious and report it back to local law enforcement or the FBI. The things sounded like they could include anything from guns to right or left wing books, posters, or speech.
This is one of the most disgusting violations of Constitutional rights I have ever witnessed. According to the CSP their are several Colorado agencies already on board and who knows how many more nationwide. This is direct from the mouth of the FBI and is not an internet rumor. Please share this with everyone.

Read more...

Should We Control Anonymous Propaganda?

After all, it's always good to consider the source, but how can you consider the source when the source is anonymous or assuming a different identity?

The unique characteristics of Internet communications present new challenges to the issue of anonymity, the "concealing of one's identity while communicating, thus enabling the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation."

The Internet offers individuals with very little money or political power the vehicle to potentially reach large audiences and make a real impact, thus leveling the playing field. Although the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment guarantee free speech, that does not protect individuals with unpopular opinions from retaliation (loss of job, anonymous threats, etc.). Anonymity is often the only protection in many cases.

As is the case with all personal freedoms, anonymity on the Internet is often used to inflict harm...for example, posting an individual's private information, spreading false or damaging statements, etc. However if whatever is spread causes harm, liability and monetary damages may be awarded.

Proving "harm" is another story. First you must hire an attorney to file for a subpoena to serve upon the ISP in order to reveal the identify of the "defamer", who then has the right to file a "motion to quash." The burden of proof is on the person defamed, so he or sher must present "prima facie" evidence that the accused did inflict harm. The inconvenience and cost can be prohibitive, leaving most of us at the mercy of anonymous evildoers lurking amongst us.

Then, there is the propaganda mill. It's bad enough when we can the "who" behind the information designed to mislead or persuade us, but when the propagandist conceals his identity, the impact could be that much greater. Wikipedia is one example where the "anonymous" go to propagandize. However, as in the case of Wikipedia, most *wikis track the editor's ip address, so, it' fairly simple to see that much of the so-called anonymous editing is coming from Congress, the CIA, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In addition, large corporations get in on the act: "Someone from Halliburton deleted key information from an entry on war crimes; someone from Diebold, an electronic-voting machine manufacturer, deleted sections of its entry about a lawsuit filed against it. Someone at Pepsi deleted information about health problems caused by the soft drink. Somebody at The New York Times deleted huge chunks of information from the entry on the Wall Street Journal." And of course, the CIA has been editing the entry on the Iraq war.

Fortunately, Wikiscanner and other similar tools allow us to search the millions of edits across the wiki spectrum so that we may consider the source. And, it's never been easier to do our own research for verification purposes.

The idea of government legislating against anonymous Internet posting, editing, etc. is unconstitutional and creates more problems than it solves. Enforcing it alone would be impossible and extraordinarily time consuming and costly. So, since we, the people have the tools to do our own research and check the sources of our information, anonymous propaganda is not all that troublesome . As for the other issues, it's the price we pay for living in a free society.

"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society." -- 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

The Changing Web and Copyright.

*In a nutshell, a wiki is a collection of collaborative Web pages that allow users to modify entries, thus, a wiki is constantly changing depending on who creates or revises the entries.

Read more...

Good News! You're Not Liable for Bumping!

No, not chest bumping, although I can think of several reason why liability might be an issue, but we won't go there.

Nope, it's far more liberating than Bush's chest bumping or Obama's fist bumping. It's Internet post or thread bumping.

If you have spent night after night, tossing and turning, worrying about whether what you've bumped on the Internet, there is good news for you:

"Bump messages" - new comments posted to older messages in order to move them current on a forum or web site - are not considered republication, therefore you can not be sued for liable. Whew! I can finally get some sleep.

On 12/10/08, in Admission Consultants Inc. v. Google, Supreme Court Justice Herman Cahn of Manhattan denied Admission Consultants request that Google give up identifying information aimed at obtaining the names and addresses of two anonymous posters to BusinessWeek's Web site. Admission Consultants claimed that each bump message republished the defamatory material, therefore "constituted an actionable statement". In other words, they sued for bumping.

Citing Gregoire v. Putnam's Sons, (1948), Justice Cahn said:

"Under the 'single publication rule,' which New York follows, the publication of a defamatory statement in a single issue of a newspaper or magazine, although widely circulated and distributed, constitutes one publication that gives rise to the cause of action. That rule applies here to the modification of an Internet Web site,"

Justice Cahn concluded:

"Subjecting a single modification of an Internet Web site, such as a bump message, to the definition of a republication of defamation would have a 'serious inhibitory effect' on this form of communication."

Some other ground-breaking lawsuits:

I was circumsized, dammit!

My dress fell apart at the altar!

My thong injured by eye!

Poop happens.

Don't hug me!

Brooklyn Judge sues for negligent use of soapy water, mop bucket and wringer.

Read more...

Justifying Imus' Behavior, by Borat, and the Rappers?

How come no one is bringing up the fact that Imus is a middle-aged, rich white-man who targeted a specific group of kids that fought tremendous odds to get where they are today?

How come we are afraid to say "No, it's not OK for rich white men to racially slur black college students?" especially when that rich, white man has no past history of contributing to the fight for their equality?

I don't see how Borat (Sacha Cohen), who has created a caricature to expose racism, prejudice and the hypocrisy that exists in today's society, can be compared to Imus' cruel remark specifically targeting innocent college girls. Just as "Archie Bunker" was created to reveal racism and hatred in a context, easy to digest, because we are laughing at the same time the ugly truth is being disclosed; Borat takes it one step farther, trying to anethnatize the painful process of seeing ourselves as we really are.

The rapper's lyrics -- who are extremely offensive, and hopefully the marketplace will coax them out of existence -- can't be compared to a racist remark coming from a person, who comes from a part of society, that literally, the rules of our society, are made tailor made.

The upper-class white man has rights the lower-class black woman will never have. These rights are woven into the fabric of our society and they guarantee the rich white man will always be in power. But, in order to detect these heavily shrouded entitlements, one must be willing to rip the fabric to shreds because they are so intricately and tightly woven.

This is not an issue of free-speech. If it were, I would be supporting Imus 100%, because I do not feel out government should interfere in any way in an American citizen's right to say whatever they please, no matter how cruel, mean-spirited or outlandish it is.

Read more...