Tuesday, May 31, 2011

‘Malintent detection’ technology tested in the northeast United States

By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, May 30th, 2011 -- 6:20 pm

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has begun field testing new technology designed to identify people who intend to commit a terrorist act.

Nature reported that the DHS has been conducting tests of Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) in the past few months at an undisclosed location in the northeast.

The technology uses remote sensors to measure physiological properties, such as heart rate and eye movement, which can be used to infer a person's current mindset.

According to a Privacy Impact Assessment (PDF) released by the DHS in 2008, the technology is intended to measure a person's malintent -- the intent to cause harm.

"Behavioral scientists hypothesize that someone with malintent may act strangely, show mannerisms out of the norm, or experience extreme physiological reactions based on the extent, time, and consequences of the event," the report stated. "The FAST technology design capitalizes on these indicators to identify individuals exhibiting characteristics associated with malintent."

The DHS has claimed accuracy rates of around 70 percent, but some scientists have questioned the results.

"Even having an iris scan or fingerprint read at immigration is enough to raise the heart rate of most legitimate travellers," Tom Ormerod, a psychologist in the Investigative Expertise Unit at Lancaster University, told Nature.

John Verrico, a spokesman for the DHS, said he could not comment on the performance of FAST because the results were still being analyzed and that additional tests would continue to be conducted.

US News and World Report Poll

U.S.News & World Report
Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Who is your pick for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination?

A. 9.97% Mitt Romney
B. 4.02% Newt Gingrich
C. 2.98% Mike Huckabee
D. 3.17% Michele Bachmann
E. 9.17% Sarah Palin
F. 4.32% Tim Pawlenty
G. 2.96% Mitch Daniels
H. 0.5% Haley Barbour
I. 1.08% Rick Santorum
J. 2.59% Jon Huntsman
K. 59.25% Other
Two things really stand out about this poll, the absence of Ron Paul as a choice and "K"

Sunday, May 29, 2011

NY Times Applies 'Damage Control' and attacks Independent Investigator over Jared Lee Loughner

Connie A. Tusheon | Contributing Writer | May 25th, 2011

Were Actors involved in the Tucson shooting? In a news article that posted today from the NY Times, written by Marc Lacey, called 'Hoax Site Distressing for Victims of Shooting," the article claims that Ed Chiarini of Wellaware1.com is a conspiracy website that is claiming the shooting in Tucson on 01/08/11, involving Jared Lee Loughner that allegedly killed six people, including Judge John Roll and 9-year old Christina Taylor Green, and injured 13 others including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is a hoax investigation. The article claims that "obviously fantastic claims would usually not merit the attention of law enforcement, but they have in this instance because some believers have become confronting, and alarming, some of the people associated with the case in recent weeks."

The Government Rag Editor, Stephanie Sledge, who has also been conducting a separate independent investigation as well on the Jared Lee Loughner shooting that took place in Tucson tried to contact Ed Chiarini, on short notice, by email, to get a response on the NY Times article. Stephanie has appeared on The Power Hour w/Joyce Riley to give different view points of the Tucson investigation, along with Ed Chiarini sharing airtime but have shared independent thoughts and findings on the case as it unfolds.

Stephanie Sledge, makes this statement about the recent NY Times article, "Although I am an independent investigative journalist that is trying to put together the true facts for the People of the United States of America and make sense of the January 8, 2011 shooting that took place in Tucson, AZ, I was utterly shocked at the mayhem and rhetoric that was found in the NY Times article that clearly shows a writer that did not follow up on accusations or get verification before publishing the article. Instead, they just demonized the researcher and tried to discredit his work. I cannot say for sure if in fact these people listed on Wellaware1 site are actors without verification but to insinuate that anyone looking into this investigation is a conspiracy theorist or just looking for trouble is just borderline mental abuse. This type of journalism is just not what I would have expected from such a prestige news organization like the NY Times. I am utterly ashamed for the writer and the company for even allowing this article to be published. It is not because I am defending Ed Chiarini's findings, it is because the article tries to demonize all investigative journalists that are researching this horrific event across the country. The message portrayed to the People, because of this NY Times article, is - if you ask questions, you will be turned over to the authorities to be investigated and then demonized. That to me resembles the globalistic protocol of "damage control."

In the article, Richard Kastigar, the investigative Chief of the Pima County Sheriff's Department said the following, " he passed information about the Web site to his intelligence unit. He reacted angrily to those denying the shootings. “There were bodies sent to the morgue, people’s loved ones,” "Mr. Kastigar said. Manuel J. Johnson, a spokesman for the F.B.I., said the bureau was aware of the site, but he declined to say whether an investigation was under way." An investigation for what? People in America, under the 1st amendment have a right to ask questions and have Freedom of Press. I am not sure what is alarming about the WellAware1 investigation considering the web site does announce, "he would like nothing more than to debunk his own theory" and asks the people who are in question to contact him. A real conspiracy theorist would just post the findings and not offer up anything to back up the evidence. Maybe Ed Chiarini should ask the writer, Marc Lacey if he is a conspiracy theorist since he did not verify any information that was offered up to him in this article. This type of unprofessional reporting by the NY Times could be considered a HOAX by the People who are following this story as it unfolds from all the way around the block."

The Government Rag, a web site that offers educational alternative news, acknowledges after conducting its own independent investigation that there are victims and people suffering from losses in this case. The alleged assassination of Judge John Roll is enough for the People of America to ask questions. The Government Rag has conducted its own independent investigation and tries to take the considerations of the victims and their family members who may be affected by the surfacing evidence. This is why the hard questions are being asked and many journalists are also conducting their own investigation. If the media didn't put out so many alleged lies in the past including 9/11, Oklahoma City Bombing, the Underwear Bomber, Times Square shooting, Gulf of Tonkin, and recently discovering others are presenting evidence about discrepancies in Obama's birth certificate , Osama resemblances, and DHS and TSA running-a-muck in the nation then People would trust the media. Instead, the People are unplugging their televisions and unplugging their minds. Plain and simple, tired of the entertainment news over and over again.

Just today, on the Joyce Riley Show, Riley responds to the article by responding to Mr, Radford, the research fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, "ok, Mr Radford and Author of the article Marc Lager, we've been lied to so many times, if your listening, and I hope you are, we've been lied to so many times." Joyce cites the lies that have emerged including the lies the government put out over the atomic vets cover-up , the Vietnam vets and Agent Orange/Dioxin cover-up, the Kuwaiti Incubator Baby Hoax, the Gulf War Depleted Uranium cover-up, the recent Japanese meltdown radiation cover-up, 9/11, Building 7 and how it was reported hours before it fell, and the Waco cover-up. " See we have been lied to so many times and let's not forget about the Fluoride poisoning, the aspartame poisoning, and the GMO cover-up. We have been lied to so many times. We are just uncovering 'your-dirty-laundry' so we can give the truth to the people."

According to the NY TIMES article, "Manuel J. Johnson, a spokesperson for the F.B.I, said the bureau was aware of the site, but declined to say whether an investigation was underway. Once shooting victim notified the F.B.I recently after two men showed up at his home claiming to be investigators and saying they were trying to determine whether the shooting was a Hoax." The question remains as to why this practice of investigation is considered unethical or illegal. Any investigative journalist and/or just inquiring citizens with good credentials and capabilities of asking questions would have done the same. The only thing that seems to be lacking in AP News sites these days are the true investigative journalists. This is precisely what we see in this article posted by the NY Times.

The Government Rag contacted one of the several independent researchers one of which resides in the Tucson area. He went to the home of an alleged victim as well as one who was not a victim, but who was photographed with Gabrielle Giffords and asked to see the photograph of him and Giffords before she was shot. The victim of the shooting spree, however, was asked if he would like to be interviewed about his experience of the Toscana Plaza event on January 8, 2011. The victim was apprehensive at first until it was explained that he was there to hopefully dispel the allegations made against the crime scene victims. It was made clear that he was there not as an advocate of the conspiracy theorists, but to find whether the allegations were founded.

He stated, "as citizen enquirers and independent researchers, I went there because I wanted to understand what happened the day of the shooting and because it occurred in my own back yard. I care enough about the people that were alleged victims in this case to ask the hard questions on their behalf. After all, they are the victims and were hurt the most. I just want to report back to them with the answers that were publicly announced. We are deeply disappointed that the NY Times allowed for the misconstrued the intent of the journalist against those who are honestly asking questions that would solve a sensitive issue. They want to be sure they know the truth despite the conflict of interest between what the media reports compared to the findings of the alternative news venues. We are citizen investigators who seek credible and well balanced information. The agencies should expect that when a researcher disseminates information to the public on such a case, it must be as thoroughly studied and researched as possible. But, these same agencies neglected to ask these same questions themselves it seems. We are convinced that the victim was indeed victimized and are now satisfied with the outcome of the visit as too should the victim.

The Tucson citizen also continues by describing the meeting. "I knocked on the door of which was answered by a man who stepped outside to the front porch. His wife followed moments later after the reason for the visit was explained. The reason for the visit was repeated when his wife inquired. "They were really nice people," he commented and said that they freely shared the experience as well as answer questions, show evidence of the bullet wound, and an article from a magazine. The man described the suspect, Jared Lee Loughner, in which he said he also shared with other interested parties, citizens as well as journalists. When the conversation ended, I kindly thanked the couple and left.

A Texas web site business card was never given because there was no such card made available by Ed Chiarini. He may not have cards to hand out. The website address was provided when asked by the couple so that they could view the allegations set forth about the event. We were deeply saddened and disappointed when the NY Times and Associated Press mismanaged the information in the article. It seemed that it was crafted to mislead the reader into a fixed mindset that unscrupulous activity against the couple was taking place, when in fact it was not. The victim and his wife had no reason to end the conversation for if they did, they would have made it clear with the abundant opportunity to do so at any time during the visit.

It is not yet against the law to knock on a neighbors door. It is suspected that if the NY Times article was firm and accurate about the victim feeling "alarmed", and that the person asking the questions attempted to enter their home, why then did this go unreported? Perhaps it never was and that the information became convoluted when translated by the authorities to the author of the article? Or could it be the author himself craft such a diversion. There is no blame we hope. We hope that logic and wisdom prevail for the reader following this example. It is not against the law to assume responsibility when the media is not writing factual information and that clarification be made civily. That is what civility really means -- it is when a person between two separate ends of a problem attempts to bridge the information gap. In this case it would be before the news media chronicles a potentially biased opinion masked in factual events that did not take place.. Obviously, the message was not translated correctly."

The Government Rag also questions as to why the CSI Committee for Skeptical Inquiry website link is placed in the NY Times article. The concern that Stephanie Sledge, editor of The Government Rag expressed, "it concerns me because it shows that the writer was not presenting a view of a journalist who puts out well-balanced articles. I also question the motive behind the NY Times adding the link because it could be perceived by the reader a message that suggests all journalists, researchers, individuals, and investigators must think the same theory and agree on the same stories and not reach outside the box and form their own theories on news stories. The reader might be led as well to believe that if they read something outside of the box, then they should be refereed to CSI, who appears to hold a radical scientific skeptical theory that individuals who seek their own theories and think beyond what the average mainstream or associated press says, then they might need to be scientifically studied and labeled an alleged con artist - the bigger the story grows, the bigger the hoax must be. This is utterly ridiculous to those with higher intelligence that practice in this field. It appears to be a ploy to try to dismantle all the different theories taking place on the Tucson shooting until they end up with the usual one world theory. Lastly, asking for donations to help fund an investigation really is not out of line. Donations are quite common for non-profit or other organizations to pursue to help fund a cause. I cannot speak for Ed Chiarini but that statement just sounds ridiculous across the board."

This pic is from the website wellaware1.com

Related Post

Shale Boom in Texas Could Increase U.S. Oil Output

Published: May 27, 2011

CATARINA, Tex. — Until last year, the 17-mile stretch of road between this forsaken South Texas village and the county seat of Carrizo Springs was a patchwork of derelict gasoline stations and rusting warehouses.

Now the region is in the hottest new oil play in the country, with giant oil terminals and sprawling RV parks replacing fields of mesquite. More than a dozen companies plan to drill up to 3,000 wells around here in the next 12 months.

The Texas field, known as the Eagle Ford, is just one of about 20 new onshore oil fields that advocates say could collectively increase the nation’s oil output by 25 percent within a decade — without the dangers of drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico or the delicate coastal areas off Alaska.

There is only one catch: the oil from the Eagle Ford and similar fields of tightly packed rock can be extracted only by using hydraulic fracturing, a method that uses a high-pressure mix of water, sand and hazardous chemicals to blast through the rocks to release the oil inside.

The technique, also called fracking, has been widely used in the last decade to unlock vast new fields of natural gas, but drillers only recently figured out how to release large quantities of oil, which flows less easily through rock than gas. As evidence mounts that fracking poses risks to water supplies, the federal government and regulators in various states are considering tighter regulations on it.

The oil industry says any environmental concerns are far outweighed by the economic benefits of pumping previously inaccessible oil from fields that could collectively hold two or three times as much oil as Prudhoe Bay, the Alaskan field that was the last great onshore discovery. The companies estimate that the boom will create more than two million new jobs, directly or indirectly, and bring tens of billions of dollars to the states where the fields are located, which include traditional oil sites like Texas and Oklahoma, industrial stalwarts like Ohio and Michigan and even farm states like Kansas.

“It’s the one thing we have seen in our adult lives that could take us away from imported oil,” said Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, one of the most aggressive drillers. “What if we have found three of the world’s biggest oil fields in the last three years right here in the U.S.? How transformative could that be for the U.S. economy?”

The oil rush is already transforming this impoverished area of Texas near the Mexican border, doubling real estate values in the last year and filling restaurants and hotels.

“That’s oil money,” said Bert Bell, a truck company manager, pointing to the new pickup truck he bought for his wife after making $525,000 leasing mineral rights around his family’s mobile home. “Oil money just makes life easier.”

Based on the industry’s plans, shale and other “tight rock” fields that now produce about half a million barrels of oil a day will produce up to three million barrels daily by 2020, according to IHS CERA, an energy research firm. Oil companies are investing an estimated $25 billion this year to drill 5,000 new oil wells in tight rock fields, according to Raoul LeBlanc, a senior director at PFC Energy, a consulting firm.

“This is very big and it’s coming on very fast,” said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of IHS CERA. “This is like adding another Venezuela or Kuwait by 2020, except these tight oil fields are in the United States.”

In the most developed shale field, the Bakken field in North Dakota, production has leaped to 400,000 barrels a day today from a trickle four years ago. Experts say it could produce as much as a million barrels a day by the end of the decade.

The Eagle Ford, where the first well was drilled only three years ago, is already producing more than 100,000 barrels a day and could reach 420,000 by 2015, almost as much as Ecuador, according to Bentek Energy, a consultancy.

The shale oil boom comes as production from Prudhoe Bay is declining and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is being more closely scrutinized after last year’s Deepwater Horizon disaster.

What makes the new fields more remarkable is that they were thought to be virtually valueless only five years ago. “Everyone said the oil molecules are too large to flow in commercial quantities through these low-quality rocks,” said Mark G. Papa, chief executive of EOG Resources.

EOG began quietly buying the rights to thousands of acres in the Bakken and Eagle Ford after an EOG engineer concluded that the techniques used to extract natural gas from shale — fracking, combined with drilling horizontally through layers of rocks — could be used for oil. Chesapeake and a few other independents quickly followed. Now the biggest multinational oil companies, as well as Chinese and Norwegian firms, are investing billions of dollars in the fields.

The new drilling makes economic sense as long as oil prices remain above $60 a barrel, according to oil companies. At current oil prices of about $100 a barrel, shale wells can typically turn a profit within eight months — three times faster than many traditional wells.

But water remains a key issue. In addition to possible contamination of surface and underground water from fracking fluids, the sheer volume of water required poses challenges, especially in South Texas, which faces a severe drought and rapidly diminishing water levels in the local aquifer.

At the rate wells are being drilled, “there’s definitely going to be a problem,” said Bay Laxson, a local water official.

Dave Thompson, regional production superintendent for the oil company SM Energy said the industry knew that water issues were “an Achilles heel.” He said his company was building a system to reuse water in the field.

But unlike Pennsylvania and New York, where fracking for natural gas has produced organized opposition, the oil industry has been mostly welcomed in western and southern states.

Thanks to the drilling boom, the recession bypassed North Dakota entirely. Here in Dimmit County, Tex., the unemployment rate has fallen in half, and sales tax receipts are up 70 percent so far this year, allowing the county to hire more police officers and buy sanitation and road repair equipment.

“In my lifetime, this is the biggest thing I’ve ever seen,” said Jose Gonzalez, 78, a retired teacher and son of migrant farm workers, who leased mineral rights to Chesapeake for $27,000 and sold another plot for $100,000 to a company building an RV park for oil workers. “You can see I’m happy.”

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Coal Chamber - Sway

Dope - You Spin Me Round

Holly Bobo - Amanda Barnes Hicks and the Donation Money


Now if you were going to deceive the people and get them to participate in a wild goose chase, at the same time donate millions to non profit's that are set up to help aid the families during these rough times, you have to make sure on thing.

That one thing is you don't want them to find the person, so they keep on searching for as long as you can convince them there is a chance they are close to solving the case. So how do they pull this act off without getting caught? TO pay someone to pose as a bogus person, you run the risk of one day the truth may slip out and the actor is out in a position that they spill the story. The best way to pull it off is the have a person supply you with photos of themselves that are several years old.

This accomplished several things and add a layer of protection to you r entire lie. First of all it insures you will never find the person. Second there is no way for the actor to turn on their handlers and go to the media ans tell the world they are the real individual they are searching for, because the world would look at the photo that was shown to them and call them crazy.

Much more info at wellaware1.com


So, if this guy is right "Holly Bobo" will never be found.

Close Call for Meteorologist David Payne

Oregon Senator Wyden freezes second Internet censorship bill

By Stephen C. Webster
Friday, May 27th, 2011 -- 10:32 am

A U.S. Senator from Oregon has once again taken a stand against his own party to defend what he sees as the inherent right to free speech on the Internet, placing a hold on a bill that could force search engines and Internet service providers to block websites deemed to be "infringing" on copyrights.

The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act -- or "PROTECT IP" for short was part of a second attempt to pass provisions of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), which failed to clear Congress during its last session thanks to a parliamentary maneuver by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

And once again, Wyden has stepped forward to ensure those measures do not pass.

"In December of last year I placed a hold on similar legislation, commonly called COICA, because I felt the costs of the legislation far outweighed the benefits," he said in a prepared statement. "After careful analysis of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA, I am compelled to draw the same conclusion."

"I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective," Wyden added.

Internet freedom advocates claim the proposed laws could be used to shut down websites that link to other websites that authorities claim to be carrying out infringing activities. Internet advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation said it was "no less dismayed by this most recent incarnation than we were with last year’s draft."

The PROTECT IP Act was supported by businesses and organizations across the political spectrum, from labor unions to the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, to the National Association of Broadcasters and the cable industry.

It was also widely supported by Republicans and Democrats in Congress -- meaning that if it weren't for Sen. Wyden, the bill would likely have passed.

Sen. Wyden's full statement follows.

Consistent with Senate Standing Orders and my policy of publishing in the Congressional Record a statement whenever I place a hold on legislation, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act.

In December of last year I placed a hold on similar legislation, commonly called COICA, because I felt the costs of the legislation far outweighed the benefits. After careful analysis of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA, I am compelled to draw the same conclusion. I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective. At the expense of legitimate commerce, PIPA's prescription takes an overreaching approach to policing the Internet when a more balanced and targeted approach would be more effective. The collateral damage of this approach is speech, innovation and the very integrity of the Internet.

The Internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st century. It is increasingly in America's economic interest to ensure that the Internet is a viable means for American innovation, commerce, and the advancement of our ideals that empower people all around the world. By ceding control of the Internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the Internet, PIPA represents a threat to our economic future and to our international objectives. Until the many issues that I and others have raised with this legislation are addressed, I will object to a unanimous consent request to proceed to the legislation.
Thanks senator Wyden for standing up for our right to free speech on the Internet.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Midnight Movie - Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Or skip right to the good stuff

Greatful Dead - Truckin

Utah lawmaker seeks to limit TSA pat-downs

Randall Jeppesen
May 27, 2011
A Utah lawmaker plans to introduce legislation that would limit security pat-downs at Utah’s airports.
Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, posted on his Facebook page he’s working on a bill designed to prohibit Transportation Security Administration pat downs in Utah unless agents have reasonable suspicion. TSA agents would be required to follow standards similar to those used by police in determining suspicion.
Wimmer also posted that Utah needs to stand with Texas. Lawmakers there already are considering a similar bill, House Bill 1937, which states it would be an offense to search a person without probable cause.


Oath Keepers Rally to Honor Jose Guerena and Oppose SWAT Searches

May 27, 2011

What — An Oath Keepers muster. Oath Keepers and friends will muster and march to the home of Mrs. Vanessa Guerena for a ceremony of memoriam for her late husband Jose Guerena, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq war.

When — 8:00 a.m. sharp Monday morning Memorial Day, May 30, 2011

Where – The intersection of West Valencia Road and South Wade Road. Take I-10 to I-19 South and exit West Valencia Road to South Wade Road, Tucson, Arizona. See below.

Who – Oath Keepers is calling for all veterans, National Guardsmen, active duty military, current-serving peace officers, firefighters, retired public servants, gun owners, veterans organizations, civic organizations, church groups, student groups, and other patriotic Americans.

Why — To stand with Oath Keepers at a memorial service for Jose Guerena, a war veteran who was killed by law-enforcement gunfire in his home on May 05, 2011. We wish to honor Jose Guerena’s service to this nation and ensure that his death lights the spark which shall lawfully undo present-day policies which militarize our local peace officers and violate our veterans’ and gun owners’ Fourth Amendment rights.

Press contact — Arizona Oath Keepers state chapter President Ray Epps: 480-586-5145. Backup Press contact — Elias Alias — 406-285-6597 * eliasalias@gmail.com

The public is cordially invited to march and stand with Oath Keepers for this ceremony. All who cannot attend are encouraged to do what you can on Memorial Day in your own communities. A great example of local activity is given us by the Pahrump, Nevada Oath Keepers chapter. Enjoy reading their Proclamation here:


How to Destroy Angels: The Space in Between

Obama extends Patriot Act’s emergency powers four more years

By Agence France-Presse
Friday, May 27th, 2011 -- 8:25 am

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into law a four-year extension of controversial counter-terrorism search and surveillance powers at the heart of the Patriot Act.

The president signed the act into law after it was approved by Congress and just before the provisions were to expire at midnight (0400 GMT Friday), extending measures adopted in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The White House issued a brief statement that Obama had signed the extension into law from France, where he is currently attending a G8 summit.

Full Article rawstory.com

I think Obama has a dream and it doesn't involve letting freedom ring.

TSA checkpoints throughout the U.S., TSA at the mall and the grocery store, sticking their hands down your pants.

A disarmed, helpless nation with no constitutional rights.

A one world government, a dumbed down populace, to stupid to realize what is happening to them, so stupid that they will probably re-elect him.

A one child policy, forced abortions, forced inoculations, lithium, fluoride and God knows what in the drinking water.

Just goes to show, one man's dream is another man's nightmare.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Great American War Machine Rolls On Under Obama

February 22, 2011
By Sherwood Ross -

Under President Barack Obama's new budget for fiscal year 2012, the Great American War Machine just rolls on and on. “As it is, we're pumping...money into sustaining a fighting force that's orders of magnitude larger than anything retained by any other country,” observes Ezra Klein of The Washington Post February 14th. So when Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that major cuts in military spending would be “catastrophic,” Obama settled for chopping $78 billion in cosmetic cuts Gates recommended over the next five years, Klein wrote, adding, “I bet there are more than a few Cabinet secretaries who wish they had that kind of power over the president's recommendations.” Some observers, by the way, think the Pentagon is, in fact, already running the show. Chalmers Johnson wrote in “Blowback”(Metropolitan/Owl) that the Pentagon is “close to being beyond civilian control; that it “more or less sets its own agenda” and that it “monopolizes the formulation and conduct of American foreign policy.”

So in FY 2012 the Pentagon will just have to struggle along with $719 billion while the president calls for a five-year freeze on “non-security” discretionary spending such as---in the words of former Labor Secretary Robert Reich---”programs the poor and working class depend on---assistance with home heating, community services, college loans, and the like.” Mr. Obama will get a lot of help from the GOP, which, of course, will not rein in spending for unjust wars but in a fit of what AFL-CIO's Manny Herrmann calls “budget insanity” plans to chop up Head Start, Pell Grants, food and job safety inspections, eliminate “hundreds of thousands of middle-class jobs,” cut investment in infrastructure, and even cut the money needed “to send out Social Security checks.” Herrmann might have added Obama also seeks to slash nearly half the Federal funds to help low-income families heat their homes.

Don't take my word for the fact the warfare budget is bloated. The New York Times editorialized February 15th, “If anything, Mr. Obama could safely have proposed cutting (the military budget) deeper, as suggested by his own bipartisan deficit panel.” It added, “The bill for the military is way too high, above cold-war peak levels, when this country had a superpower adversary. There's a point where the next military spending dollar does not make our society more secure, and it's a point we long ago passed.” As the War Resisters League pointed out two years ago, U.S. military spending, plus funds for our nuclear bombs, “is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.” (And of those 15 countries, 12 are considered U.S. allies, so where's the threat?) While U.S. officials constantly advertise Iran as a menace, it is a fact that the Great American War Machine outspends Iran on military by a ratio of 72 to one. Ditto for that other global threat, North Korea. Early in the Bush regime, Michael Chossudovsky, the Canadian economist and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, wrote of the $320-billion then being lavished on the Pentagon, “There is no rationale for this level of military spending other than a clear intent for the United States to be the New World Empire, dominating the globe economically and militarily, including the militarization of space.” He noted that the U.S. not only possessed laser-guided weapons with the capability of striking anywhere in the planet but under its High Altitude Auroral Rsearch Program(HAARP) had “the ability to destabilize entire national economies through climatic manipulations, without the knowledge of the enemy, and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war.”

While the number of Americans suffering in poverty increased to 36 million and more families lose their homes and lines lengthen at soup kitchens, President Obama has dollars galore to build 67 new warships at a cost of nearly $25 billion, according to a new analysis of his budget by the National Priorities Project of Northampton, Mass. Yet, according to Wikipedia, “The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined” and it operates 11 super carriers as part of a 286-active ship fleet with 3,700 aircraft able to radiate power on all continents. This is but one example from the Pentagon's Department of Wretched Excess.

As William Hartung of the New America Foundation pointed out in “Foreign Policy in Focus” last year, “any real savings in U.S. military spending would need to be accompanied by a reduction in U.S. 'global reach'---in the hundreds of major military facilities it controls in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America,” yet “U.S. overseas-basing arrangements have been on the rise, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan themselves but in bordering nations.” Today, there are approximately 800 U.S. military bases overseas plus an estimated 1,000 Stateside. For several years now, the Pentagon has been spending more money for war each year than all state governments combined spend for the health, education, welfare, and safety of 308 million Americans---and president Obama is continuing this course. Example: The New Haven Independent reported Feb. 21 Mayor John DeStafano is calling for belt-tightening by city workers to bridge a $5.5 million gap in this year's budget and a $22 million gap next year. Protestors responded by standing in front of City Hall with signs noting Congress is taking $84 million from the pockets of New Haven residents this year to fight the Iraq-Afghan wars. This scenario is being repeated by cities and states everywhere.

“The President,” writes Reich in a February 17th essay, “has already fallen into the (Republican) trap by calling for budget cuts in programs the poor and working class depend on---assistance with home heating, community services, college loans, and the like.” That's a charitable view of the president. In fact, Mr. Obama is one more in a line of imperialist warmongers having scant regard for peoples abroad his war machine is destroying. As for his observance of Rev. Martin Luther King's recent birthday, he might have done better to ponder King's words: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” Because that's what's happening.

Two Black Helicopters - Jet with Escort

It's a beautiful day, clear skies temp about 70 degrees.

I heard a strange sounding helicopter so I went outside and looked. It was two helicopters, I think that's why it sounded funny, one behind the other. They were flying NNE at what seemed to me to be normal altitude, normal speed.

While I was looking at the black (or dark) helicopters something in the background caught my eye.
A big jet plane (Like one of the bigger passenger planes, looked silver though) with a little plane flying along very close to it's right wing, I assume it was a fighter but I know nothing about different kinds of planes. The planes seemed to be going NNW.

At first I thought they were all together, felt like the beginning of a movie that I didn't want to be in.

(The pics are not mine, they are just generally what I saw.)

Political Battle Lines - Pro Constitution vs Anti-Constitution

I said a long time ago in a post or maybe just a comment that the real political battle lines were being drawn as pro-constitutional rights vs anti-constitutional rights and I think I was right.

People now more than ever need to see that.

They need to take out the Democrat vs Republican trash that's in their minds.

Some people seem to think:
"AS long as it's MY party that takes away my rights, it's okay."

PLEASE! Stop thinking that way.

How can we have too many rights?

How can people not see what our country is turning into?

We never needed the TSA before, we don't need them now.

If you were a big fan of Nazi Germany, then I can see how you would like the direction our country is going, but other than that, we should all be appalled.

We need to pay attention to who is voting to uphold the constitution and to who is voting to destroy it.


House Democrats introduce three medical marijuana reform bills

By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, May 25th, 2011 -- 9:18 pm

Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA), Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced legislation to the House on Wednesday aimed at ensuring the medical marijuana industry is treated like any other business.

The legislation was supported by Republican Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (CA) and Ron Paul (TX).

The Small Business Tax Equity Act, introduced by Stark, authorizes medical marijuana dispensaries to take the full range of business expense deductions on their federal tax returns, like other legal businesses are allowed to.

"Our tax code undercuts legal medical marijuana dispensaries by preventing them from taking all the deductions allowed for other small businesses,” Stark stated. “While unfair to these small business owners, the tax code also punishes the patients who rely on them for safe and reliable access to medical marijuana prescribed by a doctor."

Fifteen states and the District of Colombia have passed laws permitting marijuana to be used as medicine.

Another bill, introduced by Frank, would make individuals and business immune to federal prosecution if they are acting in compliance with local marijuana laws. Additionally, the legislation would direct the White House to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act so that it is no longer considered a highly addictive substance with no medical value.

Marijuana is currently listed as a schedule I drug, the most restrictive schedule with the greatest criminal penalties.

“The time has come for the federal government to stop preempting states’ medical marijuana laws,” Frank said. “For the federal government to come in and supersede state law is a real mistake for those in pain for whom nothing else seems to work. This bill would block the federal prosecution of those patients who reside in those states that allow medical marijuana.”

Lastly, legislation introduced by Polis would ensure that medical marijuana businesses that are state-certified have full access to banking services.

“When a small business, such as a medical marijuana dispensary, can’t access basic banking services they either have to become cash-only—and become targets of crime—or they’ll end up out-of-business,” Polis said. “In states that have legalized medical marijuana, and for businesses that have been state-approved, it is simply wrong for the federal government to intrude and threaten banks that are involved in legal transactions.

American Express is no longer allowing transactions to be processed at medical marijuana dispensaries nationwide. A spokesperson said the company made the decision to not allow its credit cards to be accepted for medical marijuana because it is their "policy to adhere to the federal law in such matters."

“It is quite obvious the federal war on drugs is a disaster," Paul added. "Respect for states’ rights means that different policies can be tried in different states and we can see which are the most successful. This legislation is a step in the right direction as it removes a major federal road block impeding businesses that states have determined should be allowed within their borders.”

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Getting Passport About To Get Harder

Financial Terrorism: TSA Holds Texas Flights Hostage

Paul Joseph Watson
May 25, 2011

DOJ resorts to economic terrorism, lawmaker compares fight to revolutionary war against Mexico

An astounding Department of Justice threat to cancel airline flights to and from Texas, in addition to underhanded lobbying by TSA representatives, has killed efforts in the state to pass HB 1937, a bill that would have made invasive pat downs by TSA agents a felony.

HB 1937, a bill that would have made it “A criminal act for security personnel to touch a person’s private areas without probable cause as a condition of travel or as a condition of entry into a public place,” was headed for an imminent Senate vote in Texas having already passed the House unanimously 138-0, before the federal government stepped in to nix the legislation.

In a letter sent to Texas lawmakers, including to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Speaker Joe Straus, the House Clerk, and the Senate Secretary, U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy threatened to cripple the airline industry in the state if legislators did not back down.

“If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute,” Murphy wrote. “Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

“We urge that you consider the ramifications of this bill before casting your vote,” Murphy added.

The fact that Murphy can’t even get the name of the bill correct is almost as disconcerting as the rampant mafia-like attitude of the DOJ in using de facto economic terrorism to shoot down the legislation.

Following a fiery debate in the Texas House last night, Senate sponsor Dan Patrick (R-Houston) pulled the bill, remarking that TSA representatives had been “lobbying” the Texas Senate in an effort to mothball the legislation.

“I will pull HB 1937 down, but I will stand for Liberty in the state of Texas,” Patrick said.

Patrick added that TSA officials had warned him passing the bill “could close down all the airports in Texas,” which he regarded as a ‘heavy handed threat’ by the federal government.

The staff of Rep. David Simpson said the DOJ had “thrown down the gauntlet” in using such stark language to oppose the bill.

“Either Texas backs off and continues to let government employees fondle innocent women, children and men as a condition of travel,” the staff wrote, “or the TSA [Transportation Safety Administration] has the authority to cancel flights or series of flights.”

“… 97 percent of people who go though the nation’s airports do not go through these offensive searches. And yet, a United States Attorney warns that flights to Texas could be shut down because TSA would not be able to ensure the safety of passengers and crew if agents could not touch genitals. Someone must make a stand against the atrocities of our government agents …”

In a point by point refutation of the DOJ letter, Simpson compared the battle against the TSA to the Texas revolutionary war against Mexico, writing, “Gentlemen, we find ourselves at such a watershed moment today. The federal government is attempting to deprive the citizens of Texas of their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9, of the Texas Constitution. If we do not stand up for our citizens in the face of this depravation of their personal rights and dignity, who will?”

The fact that the Department of Justice and the TSA have resorted to threats of economic terrorism in addition to underhanded lobbying techniques again illustrates the fact that the federal government is increasingly behaving like a criminal enterprise with total disregard for the Constitution.

The TSA’s initial response to HB 1937 was to claim that it could not become law because it violated Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2), a law that the TSA claimed “prevents states from regulating the federal government.”

In reality, this was a complete fabrication.

“The statement is false. Ignorance from the TSA is unlikely, so I’ll call a spade a spade. They’re lying. The supremacy clause says nothing of the sort,” reported Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Here’s the full text:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

“So, in simple terms, what does the supremacy clause mean? Just what it says. The constitution is supreme. And any federal laws made in line with the constitution is supreme. Nothing more, nothing less,” writes Boldin.

As we have documented, TSA grope downs and body scans are now being rolled out on highways, street corners, public buildings, at sports events, and even at local prom nights.

Despite the fact that the federal government has resorted to thuggish intimidation tactics to kill the anti-grope down bill in Texas, this only marks the latest chapter in an epic states’ rights battle that has centered on the agenda of the TSA to become a literal occupying force in America, manning internal checkpoints that will litter the entire country.

Texas lawmakers - don't be a bunch of pansies, call their bluff! Make them show the U.S. citizens what our country has become under the fake birth certificate, born in Kenya, puppet Obama.

Ron Paul Bumpersticker Gets Man Kicked Out of National Park

The Rutherford Institute
May 24, 2011

BLACKSBURG, S.C. — The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of a 73-year-old Virginia resident who was allegedly ordered by a park ranger to remove his car from a national military park in South Carolina because of political messages attached to his vehicle. Jack Faw, whose ancestors fought in the historic battle memorialized at Kings Mountain National Military Park, contacted The Rutherford Institute after being told by a park ranger that the decal promoting a political organization associated with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), which was displayed on the back window of Faw’s car, was not allowed in the park. In a legal letter to Park officials, constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead warned that the ranger’s directive, which resulted in Faw being forced to leave the park, violated Faw’s First Amendment rights, as well as National Park Service regulations. Whitehead also demanded assurances that Park employees will be properly instructed in how to respect the constitutional rights of visitors to the Park so that Faw and others will not face similar restrictions in the future.

Whitehead’s letter to officials at Kings Mountain National Military Park is available here.

“The display of political messages from a vehicle is unquestionably expression protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “This type of censorship is what you would expect in some foreign regime, not a public park in America.”

Jack Faw is a frequent visitor to Kings Mountain National Military Park in Blacksburg, S.C., which marks the site where three of his ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War. Faw visited the park on May 6, 2011, en route to his home in Virginia. Soon after arriving and in the midst of his tour through the exhibits, Faw was approached by a park ranger who asked Faw to come into the ranger’s office. The ranger informed Faw that he must remove his car from the parking lot because it displayed a political decal that is not allowed in National Parks. On the rear window of Faw’s passenger vehicle is a translucent decal promoting “Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty,” an organization dedicated to reestablishing and furthering the principles embodied in the United States Constitution. Although Faw protested that he had a right to display the decal and asserted it was not causing any disturbance, the ranger insisted that the car be removed from the park, at which point Mr. Faw felt compelled to comply with the order and left the Park.

Insisting that National Park employees be properly educated about basic constitutional precepts in order to ensure that this incident is not repeated, attorney John Whitehead reminded Park officials that visitors to National Parks do not forfeit their First Amendment rights to speech and expression. Indeed, noted Whitehead, Faw’s political messages on his vehicle appear to be wholly consistent with and allowable under regulations promulgated last October by the National Park Service concerning expressive activities by the public within National Parks. Furthermore, not only is the display of a political message on a vehicle unquestionably expression protected by the First Amendment, but a federal appeals court recently ruled that the right of citizens to freedom of speech applies within the confines of National Parks.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Survivors Emerge From Destroyed Oklahoma Home

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Supreme Court orders California to free 40,000 prisoners

By Agence France-Presse
Monday, May 23rd, 2011 -- 4:49 pm

WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court ordered California Monday to free thousands of prison inmates, saying chronic overcrowding violated inmates' rights -- but one judge warned the ruling was "outrageous."
In a narrow 5-4 majority ruling upholding a lower court decision, the top US court said the release is the only way to address the constitutional violation of cruel and unusual punishment.
"This case arises from serious constitutional violations in California's prison system. The violations have persisted for years. They remain uncorrected," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a majority opinion.
Cash-strapped California has for some years had a problem with prison overcrowding: the western US state has some 148,000 inmates housed in 33 jails designed for some 80,000 people, according to its own figures.
In a sign of tensions in Calilfornia's jails, another riot was reported Monday, the second in only a few days: four inmates were injured when nearly 200 prisoners rioted Sunday at San Quentin jail, north of San Francisco.
There was no immediate reaction to the ruling from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Kennedy said that although the state has reduced the population by at least 9,000 during the appeal process, the decision "means a further reduction of 37,000 persons could be required."

Article continues rawstory.com

Suggestion - Stop incarcerating people for victimless crimes. Stop violating the constitutional rights of the people. Those two things would greatly reduce the future prison population.

Senators Leahy, Paul propose expanded oversight of PATRIOT Act

By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, May 23rd, 2011 -- 6:55 pm

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced an amendment to the PATRIOT Act on Monday that attempts to safeguard American's civil liberties by increasing oversight of government surveillance powers.

The Leahy-Paul amendment [PDF] requires an expansion of public reporting on the use of surveillance powers granted by the PATRIOT Act. It would also require the government to prove a suspect was linked to a foreign group or power before being able to obtain highly sensitive records.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner agreed to call for a vote to extend three controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act before May 27, when they are set to expire, without any change to the legislation.

The bill would extend the "roving wiretap" provision, "lone wolf" measure and "business records" provision until June 1, 2015.

The three provisions allow law enforcement authorities to conduct surveillance without identifying the person or location to be wiretapped, permits surveillance of "non-US" persons for whatever reason, and authorizes law enforcement to gain access to "any tangible thing" during investigations.

Seether - Country Song

Organ trafficking: 'Her heart was missing'

Trafficking accounts for up to ten per cent of transplants globally, but health advocates are fighting back.

Chris Arsenault Last Modified: 17 May 2011 14:28

This Chinese man is offering to sell his organs to pay the bills, which is typical as poverty drives the shadowy trade worth an estimated $50m globally [GALLO/GETTY]

The stories are grim and often impossible to confirm: illicit clinics, corrupt doctors and global networks dealing in human flesh.

International organ trafficking is a big business, with an estimated value of $50m in 2008, according to Michael Bos from the European Platform on Ethical Legal and Psychosocial Aspects of Organ Transplantation.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated in 2007 that organ trafficking accounts for between five and 10 per cent of kidney transplants performed annually across the globe.

Antonio Medina, 23, a paperless Central American migrant moving through Mexico to the US, says he knows a fellow traveller who witnessed organ trafficking, after he and his wife were captured by a criminal gang.

"He was travelling with his wife and they [gangsters] took both of them," Medina told Al Jazeera during an interview in Mexico. "They [gangsters] put them in separate rooms. He heard his wife screaming. After he went in and saw her on a table with her chest wide open and without her heart or kidney."

Medina's friend said he was saved from the grisly house-turned-clinic by Mexican soldiers. The claims, like many aspects of the organ trafficking business, are impossible to independently verify.

The profit motive

"I have no doubt organs are being removed from bodies," says David Shirk, a professor of political science and director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego who has investigated trafficking. "But for the most part, organ trafficking occurs in hospitals, where there are corrupt medical practitioners."

"Maybe people are cutting organs out as a form of torture - a great way to torture someone would be to tie them to a chair and pull their guts out in front of their eyes - but it is not credible to me that bodies are being used for transplants, as the procedure requires very sanitary conditions and careful donor matching," he told Al Jazeera.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines organ trafficking as commercial transplantation, where there is profit, or transplantations occurring outside of national medical systems. Direct organ theft, including the case Medina described, represents only a small portion of global trafficking.

"There are criminal underground organisations providing kidney transplantations," says Luc Noel, coordinator of essential health technologies at the WHO. "But most cases involve the poor, the destitute and the vulnerable that are willing to part with an organ for money."

"The common denominator [with theft and "consensual" sales] is profiteering," he told Al Jazeera.

Poor people can reportedly earn between $3,000 to $15,000 for selling their organs, specifically kidneys, to middlemen who re-sell them to wealthy buyers for as much as $200,000

In a 2009 report on organ trafficking, the Council of Europe and the United Nations concluded that there was possibly "a high number of unreported cases", attributing this to the "huge profits and rather low risks for the perpetrators".

Mexico is not considered one of the worst countries for organ trafficking; the grisly practice is thought to be most prevalent in Israel, India, China, Pakistan, Turkey, Brazil, Nepal, the Philippines, Kosovo, Iran, and former Soviet states in eastern Europe.

"Transplant tourisms flourishes in areas with weak authorities," says Noel from the WHO. "We do not want to see a society where the destitute become a store of organs for the wealthy and powerful."

Online buyers

Customers normally come from the US, Western Europe, the Arab Gulf states, Israel and wealthy enclaves in the developing world. "The patients are also vulnerable and often extremely sick," Noel says. "The solution is that each community should address its needs in organs. Public authorities need to increase awareness on the benefits of [volunteering] for transplants."

Most people are coerced into selling their organs through a combination of misinformation and poverty, says Debra Budiani, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania's Centre for Bioethics.

So, how does one go about buying an illicit organ? It's a bit more complicated than walking to a shady part of town and haggling with a guy carrying wads of kidneys in his trench coat.

"The procedure for American patients is to go online and look for these services," Budiani told Al Jazeera. "This has been the framework for transplant tourism."

China has been particularly sophisticated in using the internet to attract transplant tourists, she says. The nominally communist country has one of the world's highest execution rates, and dead convicts provide a ready supply of healthy young organs.

Once patients arrive in China and the deal is set up, organisers will often force them to compete for the organs in intense bidding wars, Budiani says. "They will get into a situation in the hospital where they are waiting to see who will get the first organ from an executed prisoner," and the highest bidder gets first pick, even though prices are normally negotiated before foreigners arrive in China.

"There is a lot of dirty business around these operations," she says. "And it started with a lot of coordination on the internet."

In a posting on a free announcements website in Tuxla Gutierrez, the capital of economically marginalised Chiapas state in southern Mexico, a user offers to pay $25,000 for an organ and promises to be "absolutely discrete and serious" with whoever responds to the add. The user leaves an e-mail address and says that the operation will be done in Houston, Texas. The proposed transaction is illegal, Budiani says.

New organising tools

In addition to her academic work at the University of Pennsylvania, Budiani directs the Coalition for Organ-Failure Solutions, a grassroots advocacy group.

The coalition is planning a trafficking hotline, to take calls from victims, so they can be linked to doctors and the appropriate authorities."We are establishing a virtual social network, with mobile phones as the common denominator," Budiani says. "Even if they are illiterate, they still have access to mobile phones."

A prototype of the plan will be tested in Egypt and India in the coming months. The hotline could also act as a resource for understanding the sources of this kind of crime, she says, adding that Egypt's recent revolution, and the political instability it has caused, creates a "vulnerable period where human trafficking could thrive".

Back in Mexico, Antonio Medina says his friend whose wife had her organs stolen just wants to forget the whole experience. "We keep in touch by email, he is back in Honduras."

As seems standard with trafficking victims, they fall back into the shadows, often irreparably physically and emotionally scarred, isolated and alone.

"Migrants are highly vulnerable to various forms of exploitation," says David Shirk. And that reality extends across the globe, from refugees of Sudan's internal conflicts facing organ trafficking in Egypt to Moldovans and Kazakhs who have had their kidneys illicitly removed in Kosovo.

Debra Budiani hopes the proposed anti-trafficking hotline will help prevent abuses, while providing solace to those who are missing organs, facing shame and sickness.

"We want to allow people to mobilise and share resources on how they have been abused," she says, "to put them in touch with other victims so they aren't so isolated."

Monday, May 23, 2011

10 Ways ‘The Police State’ Tracks You

By VC | May 18th, 2011

When discussing the “promotion of a police state” in music videos, I am not referring to an abstract, theoretical concept. It is real and it is happening. The high-tech chips and devices seen a few years ago in sci-fi movies and futuristic music videos are used on us today. Here’s an article from Activist Post describing 10 ways the police state keeps track of you.

The war on terror is a worldwide endeavor that has spurred massive investment into the global surveillance industry, which now seems to be becoming a war on “liberty and privacy.” Given all of the new monitoring technology being implemented, the uproar over warrantless wiretaps now seems moot.

High-tech, first-world countries are being tracked, traced, and databased, literally around every corner. Governments, aided by private companies, are gathering a mountain of information on average citizens who so far seem willing to trade liberty for supposed security. Here are just some of the ways the matrix of data is being collected:

GPS — Global positioning chips are now appearing in everything from U.S. passports and cell phones to cars. More common uses include tracking employees, and for all forms of private investigation. Apple recently announced they are collecting the precise location of iPhone users via GPS for public viewing in addition to spying on users in other ways.

Internet — Internet browsers are recording your every move forming detailed cookies on your activities. The National Security Administration has been exposed as having cookies on their site that don’t expire until 2035. Major search engines know where you surfed last summer, and online purchases are databased, supposedly for advertising and customer service uses. IP addresses are collected and even made public. Controversial websites can be flagged internally by government sites, as well as re-routing all traffic to block sites the government wants to censor. It has now been fully admitted that social networks provide no privacy to users while technologies advance for real-time social network monitoring is already being used. The Cybersecurity Act attempts to legalize the collection and exploitation of your personal information. Apple’s iPhone also has browsing data recorded and stored. All of this despite the overwhelming opposition to cybersurveillance by citizens.

RFID — Forget your credit cards which are meticulously tracked, or the membership cards for things so insignificant as movie rentals which require your Social Security number. Everyone has Costco, CVS, grocery-chain cards, and a wallet or purse full of many more. RFID “proximity cards” take tracking to a new level in uses ranging from loyalty cards, student ID, physical access, and computer network access. Latest developments include an RFID powder developed by Hitachi, for which the multitude of uses are endless — perhaps including tracking hard currency so we can’t even keep cash undetected. (Also see microchips below).

Traffic cameras — License plate recognition has been used to remotely automate duties of the traffic police in the United States, but have been proven to have dual use in England such as to mark activists under the Terrorism Act. Perhaps the most common use will be to raise money and shore up budget deficits via traffic violations, but uses may descend to such “Big Brother” tactics as monitors telling pedestrians not to litter as talking cameras already do in the UK.

Computer cameras and microphones — The fact that laptops — contributed by taxpayers — spied on public school children (at home) is outrageous. Years ago Google began officially to use computer “audio fingerprinting” for advertising uses. They have admitted to working with the NSA, the premier surveillance network in the world. Private communications companies already have been exposed routing communications to the NSA. Now, keyword tools — typed and spoken — link to the global security matrix.

Public sound surveillance — This technology has come a long way from only being able to detect gunshots in public areas, to now listening in to whispers for dangerous “keywords.” This technology has been launched in Europe to “monitor conversations” to detect “verbal aggression” in public places. Sound Intelligence is the manufacturer of technology to analyze speech, and their website touts how it can easily be integrated into other systems.

Biometrics — The most popular biometric authentication scheme employed for the last few years has been Iris Recognition. The main applications are entry control, ATMs and government programs. Recently, network companies and governments have utilized biometric authentication including fingerprint analysis, iris recognition, voice recognition, or combinations of these for use in national identification cards.

DNA — Blood from babies has been taken for all people under the age of 38. In England, DNA was sent to secret databases from routine heel prick tests. Several reports have revealed covert Pentagon databases of DNA for “terrorists” and now DNA from all American citizens is databased. Digital DNA is now being used as well to combat hackers.

Microchips — Microsoft’s HealthVault and VeriMed partnership is to create RFID implantable microchips. Microchips for tracking our precious pets is becoming commonplace and serves to condition us to accept putting them in our children in the future. The FDA has already approved this technology for humans and is marketing it as a medical miracle, again for our safety.

Facial recognition — Anonymity in public is over. Admittedly used at President Obama’s campaign events, sporting events, and most recently at the G8/G20 protests in Canada. This technology is also harvesting data from Facebook images and surely will be tied into the street “traffic” cameras.

All of this is leading to Predictive Behavior Technology — It is not enough to have logged and charted where we have been; the surveillance state wants to know where we are going through psychological profiling. It’s been marketed for such uses as blocking hackers. Things seem to have advanced to a point where a truly scientific Orwellian world is at hand. It is estimated that computers know to a 93 percent accuracy where you will be, before you make your first move. Nanotech is slated to play a big role in going even further as scientists are using nanoparticles to directly influence behavior and decision making.

Many of us are asking: What would someone do with all of this information to keep us tracked, traced, and databased? It seems the designers have no regard for the right to privacy and desire to become the Controllers of us all.

Protect IP Act threatens the Internet, blogs that tell the truth, & site operators

May 15, 2011 by Brian D. Hill
Filed under Brian D. Hill's Articles, USWGO, Your Rights Threatened

Author: Brian D. Hill

Related: Tell your senators to vote No on S.968 the bill number of the ‘Protect IP Act’, Obama Administration To Begin Shutting Down Websites

UPDATE!!! I found the name of the bill and it is S.968. Start calling all your representatives to vote no on the S-968 Senate Bill. It is urgent unless you rather not be legally allowed to get the truth out. If you want to get the truth out then please keep calling and faxing your senators that you want S-968 t0 be thrown in the trash can.

A new bill being supported by the Obama Administration and being sponsored by at least 11 senators of all stripes is being introduced that will threaten news aggregation, truth blogs, documentary filmmakers, political websites, and any website that uses portions or snippets from mainstream media websites or any portion of any copyrighted content.

The bill titled ‘Protect IP Act‘ with the bill number ‘GRA11400′ hosted on Senator Patrick Leahy’s website tells a story that what this bill will do is grant the U.S. Government the power to bring lawsuits against any blog or website that uses any portion or excerpt of any copyrighted materials and obtain court orders requiring search engines like Google to stop displaying links to them. If you don’t believe me then read the bill yourself which is 30 pages long right now. In fact I will embed this scary bill from Scribd for any of you who wish to read this bill to confirm what I am saying.


This bill is yet another bill that will further give the U.S. Government even more power to shut down any website which criticizes the Establishment or any mega fascist Corporation all under the guise of further protecting copyright. The problem with this new copyright bill is that it violates Fair Use Exemptions. This bill also violates the U.S. Constitution because of the fact that they can sue websites and demand that search engines can censor any website that the Obama Administration or the Supreme Court thinks is committing copyright infringement. This bill also means you cannot post any copyrighted images on your website even if it is for an educational purpose because the Federal Government will view your site as willfully infringing another persons content and use that as an excuse to shut down your site and sue you in Federal Court.

While copyright is necessary to a certain extent, we cannot trade our civil liberties and our 1st amendment for more corporate copyright controls.

In fact this isn’t the only time the U.S. Government has attempted using copyright or some other do-good method to shut down or control the Internet. The U.S. Government has seized many domains under the guise of stopping pirated video streaming websites, Obama attempted to pass a ‘kill-switch’ bill plus giving Joe Lieberman the power to shut down any website he wishes with just a phone call, and U.S. authorities have shut down a WordPress host with around 73,000 blogs.

If the U.S. Government has attempted to control and censor the Internet before it will most likely happen again. The establishments agenda is on the wall that they want to either control the Internet to be more like cable TV or have it shut down. The one that told that agenda is non other then Jay Rockefeller.

In fact here is a quote from Wired about this bill threatening bloggers and their 1st amendment rights.

“Both law enforcement and rights holders are currently limited in the remedies available to combat websites dedicated to offering infringing content and products,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the bill’s main sponsor. The proposal is an offshoot to the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act introduced last year. It was scrapped by its authors in exchange for the Protect IP Act in a bid to win Senate passage.”

Of course they tell you they want to stop counterfeit goods and commercial piracy but what they won’t tell you is that they wish to criminalize bloggers for using excerpts and quotations, video embeds of portions of copyrighted videos, news aggregation websites (Even those that use very few paragraphs), and documentary filmmakers since they often reference copyrighted content for their educational documentaries.

This new copyright bill is just another attempt to give Obama the power to shut down any website he wishes under the noble deed of protecting copyrights and putting a stop to the selling of counterfeit goods.


Saturday, May 21, 2011

Ron Paul: U.S. may try to occupy Pakistan

By Kase Wickman
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011 -- 12:10 pm

GOP 2012 hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) thinks U.S. troops will soon be on the ground for an occupation of Pakistan — and he said so on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Wednesday morning.

Paul called America's relationship with Pakistan "an impossible situation," where the U.S. hailed both its friendship with and suspicion of the country.

"I think we are going to be in Pakistan, I think that's going to be our next occupation, and I fear it," Paul said. "It's ridiculous. I think our foreign policy is such we don't need to be doing this."

Paul said he had no inside information on Congress authorizing or ordering troops to invade Pakistan. He simply said based on U.S. history, he wouldn't be surprised to see further U.S. involvement there.

"Right now, Pakistan is a big problem," he said. "We have created a civil war there, and the fact that we go over there and we violate their security and the people rebel against the government because they see their government as being a puppet of the American government, so it's total chaos and I'm afraid, and I hope I'm absolutely wrong, but I'm afraid we'll be in Pakistan trying to occupy that country, and it will probably be very unsuccessful."

In the weeks since President Barack Obama announced that Navy SEALs had killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Paul has said that he would not have given the go-ahead for the mission.

"I think the real tragedy of this is that we didn't get him 10 years ago when we could have and should have," he said.

Earlier this month, Paul supported an ultimately failed resolution to bring the troops home from Afghanistan beginning in July.

Data from a new Gallup poll released Tuesday night shows that while Paul enjoys high name recognition — 76 percent among Republicans, trailing only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. However, despite his name recognition and popularity with the tea party, the poll shows Paul is not viewed favorably by Republican voters.

Watch Rep. Ron Paul's remarks on Morning Joe below, originally broadcast May 18, 2011, and embedded courtesy MSNBC.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Friday, May 20, 2011

Abbottabad Neighbor Claims Bin Laden Raid Was Botched

Helicopter explosion killed numerous people involved in operation, Bashir tells

Pakistani news channel
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, May 17, 2011

According to a close neighbor who watched the alleged US raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound from his rooftop, the operation was almost immediately aborted because of a helicopter crash that killed several people, eyewitness testimony that completely contradicts the official narrative put out by the White House.

Mohammad Bashir lives a stone’s throw away from the purported Bin Laden compound that was raided on May 1. In an astounding interview with Pakistani news channel Samaa TV, Bashir describes how he watched men land in the helicopter and enter the compound.

However, in contrast to the official story, Bashir then claims the helicopter exploded and killed the men as they were re-entering the chopper to leave.

Bashir said that the men who landed in the helicopter spoke Pashto, an Iranian language spoken in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

According to a translation of the comments that was posted on the Veterans Today website, Bashir told the interviewer, “There was a blast in the first helicopter and it was on fire, we immediately came out, when we reached there, the helicopter was burning, then after about 20 minutes the army and police arrived, they pushed us back, now we are asking that if Osama was here then who took him to America because all those men that came in the helicopter died in the blast, now if Osama was in that helicopter he must have died and got burnt in that helicopter too, then how they took him?”

“We saw the helicopter burning, we saw the dead bodies, then everything was removed and now there is nothing,” said Bashir.

Bashir said he saw numerous body parts of the men who had been blown up by the explosion.

US officials admitted that a Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter that was involved in the raid did crash into the walls of the compound, and wreckage of the chopper was shown. However, authorities denied that there were any casualties.

Bashir is by no means the only resident of Abbottabad to dispute the official narrative behind the Bin Laden raid. Indeed, you’d be hard pressed to find one that doesn’t.

In a BBC News report, Orla Guerin interviewed dozens of people who were adamant that Bin Laden did not live in the compound, with none of them ever witnessing him or hearing rumors that he was there in the five years that Obama claimed Bin Laden was a resident in the town.

“It’s all a fake, nothing happened,” said a newspaper seller who has been working in the town for 50 years.

Another resident told Guerin that the man seen in the video footage of Osama allegedly flicking between television channels is in fact his neighbor, not Bin Laden.

“His name is Akhbar Han, he owns the house they said was Osama’s house, I know him very well,” the man stated.

After speaking to “more than 50 people in the market,” Guerin found only one who believed that the man watching television was Bin Laden.

A separate CCTV News report also featured interviews with Abbottabad residents who swore that “Osama was never here,” and that a fable had been invented to help the US isolate Pakistan geopolitically.

The video of the interview with Mohammad Bashir appears below – the full translation can be read here.

Gary Johnson: Time's up in Libya, Mr. President

By Gary Johnson
Posted: May 20, 2011

SANTA FE, N.M. -- Maybe, just maybe, they forgot. Or maybe they actually believe that what the U.S. is doing in Libya somehow doesn’t constitute the use of our armed forces -- $750 million worth of bombs and missiles notwithstanding. Whatever the reason, it is obvious that the President has no intention of complying with the War Powers Act with regard to our military intervention in Libya.

This blatant disregard for the law must not go unchallenged. As several Senators did this week, Congress must demand an explanation for the fact that, with no declaration of war, no authorization from Congress, and certainly no imminent threat to the U.S., our forces are today engaged in what is clearly a military conflict halfway around the world in Libya.

Specifically, the War Powers Act requires that the use of American forces in a conflict must be ended within 60 days of commencing – unless Congress expressly authorizes otherwise. In terms of our current engagement in Libya, Congress hasn’t authorized anything, nor has the President asked them to, and today, May 20, is the 60th day.

Perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised and the President will stop our military’s involvement in Libya -- today, but I rather doubt it. The War Powers Act was enacted almost 40 years ago for a reason. After fighting two costly wars, Korea and Vietnam, with no formal declaration of war, Congress acted to limit the authority of the President to engage the military in “open-ended” conflicts with no clear congressional consent. It was carefully crafted to allow the Commander-in-Chief to respond to attacks and otherwise take whatever action necessary to protect us. At the same time, it was obviously crafted to limit precisely the kinds of ill-defined and costly uses of our military that we are witnessing in Libya right now.

To be fair, this President is certainly not the first to disregard the War Powers Act. Some have even questioned its constitutionality. But until the Courts or Congress deem otherwise, it is the law of the land – and in my opinion, a good one.

If there are compelling reasons, strategic, humanitarian or otherwise, to be doing what we are doing in Libya, then Congress will likely authorize it. If not, then perhaps we shouldn’t be firing those missiles and dropping those bombs – missiles and bombs financed with borrowed and printed money.

Either way, Mr. President, don’t treat today as just another deadline to ignore.

Blog Archive