CIA Head We Will Spy On Americans Through Electrical Appliances Steve Watson Infowars.com March 16, 2012 Global information surveillance grid being constructed; willing Americans embrace gadgets used to spy on them CIA director David Petraeus has said that the rise of new “smart” gadgets means that Americans are effectively bugging their own homes, saving US spy agencies a job when it identifies any “persons of interest”. Speaking at a summit for In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s technology investment operation, Petraeus made the comments when discussing new technologies which aim to add processors and web connections to previously ‘dumb’ home appliances such as fridges, ovens and lighting systems. Wired reports the details via its Danger Room Blog: “‘Transformational’ is an overused word, but I do believe it properly applies to these technologies,” Petraeus enthused, “particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft.” “Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters — all connected to the next-generation internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing,” Petraeus said. “the latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing.” the CIA head added. Petraeus also stated that such devices within the home “change our notions of
secrecy”. Petraeus’ comments come in the same week that one of the biggest microchip companies in the world, ARM, unveiled new processors that are designed to give practically every household appliance an internet connection, in order that they can be remote controlled and operate in tandem with applications. ARM describes the concept as an “internet of things”. Where will all the information from such devices be sent and analyzed? It can be no coincidence that the NSA is currently building a monolithic heavily fortified $2 billion facility deep in the Utah desert and surrounded by mountains. The facility is set to go fully live in September 2013. “The Utah data center is the centerpiece of the Global Information Grid, a military project that will handle yottabytes of data, an amount so huge that there is no other data unit after it.” reports Gizmodo. “This center—with every listening post, spy satellite and NSA datacenter connected to it, will make the NSA the most powerful spy agency in the world.” Wired reports that the incoming data is being mined by plugging into telecommunications companies’ switches, essentially the same method the NSA infamously uses for warrantless wiretapping of domestic communications, as exposed six years ago. Former intelligence analyst turned best selling author James Bamford, has penned a lengthy piece on the NSA facility and warns “It is, in some measure, the realization of the ‘total information awareness’ program created during the first term of the Bush administration—an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans’ privacy.”
Lost Principles And Social Destruction Brandon Smith Alt-Market.com March 16, 2012 “…we are here dealing with a totalitarian state of which the philosophy included an utter contempt for the individual… any freedom of thought or action was inconceivable in the Aztec world… dependence and instability were absolute, fear reigned. Death lurked ceaselessly everywhere, and constituted the cement of the building in which the individual Aztec was prisoner… Clearly the spirituality of some aspects of Aztec life must have sprung from an old pre-Aztec tradition, later betrayed…” Laurette Sejourne (‘Burning Water’) The life of a nation, of a culture, is sustained by very few but very critical social circumstances. These pillars must stand strong, maintained with the utmost care and caution; as one would fight to maintain the beat of his own heart. If these vital foundations are dissolved or destroyed, the nation and the people contained within are subject to the most heinous of generational afflictions. The citizenry and all that nurtures their progress, begins to die. Slowly suffocating in a corrosive atmosphere of dishonor, men turn toward pure self interest at the expense of their greater selves, giving rise to hatred, desperation, and an environment of disturbed malleability that is easily exploited by those who seek power. Eventually, the entire edifice comes crashing down, sometimes so far into the pits of black and terrible times that it is all but lost, even to memory… As I look out past the near horizon of this time, and this nation, I see considerable potential for a revitalization of that which is best in humanity. I see a population that strives for independence. I see a return to the entrepreneurial spirit of discovery. I see unhindered freedom of thought and action feeding a fire of creativity that inspires us to unimaginable heights. I see new expression given license not just by the masses, but by structures of a government which truly follows the will of the common man, and not the will of an elite few. I see America breathing full, eyes wide open and alive. However, this potential future would have to come at a considerable cost. America has so strayed from its founding roots that it now hungers; starving for lack of nutrients
from its natural soil. As with all other catastrophic societies of the past, we have been manipulated and conned into overlooking and over-rationalizing astonishing injustice and in some cases, unmitigated evil. I frankly don’t know what else to call it. There are some acts of malevolence that go beyond human weakness and inadequacy and reach into realms of calculation that are so cold, so soulless, there is simply no other way to describe them. These actions and attitudes tend to run rampant in dying nations but are rarely singled out and criticized by those in the midst of the great fall. Each begins with the loss of particular principles and inherent morals that are normally prized under more healthy circumstances, but are despised in times of chaos and uncertainty. This begins with the rise of moral relativism. All Is “Rational”… The concept that our inherent conscience should be set aside at times in order to achieve a “greater good” is a long running philosophy that has led to some of the greatest evils mankind has ever witnessed. From Plato’s “noble lie”, to Machiavelli’s politics of subversion, to the Marquis De Sade’s insane fantasy world without self limit; such men and those who adopt their ideals have proven that intellect alone is no magic ticket to a well balanced society. Indeed, intellect without intuitive conscience can be a tool for rationalizing the most horrifying of crimes. In America today, we have quite a few moral relativists at the helm of our government, and many more who would advise them. Ralph Peters, a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel and former campaign adviser to John McCain, known for his array of Islamo-fearmongo books and novels, is, in my view, a perfect example of the moral relativist in action. Talking points from his writings are parroted constantly by Neo-Cons and now Neo-Libs who feel compelled to defend Barack Obama’s continued blood-letting in the Middle East. Peters asserts that American troops and warfare tactics must become essentially as monstrous as the enemy we fight in order for victory to be achieved. This is excusable, in his opinion, because America is the “good guy”, and they are the “bad guys”: http://www.freeman.org/m_online/apr04/peters.htm Ironically, Peters often uses the example of Rome’s genocidal attacks on Carthage as a primer for his arguments, loosely comparing the “barbarians” of Carthage to the “barbarian” Muslims of his War on Terror. His position; that Rome was safest when they were absolute in their brutality. What Peters ignorantly overlooks (or perhaps deliberately overlooks) is that the fall of Rome was not hastened by outside “barbarians”, but by Rome’s own barbarity and stupidity. Rome’s elites provoked and gave birth to enemy hoards through their relentless acts of bloodshed across the known world over the course of centuries. America is set on the same exact path with the help of men like Peters; claiming that our principles stand in the way of our survival, and that all targets are fair game and all means are acceptable as long as we prevail. The problem is, as Peters admits, one should never declare actual victory in the War on Terror. Thus, by his own logic, there can be no conclusion, only an endless cycle of death perpetrated in ever more diabolical ways. Nations that take on this mentality of pure destruction without boundaries lose all high ground in the annals of history.
It is not enough that a country or a culture should survive; it must also be worthy of survival. Recent debacles in Afghanistan, including the deliberate killing of 16 civilians (which I’m sure Peters would attempt to advocate), show clearly that the longer you try to occupy a foreign nation based on false premises, the more it will eventually start looking like Vietnam, along with the toll of madness and depression that overtakes soldiers after multiple tours of duty fighting a war that makes no sense to them anymore. Science Supercedes Conscience? In the world of Bioethics, Moral relativism has been refined to an artform, and the prominence of bioethical arguments is expanding considerably here in the U.S. The reason for this can be tied directly to the elitist adoption of environmental activism as a vehicle to promote morally relative social policies. The field of climate change continues to offer the most ample venue. If the very future of our planet is supposedly at stake due to the mere creation of carbon emissions, a product of almost every human action, then all aspects of human life come into question and eventually, lend themselves to taxation, regulation, and domination. Despite the fact that climate research labs like those at the CRU of East Anglia and NASA still refuse to release the source data for their experiments supporting their assertions that man causes global warming, and the fact that East Anglia’s rigged computer modeling methods were exposed through the Climategate emails, the Bioethics community continues to use manmade global warming as the boogieman rationalization for scientific tyranny. This includes suggestions of medicating the populace in order to make them more “empathetic” to the dangers of climate change: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-bodycould-combat-climate-change/253981/ The climate change dynamic invariably leads to calls for population reduction. Arguments have been recently presented stating that because newborn babies do not have fully formed cognition, they are “not yet human” and should be susceptible to legal abortion (of course, men like Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky, Carl Jung, and many others have proven that there are multiple inherent qualities to children at birth, and Bioethicists have no idea how much of our personality is a part of that, but hey, who am I to argue with a Bioethicist): http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/weird/Killing-Newborn-Babies-141014423.html For the ancient Aztecs, high priests used the fake threat of the solar eclipse and the swallowing of the sun as a means to control the people and force them to conduct human sacrifice to satiate the bloodlust of their rulers. In America today, we have high priests in the garb of pseudoscience who use the specter of climate change annihilation to seize similar control and condone clinical human sacrifice to satiate the thirst of environmental elitists for depopulation. It Always Ends In Cannibalism… People eating other people is just one of those aspects of extreme decline that the collapse of civilizations seem to illicit. It goes against all natural law and even our animal instinct, but in a land where principles are rejected wholesale, it can become commonplace. Most animals avoid turning to cannibalism because their very genetics demand that they continue the species. This is
very difficult to do when one’s own species is self consuming. Even if conscience were never a question (which it always is), our very DNA should prevent us from such activity. When it does occur, with extensive participation by the general populace, it is a sure sign of a culture on the edge of a full-on swan dive into epic seventh circle of hell-style calamity. This is why anyone should feel rather disturbed and sickened at the news that companies like Pepsi, Nestle, and Kraft Foods are working with artificial flavor manufacturer Senomyx, which uses aborted fetal tissue in the creation of its products: http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/06/01/aborted-fetal-tissue-used-to-test-new-food-additives/ The Senomyx patents which include fetal tissue use (HEK Cell lines that express hetero oligomeric taste receptors) can be viewed here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nphParser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/PTO/searchadv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=Senomyx&d=PTXT Senomyx and the companies associated with it have made a wide range of assertions surrounding this practice. Some deny fetal tissue is used at all. Others argue that it is only used in the “testing” of certain chemical flavorings. While the consensus is that human material is not actually present in the final food products of the companies involved, I find it a bit disconcerting to know that dead fetuses are being used to test better flavor enhancements for someone’s next soda or slice of cheese. Regardless of how you may feel about the issue of abortion, you have to admit that this lack of respect for human remains for the purposes of profit when numerous alternatives exist is chilling. This news, along with the revelation that hybrid rice containing human DNA has been approved by the USDA, tells me that someone out there REALLY wants the average American to dive into at least lighter forms of cannibalism: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-440302/The-rice-human-genes.html Given these developments, it is only a matter of time before present technological food practices take another step forward into even more questionable realms. Is the “Soylent Green” method of cannibalism more acceptable than the Aztec form of cannibalism? No. Ultimately, both stem from a complete lack of regard for life; a regard that usually keeps societies from tearing themselves to shreds over the rolling boil of a stew pot. Moments Of Clarity Lost… The above examples of undesirable trends are only a taste of the stampede of modern tyranny that we must brace for and defend against in the near term. The most important factor of all is to understand why a social condition causes us pain. In regret, and in sadness, that which makes us human is most distinctly felt. Our inner voice, once lost or forgotten, is difficult to retrieve. The ease by which the darker side of life presents itself becomes enticing, and, the good we were once capable of fades. America (and the rest of the world) is at the most important stage of historical life; the stage at which the people choose to leave all reason behind to ride the mangling tides of fate, or, choose to
stand and fight for a clarity of sight one could only define as individual destiny. Regardless of the circumstances we are eventually faced with, one difficult truth remains; without a sense of honor and principle, there can be no liberty, and therefore, no society worth a damn. Some see this as a handicap in the battle for transparency and truth in our culture. I do not. In the end, HOW we fight is just as important as WHY we fight. The example we set is just as important as the ideals we espouse. The way we live is just as important if not more important than the length of our time on this planet. What we leave behind after the dust settles and our land driven forms remain but cast shadows in the minds of generations we will never meet, is what makes us who we are. Anyone who says that the “ends justify the means”, is not serving the future, but the moment, and that moment will be harsh and fleeting…
Government Explained Graham Wright March 16, 2012 An inquisitive alien visits the planet to check on our progress as a species, and gets into a conversation with the first person he meets. The alien discovers that we live under the rule of a thing called “government”, and wants to understand more about what “government” is, what it does, and why it exists. Government Explained http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1 m5MSt9k Obama as Joker Explained Quantitative Easing Explained Fractional Reserve Banking Explained Aspartame withdrawal and side effects explained QE2 Explained Government Is Not Civilization, It Is Slavery FBI warns of threat from anti-government extremists Megaupload boss: Site popular among US government users Wild animals to be banned from circuses, says Government George Wright, fugitive US hijacker, caught in Portugal after 40 years The Government’s New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS Angola anti-government protest triggered clash
The First Amendment Needs a Rape Kit Wendy McElroy The Future of Freedom Foundation March 16, 2012 The newest attack of vague language is aimed at your 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Petition. It is found in the pending legislation of H.R. 347.… As currently worded, it might as well have been called the “Federal We’re Too Important To Be Annoyed By Your Protest Act of 2011.” The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 (PDF) may sound like a landscaping measure, but it is also being called the Trespass Bill, the Anti-Occupy Bill, and the First Amendment Rights Eradication Act. Under this bill, it is a felony to protest at or in the vicinity of a venue or event that is attended by anyone who has Secret Service protection. H.R. 347 passed the House on February 27th by a vote of 388–3. The Senate version (S. 1794) passed unanimously. With President Obama's signature, the Act became law on March 8. The bill has caused a furor among advocates of civil liberties. Justin Amash, one of the three “no” votes in the House, dubbed the bill the “First Amendment Rights Eradication Act.” Calling it “this administration's latest assault on our civil liberties,” he explains on his Facebook page that “criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights.” The left-leaning Daily Kos states, “Protesting will be a felony — where is the outrage?” Meanwhile, the bill is being ignored by the mainstream media as uncontroversial. Supporters of the act dismiss its critics as hysterical or ill-informed. Michael Mahassey, the communications director for Rep. Thomas J. Rooney, who sponsored H.R. 347, called the backlash, "a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever.” Who is correct? And why is there such a deep schism on H.R. 347? A bill by any other name would smell …
The American Civil Liberties Union warns against H.R. 347. Nevertheless, the ACLU observes, “It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971.” Section 1752 of title 18 in the United States Code is entitled “Restricted Building or Grounds.” This 1971 bill was intended to prevent assassination, kidnapping, or other attempts to harm the political elite, especially the president. The section of title 18 that immediately precedes it, section 1751, is entitled “Presidential and Presidential Staff Assassination, Kidnapping, and Assault; Penalties.” Thus, section 1752 restricts people from entering or blocking access to or from public areas that have been cordoned off by the Secret Service for the protection of a person (or for a “special event of national significance,” which could range from the Olympics to a political convention). The penalty for violating section 1752 includes a possible one-year jail term; if a “dangerous weapon” is involved, then the jail term rises to a possible ten years. In recent years, the 1971 bill has been interpreted beyond its intent in order to crack down on peaceful protesters. Moreover, as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has amply demonstrated, the definition of a “dangerous weapon” has been expanded at the discretion of law enforcement to include such items as nail clippers. Thus, the controversy over the current revision, H.R. 347, revolves around two issues. First, is H.R. 347 part of a trend toward vagueness in legislative wording, which can be later exploited and expanded by authorities in order to violate civil liberties? Second, how legally “slight” is the change of wording in this revision? Consider the first question. Gene Howington, a guest blogger at Jonathan Turley's legal-analysis site, writes, it seems to be a trend that vague or overly broad language could be fairly described as being purposefully adopted allowing “wiggle room” for Federal authorities to potentially abuse civil and human rights under the color of authority. This is a dangerous practice. Howington refers to a recent example of legislative vagueness — the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which gives Obama the power to indefinitely detain citizens without trial if they are accused of terrorism. Some politicians, notably Senator Carl Levin, argued that the NDAA did not allow such arrests and, so, soothed his worried compatriots while dismissing the bill's critics. Nevertheless, even Obama acknowledged his new power after the bill passed, saying, “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” No wonder legal scholars now scrutinize with a skeptical eye every word that appears in potentially menacing legislation. As to the second question, to determine how “slight” the revisions of H.R. 347 truly are, it is necessary to review them. One change has or could have deep significance. The original text reads, (a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—
(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting. *** Four additional paragraphs, (2) through (5), begin with the words “willfully” and “knowingly.” The revised text of paragraph (a)(1) in H.R. 347 reads, (1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so. The four additional clauses in the original are compressed to three, each of which now begins with the word “knowingly” only. Why is deleting the word “willfully” so significant? Because it removes the need for a prosecutor to prove that a protester had the intent to violate the statute, for example, through blocking an egress. All that needs to be proven is that the protester knew he was accessing a restricted area. His intent may have been nothing more than to exercise freedom of speech; blocking the exit may have been inadvertent. But under H.R. 347, his mens rea — that is, that aspect of his state of mind — becomes legally insignificant. In Latin, “mens rea” means “guilty mind” or guilty intention. Within Western law, an act has traditionally required a guilty mind for that act to become criminal behavior. That is why defendants who are found to be mentally incompetent are not placed on trial; they are not deemed capable of mens rea. The Latin legal phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea — “the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty” — is often invoked in such cases. Writing in the periodical In These Times, Daniel Hertz encapsulates the impact of removing “willfully” from the statute, “In other words, Congress removed a hurdle in enforcing the law without actually adding any new restrictions to the First Amendment.” They simply changed the rules of enforcement to remove what is often the most difficult element of the crime to prove: namely, intent. Indeed, since both the original text and H.R. 347 allow the arrest of someone who is merely in “proximity” to a restricted area, proving intent could be close to impossible. How could you prove that person was walking near a politician's hotel with the intent of causing harm or blocking the egress? As Gene Howington observes, “in addition” to lowering the threshold for mens rea***, H.R. 347 defines the term “restricted buildings or grounds” to mean virtually any place in proximity to or place proper [where] a government function or an “event of national interest” is taking place. This would allow for the arrest of protesters just about anywhere. Outside political rallies, near the hotels of visiting foreign dignitaries, outside sporting or other public events like the Super Bowl … you get the idea.
H.R. 347 may well make the arrest and conviction of peaceful protesters much easier. Conclusion It is criminally naive to believe that the police and courts will not eventually use the expanded latitude granted by H.R. 347. The Occupy movement frightened and angered the authorities it yanked control away from. For years, “free speech zones,” in which protesters speak from behind barred walls, as though in cages, contained dissenters and kept them far from government officials. They were allowed to protest only where the elite and the mainstream media would not hear them. Occupy changed that. And the authorities have struggled to find ways to contain dissent ever since; they never want to lose control again. And, especially in this election season, politicians are eager to avoid a repeat of the public outrage that surrounded the 1968 Democratic convention, when police were filmed brutally beating peaceful demonstrators in the street. The elites are losing patience with civil rights. This January, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel pushed through two anti-protest ordinances that were widely termed “sit down and shut up” measures. The online periodical and voice of Occupy, the Dissenter, describes two of several repressive new requirements. Ahead of demonstrations, “organizers would be required to provide the City with a list of all signs, banners, sound equipment or ‘attention-getting devices’ that require more than one person to carry them,” creating “a license for the city to ‘ding’ organizers with absurd fines.” All downtown protest marches would be required to get $1 million insurance coverage to “indemnify the city against any additional or uncovered third party claims against the city arising out of or caused by the parade.” They would have to “agree to reimburse the city for any damage to the public way or city property arising out of or caused by the parade.” Clearly, Emanuel is determined that the upcoming NATO/G8 meetings in his city will go smoothly. Emanuel and his ilk would not hesitate to use the free hand provided by H.R. 347 to prosecute “offenders.” And god help them if the protesters are found to be in possession of a pair of nail clippers, small scissors, or any other item that could be construed as a “dangerous weapon.” The penalty could then rise to ten years imprisonment for young people still idealistic enough to believe they have free speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition officials with their grievances.