ExperimentalVaccines "Consuming Kids"

ExperimentalVaccines "Consuming Kids"

Spelling it out: How CISPA would affect you (FAQ)

© U.S. House of Representatives
House Intelligence Chairman Mike
Rogers, who says CISPA will not
endanger Americans' privacy.

Spelling it out: How CISPA would affect you (FAQ) by Declan McCullagh

 CISPA may have cleared the U.S. House of Representatives, but the fight isn't over. It's shifted to the U.S. Senate. Here's CNET's FAQ on what you need to know about this particularly controversial Internet bill.

It took a debate that stretched to nearly seven hours, and votes on over a dozen amendments, but the U.S. House of Representatives finally approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act on April 26.

Passions flared on both sides before the final vote on CISPA, which cleared the House by a comfortable margin of 248 to 168.

CISPA would "waive every single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cybersecurity," Rep. Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat and onetime Web entrepreneur, said during the debate. "Allowing the military and NSA to spy on Americans on American soil goes against every principle this country was founded on."

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and author of CISPA, responded by telling his colleagues to ignore "all the things they're saying about the bill that are not true." He pleaded: "Stand for America! Support this bill!"

While CISPA initially wasn't an especially partisan bill -- it cleared the House Intelligence Committee by a vote of 17 to 1 last December -- it gradually moved in that direction. The final tally was 206 Republicans voting for it, and 28 opposed. Of the Democrats, 42 voted for CISPA and 140 were opposed. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said afterward on Twitter that CISPA "didn't strike the right balance" and Republicans "didn't allow amendments to strengthen privacy protections."

The ACLU, on the other hand, told CNET that the amendments -- even if they had been allowed -- would not have been effective. "They just put the veneer of privacy protections on the bill, and will garner more support for the bill even without making substantial changes," said Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel for the ACLU.

Read complete report..

KnowingTest Focus Update April 28, 2012

© n/a

KnowingTest is being updated with an adjustment on focus. The previous labels at the top of page are now in the tag cloud ( active side  dynamics  knews  language tech  rhetoric),

Five new labels have been formed. These labels are more attuned to aspects that may correlate the current dynamics of technology for interpretation related to the future information highway.

This is a test of the nature of interpretation that exists in the Indo-European root system within the anecdotal notions of the usual genres that are chosen based on several years research that show linguistic and astrological correlation. [Per1: Privacy (prime); sexual center, Per2: Reports (sports); instinctive center, Per3: Experiences (empiric); moving center, Per4: Suppression (press); intellectual center, Pel5: Filters; emotional center]

Please use the old test labels to represent matching sequence as they had been displayed. However, it remains difficult to match alphabetical sequences objectively, so their order must now be set to frequency knowing their assignments are sequenced in root references (as above). Please bear with me while the antenna is realigned.

There may be one way to remember their influences as set. Reports and Experiences are feminine and Suppression and Filters are masculine according to astrology. Privacy is neutral as in Habeas corpus, neither negative or positive. Although according to G. I. Gurdjieff, the sexual center tends to connect up with either the emotional or instinctive negative aspects as each of the other centers possess and create false virtue. What energy flows out of this cannot be stopped and is often robbed by other centers.

"The energy of the sex center in the work of the thinking ,emotional, and moving centers can be recognized by a particular 'taste,' by a particular fervor, by a vehemence which the nature of the affair concerned does not call for. The thinking center writes books, but in making use of the energy of the sex center it does not simply occupy itself with philosophy, science, or politics - it is always fighting something, disputing, criticizing, creating new subjective theories. The emotional center preaches Christianity, abstinence, asceticism, or the fear and horror of sin, hell, and the torment of sinners, eternal life, all this with the energy of the sex center . . . Or on the other hand it works up revolutions, robs, burns, kills, again with the same energy. The moving center occupies itself with sports, creates various records, climbs mountains, jumps fences, wrestles, fights, and so on. [...]

This is an example of the abuse of sex."

Those are the words of G in the treatise by P. D. Ouspensky, "In Search of the Miraculous." As far as the senses go, taste and touch have seemingly been assigned predominant while sight, smell, and sound embedded. G advises finding the center of gravity and allowing the active side to use its own energy wisely.

Please share your comments.

The Key to Change is to Let go of Fear - COURAGE in Palestine

The Key to Change is to Let go of Fear - COURAGE in Palestine - HonestToGawd



How much courage does it take to be a soldier in the Israeli Defense Forces? How much does fear of death make change impossible? Zionists don't have the courage to allow change. They are afraid of losing control.

US Drone War: Made Up and Covered Up

US Drone War-News Analysis-04-27-2012 



Related:

Duff, Fetzer on Press TV – US fighting imaginary enemies in wars: Political analyst

Losing Femininity in the Elusive Search for Kansas

© Unknown

Losing Femininity in the Elusive Search for Kansas - Sott.net

Whether male or female, and whether people realise it or not, inequality between the sexes affects everyone's lives on a daily basis.

While women in the Middle East experience 'in your face' gender inequality, particularly in theocratic regimes like Iran - which one of your authors has direct experience of - the equivalent bias in the West has a flavor that is far more subtle and therefore far more dangerous. It's more difficult to discern the root of a problem when it is acting covertly in a way that few notice.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, how different countries respond to sexism is reflective of how their ruling elites conduct politics. A religious government in the Middle East, for example, rules with an iron fist and bluntly tells its citizens what the rules of the game are. It's overt and leaves no room for doubt as to where the authorities stand on ideology.

In the West, the situation is the opposite. The government's influence is subtle and manipulates its citizens into believing ideals (e.g. "equal rights"), all the while changing the rules to suit the purposes of those who own the government - to keep life more equal for some than others.


Cover Thyself

In countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, sexism is clearly defined by laws stating that women must cover their hair. Curious about the origins of this custom and how it became iconic in Islam, we looked it up and found one source which claimed the following:

Although long seen as the most distinctive emblem of Islam, the veil is, surprisingly, not enjoined upon Muslim women anywhere in the Quran. The tradition of veiling and seclusion (known together as hijab) was introduced into Arabia long before Muhammad, primarily through Arab contacts with Syria and Iran, where the hijab was a sign of social status. After all, only a woman who need not work in the fields could afford to remain secluded and veiled.

In the Ummah, there was no tradition of veiling until around 627 C.E., when the so-called "verse of hijab" suddenly descended upon the community. That verse, however, was addressed not to women in general, but exclusively to Muhammad's wives:

"Believers, do not enter the Prophet's house...unless asked. And if you are invited...do not linger. And when you ask something from the Prophet's wives, do so from behind a hijab. This will assure the purity of your hearts as well as theirs" (33:53).

This restriction makes perfect sense when one recalls that Muhammad's house was also the community's mosque: the center of religious and social life in the Ummah. People were constantly coming in and out of this compound at all hours of the day. When delegations from other tribes came to speak with Muhammad, they would set up their tents for days at a time inside the open courtyard, just a few feet away from the apartments in which Muhammad's wives slept. And new emigrants who arrived in Yathrib would often stay within the mosque's walls until they could find suitable homes.

When Muhammad was little more than a tribal Shaykh, this constant commotion could be tolerated. But by 627 C.E., when he had become the supremely powerful leader of an increasingly expanding community, some kind of segregation had to be enforced to maintain the inviolability of his wives. Thus, the tradition, borrowed from the upper classes of Iranian and Syrian women, of veiling and secluding the most important women in society from the peering eyes of everyone else.

That the veil applied solely to Muhammad's wives is further demonstrated by the fact that the term for donning the veil, darabat al-hijab, was used synonymously and interchangeably with "becoming Muhammad's wife." For this reason, during the Prophet's lifetime, no other women in the Ummah observed hijab. Of course, modesty was enjoined on all believers, and women in particular were instructed to

"draw their clothes around them a little to be recognized as believers and so that no harm will come to them" (33:60).

More specifically, women should

"guard their private parts...and drape a cover (khamr) over their breasts" when in the presence of strange men (24:31-32).

But, as Leila Ahmed observes, nowhere in the whole of the Quran is the term hijab applied to any woman other than the wives of Muhammad.

It is difficult to say with certainty when the veil was adopted by the rest of the Ummah, though it was most likely long after Muhammad's death. Muslim women probably began wearing the veil as a way to emulate the Prophet's wives, who were revered as "the Mothers of the Ummah." But the veil was neither compulsory, nor for that matter, widely adopted until generations after Muhammad's death, when a large body of male scriptural and legal scholars began using their religious and political authority to regain the dominance they had lost in society as a result of the Prophet's egalitarian reforms.

Hmmm, isn't that interesting?

Read more..

Comment: A short walk through etymology backs up what these authors express in relation to knowing and the feminine divine. (Read entire article) In etymology, the story may begin with truth which is divided into three parts which results in a type of production. It is here that velocity is set followed by roots that describe the feminine syntax which forms a figure or throne that describes religious concepts associating both atheism and the feast. From this point in the lexical sequence of roots, the earth is then addressed. Begin with the root deru- and follow through to dhes-, where the essence of earth begins and the doorway to breath and language is implied. Generally, before truth (da- through der-) the mind attempts to deal with the obsession of the axis as is with the earth and this is integrated upon the tree. Of note, density is rootless and seems to be addressed immediately following deru-. And to add, many words we use today were created long before human life knew what it does today in relation to the use of these formations. You can bet that these uses are contrariwise.

CISPA Is Ridiculously Hideous (And It Just Passed The House)

CISPA Is Ridiculously Hideous (And It Just Passed The House) by David Seaman

I'll be back on RT America today to discuss CISPA's not-so-shocking passage in the House. (Watch David's last appearance discussing CISPA below.)

Total surveillance of the people is what Congress ultimately wants, so it is no surprise that this is apparently a top legislative priority for them -- even at a time when 1 out of every 2 recent college graduates face unemployment. Even at a time when our total public debt is above $15 trillion.

How bad is CISPA in its current form? Here's some analysis from Techdirt: "Up until this afternoon, the final vote on CISPA was supposed to be tomorrow. Then, abruptly, it was moved up today—and the House voted in favor of its passage with a vote of 248-168. But that's not even the worst part. [...] Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for 'cybersecurity' or 'national security' purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA."

Let me put this into perspective for you:

- If the government suspects you are a genuine "bad guy," like a cyberterrorist, human trafficker, drug kingpin, etc... they can already seize all of this online activity information about you. It's called obtaining a warrant. CISPA does away with that. It supercedes ALL existing federal privacy laws. As Techdirt's Leigh Beadon put it, "Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power."

- Online banking and trading: dead as we know it. Who is going to use online banking services, knowing that anyone from a local police department snoop, to a federal spy agency, to even random private companies might be watching your every trade, and your purchase history, without a warrant or court involvement of ANY kind.

- The 'adult entertainment' industry: dead as we know it. Big Brother is watching you. If CISPA becomes law, which it appears on the fast-track to do, who will watch knowing that others are watching you.
- Online health databases and discussion forums such as WebMD: dead as we know it. Who will ask intimate health questions, knowing that your identity is not even semi-anonymous any more?

- Online suicide helplines, depression forums, political discussion communities: dead as we know it. Same reason as above.

- Legitimate criticism of the government: dead as we know it, especially if you are a "job seeker" who doesn't want any blemishes on your record to get in the way of surviving.

- Online communities like Reddit: dead as we know it. So much for the semi-anonymous, crowdsourced hivemind brilliance of multi-million user social communities.

- Facebook: dead as we know it (although they don't seem to care). Who will use the service, knowing that countless other companies could be watching and logging every profile and photo you view, every message you send or receive, and every connection you've ever made...

Again, allow me to stress the fact that CISPA enables snooping without a warrant or court involvement. It is absolutely ludicrous insanity. The minds behind this in Congress should be forced to resign, immediately -- they are acting in the interests of weird lobbying groups and defense contractors. They aren't acting in the interests of Internet users, the economy, nor even the health of the Internet itself.

For those hoping President Obama will wave his veto pen and make this nightmare go away: remain vigilant. He also issued a veto threat on NDAA, and then reversed that, signing it into law on New Year's Eve with almost no media attention given to it. This President, and all future Presidents, now have the ability to order the U.S. military to imprison American citizens, without trial nor access to an attorney.

Strange times.

Gerald Celente - The Corbett Report 27 Apr 2012

Gerald Celente - The Corbett Report 27 Apr 2012 



Go to http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com for more

When It Looks and Feels Like Totalitarianism…

Apr. 25, 2012: When It Looks and Feels Like Totalitarianism… by Jemima Pierre

The Obama administration has spent the last three years building the infrastructure of a totalitarian police state, that "has surpassed the Bush administration’s attempts to expand executive power by crushing the civil liberties of US citizens." At the center of the repressive edifice is preventive detention without trial, buttressed by various measures that, effectively, criminalize dissent. Clearly, and methodically, "the US government is preparing for domestic insurrection."

"The NDAA’S dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president – and all future presidents – to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield."

George W. Bush would blush. Joseph McCarthy would be proud. And COINTELPRO now seems like child’s play. In only three years, the Obama administration and its enablers have established, legitimized, and normalized a national security state apparatus that removes any doubt that domestic policing is a prelude to a totalitarian police state. This apparatus has surpassed the Bush administration’s attempts to expand executive power by crushing the civil liberties of US citizens. And it has done so boldly, with only a few prominent critics, and without so much as a whimper from so-called leftists.

What we urgently need is a compilation of the various acts, presidential signing statements, domestic surveillance programs, secret military and police operations, censorships, and other administrative measures that affect not only our civil liberties, but also our human rights and human dignity. For now, I will focus on two of the more recent congressionally approved draconian laws passed by the Obama administration.

On New Year’s Eve, 2011, away from the glitter and swoon of the media, Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (or NDAA). The law states that based on suspicion alone, the military can indefinitely detain anyone who is considered a "terrorist" or deemed an accessory to terrorism. This includes US citizens. According to the ACLU, this law codifies "indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history." "The NDAA’S dangerous detention provisions," the ACLU continues, "would authorize the president – and all future presidents – to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield."

"The Obama administration and its enablers have established, legitimized, and normalized a national security state apparatus that removes any doubt that domestic policing is a prelude to a totalitarian police state."

What is most dangerous about this law, according to its many critics, is its broad language about who can be considered a target. In his column describing why he is suing the Obama administration over NDAA, journalist Chris Hedges points particularly to Section 1031 defining a potential target as a person who is either a member of, or substantially supported, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or "associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." This also includes "any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." The law doesn’t define what "associated forces" are, or what "engaging in hostilities" against the US means. And because the definition of a "terrorist" shifts according to political necessity, all of us – all over the world – are potential targets and eventual victims. Historically, we have seen how the US government has labeled "domestic terrorist" any persons or groups, particularly those on the left, who have dared challenge inequality and state oppression (clear examples are the American Indian Movement and the Black Power Movement). Most recently, we have seen the brutal suppression of domestic dissent through the militarized dismantling of Occupy Wall Street encampments – which brings us to the next worrisome law, HR 347.

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 or the "Trespass Bill" (HR 347 and its companion Senate bill, S. 1794) was signed into law by Obama on March 9, 2012. This law, according to a Business Insider article, "potentially makes peaceable protest anywhere in the U.S. a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison." What it says, specifically, is that anyone can be charged with a federal felony for "trespassing" on property or grounds that is under Secret Service protection, even if the supposed "trespasser" is not aware that the area is under such protection. One can also be charged if he or she "impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions." This law effectively criminalizes any form of protest. This means that any place or event can, at any time and under any circumstance, be designated a "trespass" area and, anyone protesting any event can potentially be arrested. Knowing also that under NDAA, once arrested, a person can be detained indefinitely and extradited if he or she is deemed a threat, should give us all pause.

"Any place or event can, at any time and under any circumstance, be designated a "trespass" area and, anyone protesting any event can potentially be arrested."

Along with these new laws, there is the recent Executive Order signed by Obama on March 16, 2012: National Defense Resource Preparedness (EO 8248). This order allows the executive branch – through various federal authorities such as the Secretaries of Energy, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Defense, and Commerce – to take control of all food, all energy, all health resources and all transportation resources in the service of "national defense," even in times of declared peace. It is true that this latest executive order is an update to the one signed by Bill Clinton in 1994. But in the context of the growing number of laws that expand executive and military power to stifle dissent along with the rapidly expanding national security enterprise, we should be wary.

Since the passing of the Patriot Act in 2001 and its reauthorization by Obama last year, we have seen assaults on our dignity, our human rights and ability to protest. These assaults now come from multiple fronts and contain diverse tactics. And they affect us all. We see examples in the local and federal militarized response to the Occupy Wall Street movements, the deployment of drones domestically by city governments, universities, private contractors, and local police (see domestic drone authorization map here), and we see how the Obama administration has waged an all out war against whistleblowers by using the archaic World War I era Espionage Act, prosecuting more people than all other presidents combined. More importantly, there is what the Washington Post last year called the "National Security Enterprise" that depends on "854,000 civil servants, military personnel and private contractors with top-security clearances," and whose major work is domestic surveillance to curtail dissent. The unprecedented $1.5 billion, almost 1 million square feet National Security Agency data center (or "Spy Center") that is being built in Utah, is to work both as a bottomless database for all information on all Americans, and as a remote interrogation center.

With all of this, it is clear that, even though it seems to only be concerned with international wars and other misadventures, the US government is preparing for domestic insurrection. And it has done so by unleashing the structures of totalitarianism, as it seeks to regulate our actions through mass surveillance, fear, and threats of repression. (For how else can we understand the recent purchase by the Department of Homeland Security of nearly 500 million rounds of ultra-deadly hollow-point bullets and 40 caliber ammo, as well as a large number of semi-portable steel checkpoint guardhouses, complete with high-impact bulletproof glass windows and doors?)

And why not? The political order is being shaken, the Western financial infrastructure is collapsing, and empire is imploding. They know it and they are ready.

Jemima Pierre can be reached at BAR1804@gmail.com.

Source

A Spanish Company Known As Scytl Will Be Reporting Election Results For Hundreds of U.S. Jurisdictions

A Spanish Company Known As Scytl Will Be Reporting Election Results For Hundreds of U.S. Jurisdictions by Michael Snyder

 Do you know who is going to be counting the votes on Election Day 2012?  Most Americans never even think about this.  Most Americans just assume that their votes will count and that the government will ensure that the counting process is done honestly and fairly.  But is this really the case?

Sadly, the vast majority of people never take the time to "look behind the curtain" to see how things really work.  If they did, they might find themselves extremely upset about what they would find.

The integrity of our voting process is of the utmost importance.  If we do not have the ballot box, then what avenues for changing our government do we have left?  Unfortunately, the integrity of our elections has been called into question quite a few times in recent years, and now a Spanish company known as Scytl will be involved in reporting election results for hundreds of jurisdictions across the United States this upcoming election day.  Will those election results be accurate?

It is absolutely amazing that a foreign company has been able to gain such control over the reporting of election results in the United States without it ever making a significant splash in the mainstream media.

You would think that there would be a law against this sort of thing, but apparently there is not.
So how did this all come about?

Well, the story starts with a company called SOE Software.

 SOE Software was founded in 2002 and has been involved in reporting election results in 25 U.S. states....

Founded in 2002, SOE Software (SOE) has been working in 25 states to provide election management tools that include online pollworker training and election night reporting solutions to over 900 state and local election jurisdictions.

SOE Software was purchased by a company based in Barcelona, Spain known as Scytl earlier this year. This combination of the two companies has produced a giant firm.  Scytl now has a dominant market position in the election software market....

With the acquisition of SOE Software, Scytl is now the industry leader in the election software market with a full range of solutions that cover the whole election process and include secure online ballot delivery, Internet voting, electronic pollbooks, election night reporting, and online pollworker training.

Scytl will be involved in reporting election results in more U.S. jurisdictions than any other company.
In fact, the new combined company will be involved in reporting the election results in 30 U.S. states....

The combined organization is the largest pure election software company in the United States and will be serving customers in over 1,100 jurisdictions in 30 states, including 15 state-wide customers.

 So exactly how does all of this work?

Why should we be concerned about what Scytl does with our votes?

Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org has studied voting systems in the United States extensively.  According to her, the combination of SOE Software and Scytl is going to make it much more difficult for observers to independently verify the integrity of the voting results in many jurisdictions.  The following is an extended excerpt from a recent article by Bev Harris.  It is a bit technical but it does a great job of breaking down how things have changed now that Scytl has acquired SOE Software....

In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world’s dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA’s dominant election results reporting company.

When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.

As local election results funnel through SOE’s servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get “first look” at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.

In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations.
This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.

With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won’t work (if SCYTL’s voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own “audit” by matching one number against the other.

These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.

So should we trust that whatever election results Scytl gives us are accurate? Of course not. The truth is that there have been all sorts of questions about the integrity of Scytl voting systems.

The following example comes from a recent article posted on westernjournalism.com....

 The American advocacy group Project Vote has concluded that SCYTL’s internet voting system is vulnerable to attack from the outside AND the inside, a situation which could result in '…an election that does not accurately reflect the will of the voters…' Talk about having a flair for understatement!There have also been very serious questions about SOE Software.  Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org says that there have been major problems with SOE Software election results in the past....

In Broward County FL, the results reported by Scytl-owned SOE Software in 2008 showed an entire candidate, who was winning, disappear into vapor in the middle of the count, and in Hillsborough County FL and Dallas County TX, votes that had been reported began to disappear.

So now we have a combination of SOE Software and Scytl.  Considering the questions that have surrounded both firms in the past, it is easy to see why so many voting activists are deeply concerned.

There are a lot of rumors floating around the Internet that George Soros is at least a part owner of Scytl, but so far nobody has come forward with any solid evidence of this.

According to Scytl, the primary investors in the company are Balderton Capital, Nauta Capital and Spinnaker SCR.  It is not known at this time whether George Soros has an ownership stake in any of those venture capital firms.

In any event, it is deeply troubling that a Spanish company will have control over the reporting of election results from hundreds of jurisdictions in the United States on election day.

Hopefully there will be no problems and the election results will be 100% honest and accurate.

But what if they are not? 

This article first appeared here at the American Dream.  Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.

Ghostwriting in your mind

© unknown

Ghostwriting in your mind - R. Mark Sink

After reading this cute little teaser article entitled, Christianity is like the Titanic it fell upon me to elaborate more on this topic.

I come from a extremely religious family who profess a type of religion by the name of Baptists. My mother is 85 years old and won't be around much longer and I have been trying to arrange to see her but the rest of my family doesn't want me around her, so they have refused not only in disrupting my ability to see her, they also belittle me for speaking out the truth about such affairs.

I won't mention any names in this discussion but I can explain what seems to be a major problem that has kept the ghost ship afloat which is called authoritarianism. Some might consider this concept a theory or hypothesis but I can assure you it is 100% real. Since my mother had a stroke after my father died in 2002, eleven months after the false-flag 9/11, she has become completely innocent in her understandings of our language, which may in effect make it a bit easier to determine the truth.

Her brain is still capable of describing her beliefs associating her religion even though she is incapable of writing or reading any words. She still uses the English language to describe her beliefs not realizing its bearing on the matter. Her life goal has been to make me believe I am saved and when I was about 10 years old, I experienced this illusion. I remember it still today and how I felt after the experience. I felt it was complete nonsense and was meant as some form of ritual because after this experience occurred, nothing was different than before, in other words, it was a fabrication for the mind.

Since that time, I have come to realize the truth and have mentioned this to my mother for she has a right to the truth even though she seems incapable of perceiving it. I tell her that to be saved is simply a form of racism and defies all that is good in human beings. If I am better than others, than I have betrayed them all.

The idea of the author is key in the building of words and their meanings and haunts man as to its origin of thought. The haunting is exemplified by favoring absolute obedience to a valid meaning which associates the concept of authoritarianism.

We do want to study history and determine the origins of things and we often find that it is man who has created them, not a perceived god other than man who professes the image of one.

The origin of such things is inside us and a part of our thinking that is recorded over time. Behind religion is the truth and this may be the core of why we create the notion of origin.

We worry that the origins of morality will be destroyed without a form of religion, yet many aspects of study do seem religiously bound however do not necessarily claim a form of faith other than truth itself. We also must consider the origins of words, such as religion, a very modern word that has only existed a few hundred years if that.

Before religion, there was only the word which haunted the mind. If we examine the etymological origin of how religion has been added to our language, we can sense this is a reference to the feelings generated by words themselves. We also can sense how such words will change our perception about life and the collusions that will occur. Here are the roots leading up to religion and following it. Look closely and you may sense the truer meaning of the word. (The analects are suggestions originally made after a series of study.)
 
10. 10-allude-collude-delude-elude-illusion-interlude-ludic-ludicrous-prelude-prolusion-et-leid- To play, jest [Pokorny leid- 666, fauvism]

Analecta: Ecology
11. 14-alloy-colligate-furl-legato-league-leech-liable-ligase-ligate-ligature-lictor-lien-oblige-rely-et-leig- To bind [Pokorny 4. leig- 668, featherbone] Additions: ally, rally, religion
 
Analecta: Economy
12. 5-anilingus-cunnillingus²-electuray²-lichen-lick-et-leigh- To lick (cunnillingus¹ - (s)keu-) (electuray¹ - eghs-)  [Pokorny leigh- 668, fecund]

Analecta: Greedy - Spellbinder
13. 5-delinquent-eclipse-lend-loan-relinquish-et-leik^w- To leave [Pokorny leik^u- 669, feeling]

Imagine all these feelings are how a particular word affects the mind and how that word is used throughout a lifetime which in effect details how a life will be perceived. It is true that words become loans. They seem to play or jest in the mind, and they bind, and so forth.

If one does not consider the relationship that is being made with particular words and their power, one might become delinquent in their use and fail to interpret their bearings. This is where the authoritarianism comes into play as a formal rejection of bearing and where words become weapons to defend the ghostwriting in your mind.

As a note of navigation, before the roots above is the word "lex," which also bestows the concept of law which is sourced with the idea that letters are capable of holding words together. This thought may become obsessive in of itself, an unwillingness to interpret how a word is based and used.

This has become the disease called America, a place where authoritarianism is king and to deaden all interpretation of truth. One can read more about the concept of authoritarianism for free here.

Those who in my family prevent me generally from seeing my mother before she dies express these abnormalities associating a strong bearing on defying the basis of interpretation when it comes to words. They say things like, "The government can do anything they want," and ask "Do you go to church?"

I try to tell my mother that today's churches say nothing of the illegal wars and instead promote them by adding more delusional statements such as "we support the troops."

I do not support the troops unless they are not engaged in illegal wars, however, this would be strongly rejected based on the racism that is bound to the concepts at hand which are part of the institutions that pervade for the punishment of all life that does not let the ghost reside.

We may also sense how authoritarianism is being used to write more laws that attend the notions that interpretation is forbidden by the use of metaphorical nonsense as methodology for abuse and to cloak criminal activity that must remain loosed upon earth.

For all that god may become, it is only humans who may reflect those notions through their thoughts developed from their language. It is certainly time to grow up and realize we are vulnerable, and imperfect, and our greed is that which drives today's authority.

It is seen in the way humans act, in the way we are both forced to survive through particular means and in its very nature that is set free.

The word "Christ," is also contained in the dictionary immediately following the concept of degrees. This word is older than that of the word "religion," and may have been used when the earth was still considered flat, not round as it is today.

When the earth was thought to be flat, the idea that the earth was moving had to be dealt with in the mind, but may have not been considered properly. It was all the mind could deal with at the time and is reflected by the roots that surround the word in question. A sense that the mind was attempting to deal with the spin is clearly sensed in the root in which it is placed.


33. 7-graben-grave¹-gravlax¹-gravure-groove-grub-et-ghrebh-²- To dig, bury, scratch (grave² - g^werə-) (gravlax² - laks-)  [Pokorny 2. ghrebh- 455, cuneiform]

34. 16-aggress-centigrade-congress-degrade-degree-degression-digress-egress-gressorial-ingress-pinnigrade-plantigrade²-progress-retrograde-retrogress-transgress-et-ghredh- To walk, go (plantigrade¹ - plat-) [Pokorny ghredh- 456, cur]

Analecta: Goat - Curiosity
35. 5-chrism-christ-cream-grime-grisly-et-ghrēi- To rub [Pokorny ghrēi- 457, curiosity]

Analecta: The dream of the dolphin
36. 8-chrondro-frenulum-frenum-grind-grist-hypochondria-mitochondrion-refrain-et-ghrendh- To grind [Pokorny ghren- 459, curule]

Analecta: The mirror - Kaleidoscope
37. 7-chalicothere-dinothere-feral-ferocious-fierce-theropod-treacle-et-ghwer- Wild beast [Pokorny ĝhuĕr- 493, deleterious]

38. 11-anaglyph-cleave-cleft-clever-clevis-clove-glume-glyph-glyptic-hieroglyphic²-kloof-et-gleubh- To tear apart, cleave (hieroglyphic¹ - eis-) [Pokorny gleubh- 401, conservative]

Here we see the mind trying to figure it all out and I have associated these feelings with something called "rub," which hints of the spin of the earth. One may sense how that is perceived today from some of the words included in the above roots and how human expression is associated with spin.

The truth is more fun in that the earth spins with the moon around the sun in which travels through space at thousands of miles per hour inside the galaxy that supposedly also moves around, however we travel through space in a spiral formation similar to the way the chambers in the heart build a small duplex vortex.

These are not the things you find in old books before man understood his circumstances more clearly. The earth was not flat, and our ability to learn had just begun. We've come a long way and our problems are now obvious and disheartening at our neglect of each other replaced with greed and racism.

Financial Crisis Spreads: 85 protesters arrested in Montreal

85 protesters arrested in Montreal - RT



Last week student protesters clashed with police in Montreal, Canada over college tuition hikes; the increase would raise the cost of education by $325 annually over the next five years. On Wednesday, 85 protesters were arrested during a rally against Premier Jean Charest and today many are asking that elected officials engage in talks with the students whom are striking due to the hikes. Bernard Desgagne, a citizen journalist, joins us for the latest.

Media Disinformation and the Use of "Words"

© n/a

Media Disinformation and the Use of "Words" by Ross Ruthenberg

The mainstream media utilize many words and phrases in reporting that have been specifically chosen, either by the media or a source, to misrepresent or distort the contexts to which they are applied. Unfortunately, the alternate media often picks up those words (or phrases) and uses them in their own reporting, without due consideration for the perpetuation of the distortions and misrepresentations. 

Examples include: 

"Rubber bullets"

The image presented to the public is one of nice, rubber balls banging into protesters, creating stinging pain for use in crowd control. This is not at all the case, though they are generally categorized as "less lethal", if used correctly e.g. no head shots. For a good perspective, see here [1]. At minimum, these should be called rubber-coated bullets. But even the use of "rubber" causes distortion. Better might be "hard-coated steel bullets". I would also observe that with enough muzzle velocity (which the firing rifles usually have) and at close enough range, just about any material can be lethal. The best example would be tornados ramming straws into tree trunks and lumber through building walls. 

"Tear gas"

Though "tears" may have been the main human reaction to this gas when it was invented, the toxicity of the current CS gas [2] is considerably more advanced, causing all sorts of negative reactions in a human's breathing system, eyes, skin, etc. Its "non-lethal" characterization has also been shown to be often untrue. CS gas is the most commonly used and "CS-gas" could be used instead of "tear gas", or perhaps even better, "toxic CS gas". 

"Settlers" 

This term is most often used by Israel to characterize Israelis taking over land owned by Palestinians, without any compensation. By this definition, one could move into one's neighbor's house while they were on vacation, claiming legal and moral protection as a "settler". The purposeful use of this term had early beginnings in the U.S. as the Europeans took over Indian lands in the westward movement, with the implication (often freely stated) that the lands were totally "unsettled" and populated only by "savages". More proper terms might be "land thieves" or "land grabbers" or "carpetbaggers". 

"Terrorists"

Technically, in order to be a "terrorist", one must purposely create or set about creating terror in a population. But the term has become totally prostituted by governments, individuals and organizations using the term to their own advantage, especially since 2001. A government agency can merely claim an individual or group or organization is/are terrorists. But "terrorism" is in the eyes of the beholder. Afghans likely would be terrorized by night raids of their home by NATO soldiers, but Westerners don't call NATO a terrorist organization. Another example might be that Gaza and the West Bank seem to be supposedly loaded with terrorists, while Israel appears to have none, even though Israel has killed many more Palestinians than the reverse. This is a tricky one to find better terminology for, so maybe use of an adjective should always be encouraged, such as "US-claimed terrorist", "covert terrorists", etc. Or just minimize the use of "terrorist" and find more appropriate characterizations such as soldier, etc. 

"Defense"

The U.S. military used to be the War Department. Now it is the Department of Defense" (DOD) even though it can be well-argued that it should be more appropriately titled the Department of Offense". Any militaristic endeavor is usually better painted as defensive rather than offensive, for its better image, depending on the source. For instance, Syria's military and security functions may be operating defensively (against mercenaries) but mercenary supporters will labels all such Syrian government moves as offense e.g. "attacks on their people". Better terms than "defense/defensive" could often be "offensive", "suppression", "oppression", etc. A more neutral term might be used such as "reactive" or "in reaction to". The DOD should be the DOO, as should the Israeli IDF be the IOF. 

"Smart"

Used more and more often as time passes, such as in "smart bomb". The definition of smart inherently includes or assumes intelligence, but intelligence can only be attributable to animals, especially humans (though the "smartness" is often questionable). In most cases, the "smart" term is applied to an object that contains a computer in some form. But computers cannot think and aren't intelligent... they are simply code-driven machines. A "smart bomb" is an immoral attribution of the adjective. Why aren't all other bombs defined as "dumb bombs"? A "guided bomb" would be more correct, at least in the context that one could question how well it was guided, while "smart" seems to have taken on a binary acceptance i.e. either smart or not (dumb?). 

"Protesters", "militants", "insurgents", "activists", "rebels", "extremists", "radicals", etc. 

Since all these words are generally based on characterizations of what one is doing, it gets quite confusing to, say, call one a militant if one is instead being just a protester that day. Being an Iranian or a man or a Christian, (etc.) are not action characterizations; you can't be "Iranianing". Thus, by definition, such characterizations, beyond being (often purposefully) fuzzy and confusing, could be correct one day but incorrect next week. And a protester could very well be at a given time a militant protester activist. It's too bad there isn't one word to cover all of these. Again, use of adjectives can be of help: protesters becomes more clear as "peaceful protesters", insurgents gains clarity as "poorly armed citizen insurgents", etc.

Ross Ruthenberg is a Chicago are political analyst. rossersurf@comcast.net  

Notes [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTx4vbTYr-w
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_gas 

The Great Data Sellout Reveals How We Pay For Our Own Enslavement

image source

The Great Data Sellout Reveals How We Pay For Our Own Enslavement - Activist Post

The communications devices that we have been baited into using as a means to be within instant touch of our friends, associates, and the latest information, continue to be turned against us.

In addition to surveillance by the apps themselves offering a wealth of personal details to advertisers, smartphones have gained new capabilities to track a user's location with incredible precision. This location data in turn is being used by law enforcement across the country in ways that should be troubling to civil liberties advocates.

Documents obtained by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act revealed that cell service providers are not only willingly handing over all of your data to local police departments but they're also charging an obscene amount of money for the information.

Now California has introduced a bill sponsored by the ACLU and EFF that proposes to limit the unbridled selling of this information by simply reinforcing current wiretap laws that demand a search warrant be issued before obtaining personal data.  Naturally with big money at stake the wireless industry has vigorously opposed this legislation.

Three things should immediately jump out from the opposition to the California Location Act of 2012 (SB 1434). 

1) Your data, calls, phone numbers, photos, electronic location, etc. are being turned over to authorities without a warrant;

2) Service providers are making money from this transaction when they vowed to never sell your data;

3) Your own local tax dollars are funding this warrantless breach into your privacy.

 Whereas law enforcement and government merely seek to broaden the scope of their power as they are designed to do, service providers seek to commodify your personal information and double-dip beyond the service you believed you were buying.  The combination of the two leaves users with reduced civil liberties and empty pockets.

Andy Greenberg of Forbes writes:

If Americans aren’t disturbed by phone carriers’ practices of handing over cell phone users’ personal data to law enforcement en masse–in many cases without a warrant–we might at least be interested to learn just how much that service is costing us in tax dollars: often hundreds or thousands per individual snooped.

 Greenberg also notes that when he confronted AT&T about these pay-for-data transactions, he was directed to their privacy policy which states; "We do not sell your personal information to anyone for any purpose. Period."

In response, ACLU's attorney involved in the FOIA requests said "That’s a curious definition of ‘sell,’ given that they seem to be charging money for people’s information on a regular basis and handing it over to law enforcement agencies around the country."

SB 1434 first sets the standard to have a search warrant or nothing, then imposes strict reporting requirements that would bring transparency where currently it is lacking.  This is the central point that the wireless industry is opposing.

There is interesting language being used by the Wireless Association that includes AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint, as highlighted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

the proposed reporting requirements 'unduly burden wireless providers and their employees, who are working day and night to assist law enforcement to ensure the public's safety and to save lives.'

Working day and night to assist law enforcement? This is yet another example of America's heavy lean toward Fascism, as national security is invoked to give increased power to corporate entities, while the rights of the individual are sacrificed.  These communications companies should be working day and night to enhance the quality of the products we are paying for, and uphold their commitment to privacy protection.  This is a highly dangerous money-making scheme.

A further demonstration of the cozy relationship between these private corporations and their government directors is shown by SB 1434 ultimately being passed out of committee without the "burdensome" reporting requirements requested by civil liberties groups.

And there we can find the simple truth: they are trying to build a prison, and every one of us is expected to pay for its construction.  

Please visit The Electronic Frontier Foundation to learn about ways to become active by contributing to corporate and government transparency through initiatives such as the OpenNet Transparency Project.

For other articles by Activist Post click here.

You can support this information by voting on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/styve/the_great_data_sellout_reveals_how_we_pay_for_our/

Misconceptions About Energy

© unknown

Misconceptions About Energy - R. Mark Sink

We've all heard the phrase "free market," which is a kind of backward clause in the fact it does not truly represent the dynamics involved. It is true that small business deserves the right to be unrestricted and have the capability to competitively survive in a capitalists system, however, it does not validate the system which eventually allows the entrepreneur to avoid regulation that is also deserving.

If people assume that a "free market," means that corporations are people, then one can see how the use of such a backward phrase does not truly explain the context of fair use in that in its use others will go without. The capitalists free market results in the continuing state of affairs in which the living conditions of millions of people suffer by allowing marketers free reign over others. This may seem fair but at the same time, what is good on one end is horrific on the other. Some survive while others die and this is the claim that is made under the veil.

We've been fooled on energy this is true. We are told that oil is a fossil fuel when this claim cannot be substantiated. We continue to learn about and discover alternative ways to create energy and we are told that it is individuals who are to blame when they themselves have no say in the matter and their impact is negligible in the corporate spectrum.

Michael Snyder writes 10 Facts About America's Energy Resources That Will Blow Your Mind and explains that peak oil as many other propaganda efforts does not reflect reality. This is a good example of how many people see the market in one particular view but often neglect to mention that this freedom is also part of the overall game of the access to energy by out maneuvering others for it. They use terms such as "law," to describe a contagion called "supply and demand." This is not a law as John Kozy writes in his article Is Adam Smith's Invisible Hand a Pickpocket? .

"Let's talk about demand. In the context of the law of supply and demand, it's ambiguous. Let's say the supply of potable water shrinks. Would the number of people demanding water go down? Not in the least. In the U.S., where means of transportation alternate to the automobile are lacking, would fewer people want gasoline than did before the supply shrank? A few, perhaps, but not many. So when an economist says the demand shrinks as the price rises all s/he is actually saying is that fewer units of the commodity are purchased. So the law then means that when the price is raised because the supply shrinks, the price is raised in order to sell fewer units of the commodity. But why would any vendor want to sell fewer units of any commodity? After all, vendors are in business to sell the commodities they offer. So this explanation makes no sense. Prices are not raised to reduce sales; they're raised to increase profits. That's all there is to it.

What economic function does the law of supply and demand have then? Raising the price does not produce a single drop of more oil, for instance. The gasoline available is sold at the higher price to any purchaser until the available supply is expended. The same thing would happen regardless of the price. Those who can afford the higher price will buy all they want and those who can not do with less or do without. What role does the law play in economics? It merely provides suppliers with an excuse for raising prices and picking consumer's pockets.

But whoa, someone is sure to say. The higher prices creates an incentive for new suppliers to get into the market. Not really! Not if the law of supply and demand really works.

Notice how quickly suppliers raise prices when a reduction in supply is sensed and how slowly prices come down when the supply increases. Gasoline prices are climbing daily without the actual drop of even one drop of oil in the market. Watch and see how slowly they come down if they ever do.

But now, consider this. Suppose a new supplier starts to produce oil in the hope of getting in on the increased profits made possible by the higher price. If the law of supply and demand really works, however, the moment her/his additional supply hits the market, the price would drop. Isn't that what the law says? If that were the case, rising prices would not be much of an incentive to increase supply, would it?

But observation does show that new producers do get into the business when prices rise, increasing supply. Yes, they do, but only when the price is unlikely to come down. It is used to provide suppliers with an excuse for raising prices but it doesn't have any effect on reducing them.

True, prices do come down when vendors have more to sell than people want to buy, but the price does not come down because the supply exceeds the demand, it comes down because vendors want to sell what they have. After all, commodities can easily be stored, so the law of supply and demand has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, the law has nothing to do with anything.

Nevertheless, the law of supply and demand is important in classical economics. It epitomizes the nature of this economy which exists merely for the purpose of enriching vendors at the expense of consumers. The law of supply and demand demonstrates that mainstream economists not only approve of this thieving economy but esteem it."

It does seem as though the invisible hand is the idea of supply and demand itself, demand is the perpetual pushing of the idea of free market and the supply goes into the hands of the few who are lucky enough to attain wealth to ensure they have endless access to energy over others. The more wealth they attain, the less they are required to participate in society while those who do not attain wealth are tortured and blamed for the whole mess.

In politics, Ron Paul wants to end the Fed but at the same time if you were starving, he would tell you to get a job, so an element of communism is coming to America in the fact corporations are conspiring their powers to ensure they are capable of taking full advantage of all monetary makings.

Gordon Duff if you real his intel-reports has also spoke of the current status surrounding energy and revealed the shenanigans of ballooning supplies and the rigging of demands. This knowledge is not hidden especially since the ziocons are attempting to keep the purchasing world entrapped within the construct of illusion.

Trade is not free, it is part of our tradition and is mutual between parties. If trade does not give back to those who excessively partake from others, we end up in the world we currently reside, one in which only those who out wit others monetarily preside over the energy we consume. This is held in place by the promotion of fear and shock concerning what is available or must be frivolously obtained as a methodology of power over others.

Is there a way to regain our energy? 

A few recommendations might be to boycott those who perpetually throw out the shock and awe to steal your energy. Creating your own energy and discovering ways to accomplish these ideas would also be advised, such as growing your own food, starting a farm, and finding ways to unplug from the system that is designed to feed from you your entire life may be also good.

The obvious damage to the environment from corporations through the rampaging search for the staple energies is reeking havoc on human health and our ability to function. If there are endless amounts of oil available, then there are endless ways to regulate it and provide safety and fairness to those who live upon earth. However, this is where Agenda 21 comes into the picture.

Instead of clamping down on individual rights, corporations should have been the target and we can see how the concept of "free market," sits within this construct and is being used psychologically to attain more power.

Conclusion 

The use of the phrase "free market," is more of a problem than a solution based on the above observations. Capitalism is not necessarily the solution either, but a mechanism of control which has no lever. Once someone becomes rich, they are released from its burden and those who remain must bear that burden so that others are released.

The power that be would like to make energy and capital one and the same as they slowing implement these forms of slavery. We are told there is no limit to the amount of money one can obtain while others spend their entire lives as beggars to these abject circumstances.

An intelligent government would socialize not privatize the people's rights to survive in a workable environment. The costs to regulate are non-existent as money is a figment of our imaginations. It was Abraham Lincoln who created the "Greenbacks," that threatened the illusive and corrupt so-called law of supply and demand where interest could be loaded in the mind. Today, congress could order the printing of energy for all those in need and the market would be freed, but so would the greed. And in doing so, the sycophants of global hegemony would see their ignorance revealed.

Trade Not Aid Palestine Report - Criminal Infiltration & Police Collusion - Ken O'Keefe

Trade Not Aid Palestine Report - Criminal Infiltration & Police Collusion - Ken O'Keefe

This document was compiled with one major purpose in mind, to establish beyond any doubt that the police in the UK are working directly with criminal personalities who infiltrated the Trade Not Aid mission (Samouni Project & Aloha Palestine) so as to thwart the mission. The value in this understanding is in developing a greater awareness of arguably the most effective tactic at subverting intelligent direct action.


Trade Not Aid Palestine Report - Criminal Infiltration & Police Collusion - Ken O'Keefe from Ken O'Keefe on Vimeo.

Doubling Down on Drones and Secrecy

© unknown

Doubling Down on Drones and Secrecy by John Glaser

Despite the legal burdens in keeping it secret, the Obama administration is doubling down on the drone war.
In procedures for FOIA requests on “targeted lethal operations” conducted by the CIA – that is, the drone war –  government lawyers asked the court to allow them more time to decide how to respond to the request for the classified information. Secrecy News:

“Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. has personally directed us to seek this additional time to allow the Government to finalize its position with regard to the sensitive national security matters presented in this case,” the Justice Department attorneys told the judge.

“Given the significance of the matters presented in this case, the Government’s position is being deliberated at the highest level of the Executive Branch.”

At issue are two FOIA lawsuits brought by the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union.  The request for an extension until May 21, 2012 was granted by Judge Colleen McMahon.

Steven Aftergood of the Secrecy News blog sees this as potentially a good sign: “The attorneys’ request seems to portend a possible change in the government’s persistent refusal to acknowledge the widely reported fact of the CIA’s use of drones in targeted killing operations.” I think he’s far too optimistic. The criticism the administration faces now for stubbornly keeping the drone war secret is nothing compared to the criticism they would face if they began to declassify the programs. Simply employing state secrets privilege and stonewalling the process is too easy an out for them to start declassifying now.

That said, keeping the well-known drone war a secret is recognized for its absurdity more and more everyday. As Micah Zenko at the Council on Foreign Relations wrote yesterday, “the existence of these drone strikes is no secret, and no longer justifies the thick veil of secrecy.” He calls the borderless drone program America’s Third War and argues, “the charade of the ‘covert’ nature of the Third War is indefensible.”

Since 9/11, the United States has attempted targeted killings in four other countries [other than Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya]: approximately three hundred in Pakistan, thirty in Yemen, twenty in Somalia, and one in Syria. These attacks were primarily conducted by armed drones, but also by ship- and aircraft-launched cruise missiles, AC-130 gunships, and special operations raids. Although estimates vary, perhaps three thousand people were killed in these attacks, including suspected al-Qaeda members, local militants, and some unintended civilian victims.

By any common-sense definition, these vast targeted killings should be characterized as America’s Third War since 9/11. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan—where government agencies acted according to articulated strategies, congressional hearings and press conferences provided some oversight, and timelines explicitly stated when the U.S. combat role would end—the Third War is Orwellian in its lack of cogent strategy, transparency, and end date.

But while the government stalls the courts through these FOIA procedures, the CIA is seeking explicit authority to expand its covert drone war in Yemen by assassinating individuals even when their identities are not known. Such authority would merely codify what appears to already be current practice in Pakistan. Illustrating what I think Zenko means when he says the drone war lacks a cogent strategy, Abdul Salam Mohammed, director of Abaad Strategic Center, told CNN recently that, “U.S. involvement is far more than ever in Yemen. We have no evidence that all those being killed are terrorists. With every U.S. attack that is conducted in Yemen al Qaeda is only growing in power and we have to ask ourselves why that is happening.”

Additionally, the Obama administration’s recent security deal with Afghanistan appears crafted specifically to continue the drone war in Pakistan unabated. With the drawdown of the war in Iraq and the new arrangement set to take place in Afghanistan in 2014, the trend appears to be a move away from full-scale ground invasions and military occupations. The Obama administration seems to be making America’s wars targeted operations programs…and making them increasingly secret.

The Most Racist Organization - Behind SB1070

The Most Racist Organization - Behind SB1070 - BraveNewFoundation



http://facebook.com/cuentame
http:/mycuetname.org/justiceoverracism

Designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is one of the most dangerous groups in the country.

Along with like groups in the John Tanton network FAIR has written and pushed laws like SB1070.

U.S. Electoral System Wallowing in a Sea of Money, Idiocy, and Corruption

U.S. Electoral System Wallowing in a Sea of Money, Idiocy, and Corruption - TRNN



Robert McChesney: Corporate media making millions from political ads, then cover ad driven horse race as news

For more Real News go to http://therealnews.com

Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots?

Dees Illustration

Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots? by Brandon Smith

As far back as I can remember, the overarching message of the American social atmosphere has been one of idolization. Oh to one day join the ranks of the “professional class”; that 5% to 10% of our culture which enjoys unparalleled respect and an assumed position of knowledge, so much so that they are rarely even required to qualify themselves to anyone besides their own compatriots. The goal of every person I knew during my formative years with a desire to succeed was to one day hold in their hands an official looking embossed document announcing their ascension to the ranks of the intellectually anointed. I was never so keen on the idea…

The dangers of academic deification are numerous. Those who dominate the educational language of the times determine the moral compass (or lack of compass) of the curriculum. They control who is accepted and who is rejected, not by measure of intelligence or skill, but by their willingness to conform to the establishment ideal. They construct a kind of automaton class, which has been taught not to learn independently, but to parrot propaganda without question. Simultaneously, those of us who do not “make the grade” are relegated to the role of obliged worshippers; accepting the claims of the professional class as gospel regardless of how incorrect they happen to be. To put it simply; the whole thing is disgustingly inbred.

Elitism has always lent itself to morbid forms of educational molestation. This is nothing new, especially within their own limited circles. However, to have such perversions of logic and reason gutting the minds of entire generations across endless stretches of our country without any counterbalance is a far more heinous state of affairs in the long run. Ultimately, this highway can only lead to a deterioration of our future, and the death of reason itself.

Recently, I attended a discussion panel on Constitutionalism at a university in Helena, the capital of Montana, and admittedly, was not expecting much insight. (At the moment of arrival I noticed the buildings had been plastered with Kony 2012 posters. The campus seemed to be completely unaware that the YouTube film is a George Soros funded ‘Wag the Dog’ farce.) Even in a fiercely independent region such as the Northern Rockies, the collectivist hardline reigns supreme on most college campuses. Sadly, very few actual students attended the discussion, and the audience was predominantly made up of local political players, retired legislators, and faculty. Surprisingly, Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers was invited to participate in the discussion, obviously to add at least some semblance of balance or “debate” to an otherwise one-sided affair. The mix was like oil and water.

The overall tone was weighted with legal drudgery. Many of the speakers were focused intently on secondary details and banal explorations into individual Constitutional cases without any regard for the bigger picture. When confronted with questions on the indefinite detainment provisions of the NDAA, government surveillance, or executive ordered assassinations of U.S. citizens, the panelists responded with lukewarm apathy. The solutions we discuss regularly within the Liberty Movement, such as state nullification based on the 10th Amendment, assertions of local political control through Constitutional Sheriffs, and even civil disobedience, were treated with indignant responses and general confusion.

A consistent theme arose from the academics present, trying to run damage control on Rhodes’ points on federal encroachment and ultimate tyranny. Their position? Defiance is unacceptable (or at least, not politically correct…). Americans have NO recourse against a centralized government. Not through their state and local representatives, and not through concerted confrontation. In fact, to even suggest that states act on their own accord without permission is an outlandish idea. In the end, the only outlet for the public is….to vote.

No one seemed to be able to address the fact that both major parties supported the exact same unconstitutional policies, thus making national level elections an act of pure futility. The point was brushed aside…

Sickly shades of socialism hung heavy in the room. One speaker even suggested that the states could not possibly survive financially without centralized aid. He was apparently too ignorant to understand that the federal government itself is bankrupt, incapable of producing true savings, and printing fiat Ad Nauseum just to stay afloat. Every 30 seconds I heard a statement that made me cringe.

Universities are today’s centers of connection. They are one of the last vestiges of American tribalism and community in an age of self isolation and artificial technological cultism. Adults do not meet face to face much anymore to share knowledge, or discuss the troubles of the day. The academic world provides such opportunity, but at a terrible price. To connect with the world, students must comply. To be taken seriously, they must adopt, consciously or unconsciously, the robes of the state. They must abandon the passions of rebellion and become indifferent to the truth. All actions and ideas must be embraced by the group, or cast aside. They must live a life of dependency, breeding a culture of fear, for that which others to keep for us, they can easily take away.

How could anyone possibly sustain themselves on a diet of congealing fantasy, and personal inadequacy? The intellectual life bears other fruits as well. Where it lacks in substance, it makes up for in ego, proving that being educated is not necessarily the same as being intelligent. The following is a list of common character traits visible in the average intellectual idiot, a breed that poisons the American well, and is quickly eroding away any chance of Constitutional revival…

1) An Obsession With The Appearance Of Objectivity

I say “appearance” of objectivity because the intellectual idiot does indeed take sides on a regular basis, and the side he takes invariably benefits the establishment. He would never admit to this, though, because he believes it gives him more credibility to at least be thought of as standing outside an issue looking in. It is not uncommon to find Intellectual Idiots being contrary regardless of your view, even if they would normally agree. They often try to approach debate with the façade of detachment, as if they do not care one way or the other. The costume soon wears away, however, when they are faced with an opponent that is not impressed with their educational status. I have seen lawyers, doctors, engineers, and even politicians devolve into sniveling toddlers when they are derailed by an argument beyond their ability to tap-dance around. Their middle of the road persona evaporates, and the real person erupts like an ugly pustule…

2) Clings To Labels And Status

Like anyone else, Intellectual Idiots cradle a philosophy they believe in, or are told to believe in. But unlike most of us, they see themselves above the scrutiny of those who do not pursue a similar academic path (i.e. only a lawyer should be allowed to debate another lawyer). The reality is, anyone is privy to the information a proponent of the professional class knows. With the advent of the internet, it is easier than ever to educate one’s self on multiple subjects without aid if that person has the determination to do so. Reputation is not earned by shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for university approval. A Masters Degree or Ph.D is not a get out of logic free card. In fact, because the Intellectual Idiot often uses his position to avoid true opposition, he tends to become lazy and even more incapable of defending his methodologies when the time comes.

3) Predominantly Collectivist

 The curriculum of the average college is partly to blame for this, and because the Intellectual Idiot is so desperate for acceptance and accolades, they can’t help but fall into the trap. Collectivism is marked by a distinct attachment to the state as the source of life. All social and all individual crises thus become a matter of government purview. Individual self reliance is a terrifying notion to them. In fact, many Intellectual Idiots have lived on the dole since they were born, moving from their family’s money, to state money through grants and loans. It is not unheard of for these people to become career students, avoiding work for years, and then moving on to a bureaucratic job when the free money runs out. They cannot fathom why anyone would rebel against the system, because they are a part of a select group which has always benefited from it. How could the federal government be bad when it has paid their way for half of their existence?

4) Disconnection From Reality

The Intellectual Idiot is not necessarily afraid to acknowledge that the system is troubled. For them, the federal government is not infallible, even if their favorite party is in office, but, it IS unapproachable. Academics revel in the disastrous nature of government. They see political and social catastrophe as a sort of mental gameplay. An exercise in theoretical structures. For them, America is not a country built on an enduring set of principles, but a petri dish; an ongoing anthropological experiment that they can watch through a microscope at their leisure. The idea that the disasters they view from the safety of their sub-cultural bubble might one day come to haunt them is a distant one.

5) Abhors Those Who Step Out Of Bounds

Have you ever entertained a view that went against the grain of the mainstream only to be met with accusations of extremism and sneers befitting a leper? You were probably talking to an intellectual idiot. The rules, no matter how distasteful or meaningless, hold special power for these people. They make the system what it is, and when the system is your great provider, you might lean towards defending it, even in the wake of oligarchy and abuse. This penchant for overt structure for the sake of centralization is especially damaging to our Constitutional rights, because alternative solutions are never treated as viable. During the panel discussion in Helena, pro-collectivists consistently tried to redirect the conversation away from the 10th Amendment as a method to counter federal overreach. They did this by bringing up abuses of the states, including slavery and segregation, as if that somehow negated the nightmare of the NDAA.

Ironically, they saw the use of violence by the federal government to push states to recognize civil liberties as perfectly practical. But, the use of force by states to protect the same civil liberties from Washington D.C.? That would be lunacy…

6) Believes Academia To Be Free From Bias

The Intellectual Idiot assimilates every bit of information he is given at the university level without a second look. He simply assumes it is all true, and if something appears mismatched, it is only because he does not yet fully grasp it. Very rarely will he go beyond designated source materials to get a different opinion. This habit is the root of his idiocy. Being that most universities draw from the same exact materials, and peer reviewed papers are usually tested by those with the exact same underlying educational backgrounds, I can’t see how it is possible for much variety of thought to form. Whether intentional or not, severe bias cannot be avoided in this kind of environment without considerable strength of heart.

The shock that these people express when faced with Liberty Movement philosophies is quite real. They have spent the very focus of their future life within the confines of a miniscule spectrum of truth; like seeing technicolor for the first time after a long limited existence in black and white.

It’s hard to say when it all really began, but for decades, Americans have been progressively tuned like pliable radio antenna to the song of the elitist intellectual. Many of us want to be him. Others want to follow him, straight to oblivion if need be, as long as they don’t have to blaze their own trail. This is not to say all professionals are a danger to the Republic. Some are fantastic proponents of freedom. But, without a drastic reversal in current educational trends, I see little hope of Constitutional guardians becoming a mainstay of U.S. campuses in the near term.

With mashed potato minds fresh from the psychological Cuisinart of public schools, the next generation in line to inherit the most fantastically schizophrenic nation in history will be like candy for social engineers; utterly unequipped for the mission. Strangely, the drastic financial slide the elites have also triggered might hold the key to our salvation. The next batch of would be statist citizens may find themselves so poor that inflated higher education costs will be impossible to afford, giving them precious time to think for themselves, and come to their own conclusions. As they say, in all things, there is a silver lining…

Brandon Smith is the founder of Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better or contribute to their Safe Haven Project. You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com