The Truth Or The Fight

“So why was this guy arrested? Was he suppose to face 20 scumbags with an assault spoon?”

-F.F.

UNIONDALE, N.Y. (CBS 2) — He was arrested for protecting his property and family.

But it’s how the Long Island man did it that police say crossed the line.

He got an AK-47 assault rifle, pulled the trigger and he ended up in jail, reports CBS 2’s Pablo Guzman.

George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious “MS-13.” He said the whole deal happened as he was about to drive his cousin home.

“I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?’ Grier said.

Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.

“He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,” Grier said.

Grier was later arrested. John Lewis is Grier’s attorney.

“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,” Lewis said.

Grier said he knew Nassau County Police employ the hi-tech “ShotSpotter” technology in his area and that the shooting would bring police in minutes. Cops told Guzman he was very cooperative.

Grier also said he was afraid the gang outside his house was the dreaded MS-13. And Nassau County Police Lt. Andrew Mulraine, head of the gang unit, said MS-13 has 2,000 members in the county.

“They’re probably the most organized. They almost have a military hierarchy within the gang, so they are the most organized gang we encounter on a daily basis,” Mulraine said.

You may think a person has the right to defend their home. But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force. Grier said he never saw anyone pull out a gun, so a court would have to decide on firing the gun.

Police determined Grier had the gun legally. He has no criminal record. And so he was not charged for the weapon.

That ShotSpotter technology pinpoints where a gun has been fired within 35 feet. Police said it also detected two other shootings in nearby Roosevelt that night.

Video & Story link HERE

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, September 2, 2010

On September 1, North Carolina’s governor, Bev Perdue, declared a state of emergency by executive order as Hurricane Earl approaches.

“The declaration calls for all state and local governments to cooperate in the North Carolina Emergency Operations Plan,” reports WECT News 6in Wilmington. Perdue said the National Guard is standing by and ready to respond if the storm hits the state.

Earlier today, the National Hurricane Center estimated that Hurricane Earl is approximately 300 miles south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. It is a Category 4 hurricane with sustained winds of 140 mph.

Blogger John Jacob notes a possible sinister side to North Carolina’s declared state of emergency — citizens will not be allowed to carry weapons. In other words, the governor has in effect suspended the Second Amendment at a time when crime will almost certainly increase.

Section 3 of the executive order, notes the No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money blog, delegates Perdue power under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the NC General Statues to the Secretary of Crime Control and Public Safety “to such further action as is necessary to promote and secure the safety of populace in North Carolina.”

NC Gen. Statues Section 14-288-7 bans transportation stipulates:

Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:

(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or

(2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.

(b) This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14-269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.

(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 192; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

The No Lawyers blog explains:

G.S. 14-269 deals with the carrying of concealed weapons. The only exemptions it provides to those “carrying out their duties” involve law enforcement and military personnel. The holder of a NC Concealed Handgun Permit does not have “duties” and therefore could not be considered an “exempted person” under G.S. 14-288-7.

G.S. 14-288-7 makes no exemptions for recreational shooting, it makes no exemptions for hunting, and it makes no exemption for concealed carry permit holders. If you possess or transport a firearm off your premises during the state of emergency, you will have committed an offense that the state considers a Class 1 misdemeanor. It does not matter that you live in an area that has received no rain, no wind, and no damage from Hurricane Earl.

In February, North Carolina outlawed carrying weapons in public during a snow emergency. North Carolina, however, is not alone — Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act outlaws possession of firearms during a government declared emergency and Colorado also considered enacting similar legislation. Georgia followed suit.

“Personally, I think [North Carolina's] law is unconstitutional to start with and stupid public policy,” Alan Gottlieb, founder of Second Amendment Foundation, told WorldNetDaily on February 16, 2010. “It reminded me of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when New Orleans confiscated guns.”

On September 8, 2005, P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police for New Orleans, declared no civilians would be allowed to carry firearms in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons,” he said.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said the Second Amendment would not be tolerated in New Orleans and soon police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals began going house-to-house taking weapons away from citizens.

“A disaster can bring out predators ready to loot, rampage, and pillage the moment that they have the opportunity,” David B. Kopel wrote for Reason on September 10, 2005. “Now we are seeing another awful truth: There is no shortage of police officers and National Guardsmen who will obey illegal orders to threaten peaceful citizens at gunpoint and confiscate their firearms.”

For now, North Carolina has banned residents from carrying weapons outside their homes. But if Hurricane Earl seriously wallops the state and looting and chaos ensues, it is entirely possible police and National Guard will be dispatched, as they were in New Orleans, and will deny citizens their right to possess firearms, as guaranteed under the Second Amendment, and protect themselves from criminals and predators.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/gun-confiscation-in-response-to-hurricane-earl.html

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“This is a pretty dangerous precedent.”

-F.F.

Contact: Paul Velte, 512-296-5563

Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights
website: http://www.io.com/~velte/pt.htm

In Federal District Court on July 20, 2010, the ATF won a conviction from an Austin jury that defies logic and reason. In a trial before Federal Judge Sam Sparks, government lawyers conceded Texas resident Paul Copeland did not know his buyer was an illegal alien, but the jury they should convict him anyway because he “had reasonable cause to believe” he was selling to an illegal alien because the two men and a boy who were present at his table at the time of the sale: 1) were Hispanic, 2) spoke Spanish, and 3) wore cowboy clothing. And the jury did as asked. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Freel acted as lead prosecutor in the case.

The firearm transaction at issue occurred on January 16, 2010, at a gunshow at the North Austin Events Center, at 10601 N. Lamar Blvd., in Austin, Texas. Undercover ATF agents followed Mr. Huerta, his son, and another Hispanic male, Hipolito Aviles, around the “Texas Gunshow” that day, and claimed to observe Huerta’s transaction. Austin P.D. used Copeland’s case as the reason to close down the gunshow, leading to a protest by Austin residents in front of APD headquarters on January 25.

Mr. Copeland is a 56 year old Cedar Creek resident and Vietnam veteran who liked to buy, sell, and trade firearms as a hobby. On January 16, however, he had the misfortune to sell a handgun to Leonel Huerta Sr., who spoke both English and Spanish. Huerta Sr. negotiated his purchase from Copeland in English, showing Copeland his Texas Driver’s License. At Copeland’s trial Huerta admitted on the witness stand, that he is in the country illegally, (Huerta Sr. had previously admitted this fact to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Leo Buentello). ATF Agent Shawn Kang claimed he saw Huerta later hand off the gun to Aviles. Despite these admissions, Huerta Sr. was never arrested, charged, or deported. Instead, his presence at the gunshow was used to entrap an American citizen into an unwitting violation of a federal gun control law. Huerta Sr., who is a resident of the City of Austin, appeared as a witness at the trial, admitted he was in the country illegally before federal prosecutors and a federal judge, yet he was allowed to leave the courtroom under his own power. To date Huerta Sr. has not been prosecuted for his purchase, possession, or disposition of the handgun he bought from Copeland, while Copeland is now a convicted felon.

“Instead of busting the illegal alien for buying, they bust the citizen for selling,” commented Paul Velte, attorney and founder of Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights, a gun-owners rights advocacy group from Austin. Velte asked, “who was in a better position to know the buyer’s immigration status, the buyer or the seller?” He also said, “What happened to Paul Copeland should enrage all Americans. The Federal Government is using illegal aliens to entrap citizens lawfully exercising their right to sell firearms. The illegal alien walks free, but the citizen gets convicted. The same government charged with controlling immigration is the one using illegal immigrants to attack its own citizens. Does this make any sense? It makes no sense unless the purpose is to discourage attendance at gunshows and frighten citizens from selling their firearms to other citizens.”

Velte pointed out that “There is no way for a citizen to know who is here legally or not. In fact, under Austin’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, not even the police officer at the door of the gunshow was allowed to ask a person’s immigration status, yet the average Texan inside the show is expected to assume that a person standing before them with a Texas driver’s license is in the country illegally just because they look Mexican and speak Spanish.” Velte noted that the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona was based on that very type of conduct: Concluding someone could be here illegally based on their looks or their language. Velte said gun owners in his group are outraged, and they want to know:

1. Why is the illegal alien who purchased the gun, Leonel Huerta Sr., still living in Austin?
2. Why does he still have a Texas Driver’s license?
3. Why is ATF using illegal aliens to set up and convict American citizens?
4. What has he been promised for his cooperation?
5. Why has he not been prosecuted? He committed three distinct crimes: he purchased a firearm knowing he was an illegal alien, he possessed the firearm, and he transferred the handgun to another illegal alien (Hippolito Aviles, who was convicted and given time served on June 30, 2010).
6. Why has Huerta Sr. not been deported?

Judge Sparks sentenced Copeland on August 27 to six months confinement and 24 months of probation, and called Copeland “a liar” for not admitting guilt. ATF confiscated Copeland’s entire gun collection and initiated forfeiture proceedings.  Copeland was also fired from his job due to the indictment, and he would have lost his home to foreclosure, if not for his family stepping in to pay his mortgage while he serves his sentence.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=38088

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“Awesome stuff! Just fighting is victory .”

-F.F.

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

Story HERE

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“Bravery, fortitude, will, and intrepidity, is the ability to confront fear, pain, risk/danger, uncertainty, or intimidation…

i.e. Courage

i.e.  this guy…

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“Sure why not. Train the little slaves of the future. Insane.” (I can’t even begin to illustrate what I would do if some flunky teacher who tried to hook-in my imaginary kid).

-Fred Face 8/31/10

by Lee Bains

One of the United States’ most affluent cities is debating whether or not, and how, to track its students with RFID tags. School officials in New Canaan, Connecticut have engaged in talks with SecureRF Corporation, which has applied for a $100,000 federal research grant and is hoping to find test partners. Among the potential applications for the radio-frequency identification devices (like those used in mobile payment systems) bandied about were tracking students for the purpose of emergency evacuations, streamlining the bus system and monitoring who’s cutting class. At least one board member, it seems, has some sense, though. “I can perceive parents would have an issue with tracking kids through the school and through town,” Jim Kucharczyk told the New Canaan Advertiser. “There’s a big difference between putting this on the school bus [and] putting it on backpacks or an ID card.”

Fortunately for the students of New Canaan High School, Superintendent Dr. David Abbey has made clear that participation in the experiment would not be mandatory, and that it would require both student and parental permission. Of course, this raises the question: what kind of kid would jump at the opportunity to be tracked? We have a sneaking suspicion that the RFID data would skew towards the library, computer lab and the student crossing guard.

http://www.switched.com/2010/08/24/new-canaan-connecticut-schools-consider-tracking-students-with/2

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

Orwellian DoubleThink Series 2
Activist Post

Rights are Privileges (Freedom is Slavery): The primary duty of all public officials is to protect the rights of citizens as defined in the Constitution, where they shall not make or enforce any laws that violate those rights.  In fact, the “checks and balances” were put in place to assure that rights of citizens are not being trampled by one branch of the government. After 9-11, President Bush and other public officials proclaimed that their most important job was protecting the safety of the American people, which basically put an end to our rights coming first.

If the corporate-government fear campaign fails to scare the rights away from citizens, they try to convince the public that rights are now privileges and charge a fee or a tax for the “right” to engage in a certain activity.

Here are a few recent examples where rights are eroding into privileges:

• Air travel has become a privilege since 9-11.  We must now forfeit all rights to our physical being by submitting to naked body scanners that emit unhealthy levels of radiation, or open-palm invasive frisking.  Everyone is assumed to be guilty until thoroughly cavity checked for explosives.
• Free-speech Blogging on the Internet is now the target of taxes and licensing fees — the trial financial assault before free speech is ultimately killed with the end of net neutrality. Philadelphia is seeking a blog tax, while South Carolina has attempted to require all controversial speech groups to register, of course with a fee attached.
• Food rights may be disappearing faster than any other rights.  Armed raids on raw milkproducers and the proposed senate bill S.510 that seeks to essentially criminalize local food are the pinnacle of corporate-government tyranny.
• Rights to use Rainwater is becoming illegal or being taxed by the overlords who control mother nature and the slaves who dare to use her resources.  Your basic right to nature’s sustenance is now a taxable privilege in the land of the free.
• Gun rights are under continued pressure by the government and the media to make us believe it is a privilege to own guns.
• Capital rights, or the freedom to spend or invest our own money, are now under assault with capital controls.
• Property rights erode every time property taxes are jacked up because the Fed creates inflation.  We own less and less of our property each day the dollar devalues. Property rights also erode as more strict zoning regulations continually pass.

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/08/orwellian-doublethink-rights-are.html

RELATED ARTICLE:

Orwellian DoubleThink: Welfare is Employment

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

Sally O’Boyle
Activist Post

Re: SPLC list of “Active Patriot Groups” and DOJ’s “Criminal Extremist List”

I am wondering if you will start a Patriot Persons list to go along with your Patriot Groups list? If so, I’d like to apply. If your criteria* is the same for People as for Groups, I might be a pretty good fit!

I am definitely against any “New World Order” or “One World Government” scheme. The U.S. must remain a sovereign nation as outlined in our Constitution. (Besides, and I don’t mean to be catty here, but the idea doesn’t seem to be working out so bloody well for the EU.) Do you know if there is an active attempt by the U.S. government to join into a world government? If so, please let me know! I’d like to sign and circulate a petition against that.

I don’t engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing; all the conspiracies about which I theorize have grounds. Do you think you could make an exception? And which conspiracies are the groundless ones? A list somewhere on your site would be helpful.

Also, how do you define “extreme anti-government doctrines”, please? Can you give any examples? I am personally extremely pro-Constitutional governance, something which has been in short supply during the last few administrations, including the current one. I would only be anti-government about a government that was extremely anti-U.S. Constitution. Will this count for or against me?

I am glad to see Oath-Keepers made the list of Patriot Groups! I am a member of Oath-Keepers. They are educating military and law-enforcement personnel about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, encouraging them to keep their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Thank goodness! Since the Constitution is no longer adequately taught in our schools (having just educated two teenagers, I can attest to that fact), I am thrilled to see that someone has taken on this monumental task!

Could you let me know if I make the list? You can find me at Campaign for Liberty or at Liberty-Candidates.org.

I hope I’m not asking too much, but maybe you could give a plaque or something? Or how about a pin that we could wear all the time identifying us as Patriots who made your list? Then we could easily spot each other. That would be way cool. Thanks!

God bless,
Sally O’Boyle

P.S. Thanks for printing that list of Patriot Groups broken out by state. Now I can find friends no matter where I am. Kind of like an A.A. meeting list! Now, I’m thinking I should join a militia. Don’t mean to be greedy, but would I get extra points for that?

*Criteria: “Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines.” (http://tinyurl.com/patriotgroups)

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/08/dear-southern-poverty-law-center-and.html

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, August 30, 2010

Global revolt against deadly vaccines spreads as cases of debilitating illnesses, soft-kill side-effects and even instant deaths become widespread

Cases of debilitating illnesses, soft-kill side-effects and even instant deaths as a result of vaccinations across the world are skyrocketing as the cover-up of deadly inoculations implodes and more people than ever become suspicious about what they are being injected with by health authorities who have proven they cannot be trusted.

The implosion of the vaccine cover-up is sure to discourage more parents from vaccinating their children in the coming months, with the swine flu shot now being combined with the regular seasonal flu jab. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 52 per cent of Americans were concerned about the safety of vaccines as we approach the start of school and college terms, where many children and teenagers will be “required” to take shots before they can attend.

A global revolt against dangerous vaccines is brewing following a series of cases where children have been killed as a direct result of inoculations.

A measles vaccination program in India was halted after four children died almost immediately after receiving the shot. “Four children died within minutes of receiving a vaccine for measles followed by drops of Vitamin A solution on Saturday,” reports MedGuru.

Indian newspaper reports carried eyewitness accounts of what happened. “The four children were reported to have fainted soon after they were vaccinated and witnesses reported seeing the children’s eyes roll back as they began to have seizures,” reports Blitz.

Furious villagers reacted to the tragedy by going on a rampage, attacking health workers and holding government doctors hostage.

Health professionals and doctors with government ties were also blamed in Finland and Sweden after aH1N1 vaccination program was halted following a 300 per cent increase in cases of the neurological disorder narcolepsy amongst children and young people who had received the shot over the last six months.

According to Kari Lankinen, head physician of the Finnish Medicines Agency, doctors were complicit in hiding the link between the swine flu shot and narcolepsy and did so to advance their careers.

Meanwhile, concerned mothers whose daughters have been injured or killed by the Gardasil vaccine have put together a website that documents the truth about how the vaccine has killed and injured thousands of young girls since it was introduced in 2006. Thousands of teenagers have suffered adverse reactions and at least 71 have died from the vaccine since the HPV program was launched four years ago.

The global vaccine cover-up took a massive blow after it was confirmed that the 2009 swine flu outbreak was, as we predicted from the start, a contrived scam centered around making vast profits for pharmaceutical companies while endangering the health of the public.

As we reported earlier this year, Chair of the Council of Europe’s Sub-committee on Health Wolfgang Wodarg’s investigation into the 2009 swine flu outbreak found that the pandemic was a fake hoax manufactured by pharmaceutical companies in league with the WHO.

Wodarg said that governments were “threatened” by special interest groups within the pharmaceutical industry as well as the WHO to buy the vaccines and inject their populations without any reasonable scientific reason for doing so, and yet in countries like Germany and France only around 6 per cent took the vaccine despite enough being available to cover 90 per cent of the population.

Wodarg said there was “no other explanation” for what happened than the fact that the WHO worked in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry to manufacture the panic in order to generate vast profits, agreeing with host Alex Jones that the entire farce was a hoax.

He also explained how health authorities were “already waiting for something to happen” before the pandemic started and then exploited the virus for their own purposes.

Professor Ulrich Keil, director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Centre for Epidemiology, also slammed the swine flu epidemic as an overblown “angst campaign”, devised in conjunction with major drug companies to boost profits for vaccine manufacturers.

As Natural News’ Mike Adams reported, several members of the Emergency Committee expert panel that advised the World Health Organization (WHO) during the swine flu scare were receiving financial support from pharmaceutical manufacturers either during or prior to the epidemic.

Both H1N1 and seasonal flu shots have been linked with a number of different side-effects across the globe, including Guillain-Barré Syndrome as well as dystonia, a paralyzing neurological disorder.

The seasonal flu vaccine has also been linked with convulsions and fits in under-5′s.

Many batches of the swine flu vaccine included squalene and mercury amongst their ingredients, two substances that have been directly connected with the explosion of autism amongst children as well as other diseases. Individuals within government and the military were privileged to receive additive free shots that did not include these substances. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and government ministers, as well as German soldiers, were amongst those who received access to the so-called “friendly” version of the vaccine.

In order to head off legal claims for side-effects caused by the swine flu vaccination program, the U.S. government provided vaccine makers with blanket legal immunity before the shots began to be dispersed.

Citing concerns over safety, Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Health Minister Ewa Kopacz, with the broad support of the public, ensured that Poland was the only country in the world to completely reject the H1N1 vaccine.

“We are making this decision only in the interest of the Polish patient and the taxpayer,” Tusk said. “We will not take part because it’s not honest and it’s not safe for the patient.”

In a 2008 trial for a bird flu vaccine, three Polish doctors and six nurses faced criminal charges after the vaccine killed 21 homeless people who were participating in the test.

The Czech Republic rejected a swine flu vaccine produced by pharmaceutical manufacturer Baxter after the company was caught shipping vaccines contaminated with deadly live H5N1 avian flu virus to 18 countries by a lab at an Austrian branch of Baxter.

Given the routinely stated goal on behalf of mega-rich foundations that fund vaccination programs around the world, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, to use vaccines as a way of sterilizing the planet’s population as part of the global eugenics soft-kill assault on humanity, it’s unsurprising that as more people become aware of this agenda, take-up rates of new as well as seasonal vaccines continue to decline.

As Jurriaan Maessen recently documented in his Infowars exclusive, in its 1968 yearly report, the Rockefeller Foundation acknowledged funding the development of so-called “anti-fertility vaccines” and their implementation on a mass-scale.

This program was then launched by a group that was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund entitled “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”. In the 1990′s, the WHO was mired in controversy after it distributed a “tetanus vaccine” to poor girls and women in the third world that was contaminated with human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), a hormone that induces involuntary abortion.

During a TED conference earlier this year, Bill Gates openly stated that vaccines would be used to lower the earth’s population in the name of combating climate change. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the major funders of vaccine research and production in the third world.

Warning that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”

Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates was referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

With people globally becoming increasingly aware of the role of vaccines in the agenda to reduce world population, the cover-up of debilitating diseases, soft kill side-effects, and instant fatalities as a result of vaccinations will continue to implode, until authorities are forced by law to implement vastly more stringent screening procedures and remove the toxic additives from vaccines that are causing these deaths and diseases.

http://www.infowars.com/vaccine-deaths-and-injuries-skyrocket-as-cover-up-implodes/

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“Not good…”

-F.F.

By Daniel Tencer

A federal cybersecurity bill that critics say creates a presidential “kill switch” for the Internet could be added on to a defense spending bill and passed without much debate, technology news sources report.

Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE), one of the sponsors of the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, told GovInfoSecurity.com that the Senate is considering attaching the bill as a rider to a defense authorization bill likely to pass through Congress before the mid-term elections.

“It’s hard to get a measure like cybersecurity legislation passed on its own,” Carper said.

Carper, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), introduced the bill in June in an effort to combat cyber-crime and the threat of online warfare and terrorism. Critics say the bill would allow the president to disconnect Internet networks and force private websites to comply with broad cybersecurity measures. Future US presidents would have those powers renewed indefinitely.

The bill (PDF) states that Internet service providers, search engines and other Internet-related businesses “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security.

But many observers point out that that doesn’t necessarily amount to a “kill switch” — and, in fact, the president already has the power to shut off the Internet. As Time magazine points out, the Communications Act of 1934 grants the president the power to shut down wire communications during a time of war, and the Internet is now recognized as a wire communication medium.

Yet the proposed law authorizes the president to declare “cyber emergencies” — potentially expanding the president’s power to shut down the Internet to times when the US is not technically at war.

And even some backers of the proposed legislation argue the bill is too broad and vague, and the powers granted to the executive branch could be unpredictable as a result.

A summary (DOC) of the bill issued by Sen. Lieberman’s office describes the powers granted to the president:

The Act will provide a responsible framework, developed in coordination with the private sector, for the President to authorize emergency measures, limited in both scope and duration, to protect the nation’s most critical infrastructure if a cyber vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited. The President must notify Congress in advance about the threat and the emergency measures that will be taken to mitigate it. Any emergency measures imposed must be the least disruptive necessary to respond to the threat. These emergency measures will expire after 30 days unless the President orders an extension. The bill does not authorize any new surveillance authorities, or permit the government to “take over” private networks.

The bill “authorizes the president to declare ‘cyber emergencies,’ without spelling out what would happen next,” states an editorial at the Scranton Times-Tribune. “It is certain that the Internet will be a prime means of communication during an emergency. Given the history of the government over-stepping even constitutional constraints during such times, the bill’s sponsors should retool it to be more specific.”

Security expert and Cryptography Research CEO Paul Kocher describes the bill as a “Rorschach blot — on one level it’s absurd, and on others it’s impractical and frightening.”

Kocher said, “When you build something that will shut down a massively critical piece of infrastructure that people have tried to make reliable, that’s a more frightening prospect than anything that could have inspired such a defense … It’s a very blunt weapon.”

GovInfoSecurity notes that the House of Representatives passed a version of the defense authorization bill last spring that included cyber-security measures. If the Senate follows suit, a final version of the cyber-security legislation would be worked out in conference committee.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0828/congress-internet-kill-switch-defense-bill/

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“Not good…”

-F.F.

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“In time people reveal who they really are…”

-F.F.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 28, 2010

On Thursday, talking to students at the University of Denver, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayorsaid the Wikileaks case will result in the Court likely weighing the First Amendment against national security. She made the comment in response to a question posed by a student.

“That was not the beginning of that question, but an issue that keeps arising from generation to generation, of how far we will permit government restriction on freedom of speech in favor of protection of the country,” Sotomayor said. “There’s no black-and-white line.” According to Sotomayor, the balance between national security and free speech is “a constant struggle in this society, between our security needs and our first amendment rights, and one that has existed throughout our history.”

Following the release of over 90,000 documents by Wikileaks in July, the Pentagon found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field. The Pentagon review team consists of military intelligence analysts, lawyers and others working for the Joint Chiefs of Staffs and other elements of the Defense Department.

The Obama administration and certain members of Congress, however, have portrayed the release as a dire threat to national security. Obama asked Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allies to considercriminal charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the organization is guilty of “moral culpability” in the murder of U.S. soldiers. The ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King, said the release of documents violates espionage laws and amounts to treason. The FBI is investigating and the Justice Department said it was looking into pursuing criminal charges in the case. Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, has demanded the death penalty for SPC Bradley Manning, the man arrested and charged with providing the documents to Wikileaks.

Julian Assange had contacted the White House prior to releasing the documents and the New York Times acted as an intermediary. Wikileaks wanted to give the government a chance to make sure innocent people were identified, but the White House did not respond to the offer. The Times, Britain’s The Guardian, and the German weekly Der Spiegel published selected Wikileaks documents without consulting the government.

Sotomayor’s comment is a warning that the Supreme Court may soon use the Wikileaks case to restrict the First Amendment. In the United States, the corporate media did not report on her comments, with the notable exception of the Associated Press.

Prior to her comments, Sen. Charles Schumer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein said the Free Flow of Information Act may need to be modified in response to Wikileaks. The senators want to change the language to specify that Wikileaks and organizations like it will not be able to use the act to protect the identities of confidential sources. Kurt Wimmer, an attorney representing the Newspaper Association of America, agreed with this exclusion. “There’s a distinction (between) how Wikileaks works and how news media organizations work,” he said and described Wikileaks as more of “a drop box for leaked documents” than a legitimate news source.

As the government prepares to roll back the First Amendment under the rubric of national security, we should consider the words of Hugo Black, considered one of the most influential Supreme Court justices in the 20th century, who said the following in the Pentagon Papers case:

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. (Emphasis added.)

http://www.infowars.com/sotomayor-says-court-may-rule-to-limit-first-amendment-in-response-to-wikileaks/

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

http://www.infowars.com/the-ultimate-red-pill-will-break-your-trance/

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, Aug 24th, 2010

Law enforcement agencies in Washington D.C. have begun to use technology that they say can predict when crimes will be committed and who will commit them, before they actually happen.

The Minority Report like pre-crime software has been developed by Richard Berk, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Previous incarnations of the software, already being used in Baltimore and Philadelphia were limited to predictions of murders by and among parolees and offenders on probation.

According to a report by ABC News, however, the latest version, to be implemented in Washington D.C., can predict other future crimes as well.

“When a person goes on probation or parole they are supervised by an officer. The question that officer has to answer is ‘what level of supervision do you provide?’” Berk told ABC News, intimating that the program could have a bearing on the length of sentences and/or bail amounts.

The technology sifts through a database of thousands of crimes and uses algorithms and different variables, such as geographical location, criminal records and ages of previous offenders, to come up with predictions of where, when, and how a crime could possibly be committed and by who.

The program operates without any direct evidence that a crime will be committed, it simply takes datasets and computes possibilities.

“People assume that if someone murdered then they will murder in the future,” Berk also states, “But what really matters is what that person did as a young individual. If they committed armed robbery at age 14 that’s a good predictor. If they committed the same crime at age 30, that doesn’t predict very much.”

Critics have urged that the program encourages categorizing individuals on a risk scale via computer mathematics, rather than on real life, and that monitoring those people based on such a premise is antithetic to a justice system founded on the premise of the presumption of innocence.

Other police departments and law agencies across the country have begun to look into and use similar predictive technologies. The Memphis Police Department, for example uses a program called Operation Blue CRUSH, which uses predictive analytics developed by IBM.

Other forms of pre-crime technology in use or under development include surveillance cameras that can predict when a crime is about to occur and alert police, and even neurological brain scannersthat can read people’s intentions before they act, thus

detecting whether or not a person has “hostile intent”.

It is not too far fetched to imagine all these forms of the technology being used together in the future by law enforcement bodies.

The British government has previously debated introducing pre-crime laws in the name of fighting terrorism. The idea was that suspects would be put on trial using MI5 or MI6 intelligence of an expected terror attack. This would be enough to convict if found to be true “on the balance of probabilities”, rather than “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The government even has plans to collect lifelong records on all residents starting at the age of five, in order to screen for those who might be more likely to commit crimes in the future.

Another disturbing possibility for such technology comes in the form of a financial alliance of sortsbetween Internet search engine giant Google and the investment arm of the CIA and the wider U.S. intelligence network.

Google and In-Q-Tel have recently injected a sum of up to $10 million each into a company calledRecorded Future, which uses analytics to scour Twitter accounts, blogs and websites for all sorts of information, which is used to “assemble actual real-time dossiers on people.”

The company describes its analytics as “the ultimate tool for open-source intelligence” and says it can also “predict the future”.

Recorded Future takes in vast amounts of personal information such as employment changes, personal education and family relations. Promotional material also shows categories covering pretty much everything else, including entertainment, music and movie releases, as well as other innocuous things like patent filings and product recalls.

Those detached from any kind of moral reality will say “If you’ve got nothing to hide then what is the problem with being scanned for pre-crime? If it keeps us all safe from murderers, rapists and terrorists I’m all for it”.

How far towards a literal technological big brother police state will we slip before people wake up to the fact?

http://www.infowars.com/pre-crime-technology-to-be-used-in-washington-d-c-2/

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“So… the entire freshman class at a low income area high school was enrolled into the ROTC with no choice of their own…”

-F.F.

Gina Vasselli

The freshman class at Carvers Bay High School has been enrolled in a Junior ROTC program.

Principal Richard Neal, a NAVY veteran, said the JROTC class is fulfilling the student’s physical education requirement and is part of the school’s Ninth Grade Academy.

But Charles Holloway, the parent of freshman student at Carvers Bay, said he did not want his son in that program and when he asked that his son be taken out, his son was put in a class by himself.

Holloway said he feels his son was being punished for not wanting to take part in that class.

“What happened to our freedom of choice?” Holloway said. “I wanted nothing to do with anything related to the military.”

Read more about this in the Sunday’s edition of The Sun News.

http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/08/21/1648777/carvers-bay-high-school-freshman.html

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“None Dare Call It Tyranny.”

By Sheldon Richman

If you want to know what tyranny is like, look around.

The national government — specifically the executive branch — can do pretty much what it wants. It could bomb Iran tomorrow without a declaration of war from Congress. It can — and does — conduct secret wars and covert operations against countries that have done nothing to us. Of course, they are secret only to the ignorant taxpayers who must finance them and perhaps suffer when the provoked retaliation occurs. It can have men behind PlayStation consoles in Nevada fire Hellfire missiles from aerial drones on people in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere.

This tyrannical government can send any foreigner picked up anywhere in the world to third countries known for torturing prisoners. It can hold people accused of nothing indefinitely in prisons in Cuba and Afghanistan and torture them into making false confessions. It can conduct a war crimes trial in a military kangaroo court for a man, Omar Khadr, held captive for eight years after he was picked up at the age of 15 during a U.S. assault on villagers near Kabul. His torture-induced “confessions” will be admissible. All this is in violation of commitments under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict not to treat children in war as though they were adults.

It can assassinate even American citizens abroad without a scent of due process.

It is a government that can write its own warrants without judicial review — and call them national security letters — in order to conduct fishing expeditions in anyone’s electronic records. But that isn’t enough power for the present Progressive administration, which wants the freedom to examine our browser histories and email correspondents’ names. The Bill of Rights, like the Geneva Convention, has become “quaint” and obsolete.

Like any self-respecting tyranny, it tries to keep the truth from its subjects. Comforting words camouflage the 50,000 armed and combat-ready troops that will remain in Iraq after “withdrawal.” Their “primary” mission is to train an army whose own general says won’t be ready for years. This gross deception follows on the heralded “surge,” which supposedly turned things around in Iraq. What “worked,” however, was not U.S. military prowess or Gen. David Petraeus’s brilliance, but the spreading of American taxpayers’ cash to buy off Sunni insurgents and the denouement of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad.

And, again, like any self-respecting tyranny, it bridles at leaks of classified documents that tell the people the truth. Solemn administration officials condemn Wikileaks and its sources for supposedly jeopardizing U.S. troops and Afghan collaborators, while adding that nothing new had been revealed. With no sense of irony, the same officials find blood on the hands of Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, ignoring the rivers of blood their policies and weapons have produced in the Middle East and South Central Asia. Without those policies, there would be nothing to leak. Some call for the assassination of Assange, and for all we know he is on President Obama’s kill list. Meanwhile a courageous young soldier, Bradley Manning, who apparently leaked video of American troops committing cold-blooded murder in Baghdad, faces 52 years in prison.

Now we are being softened up for the next war, against Iran. As in 2002 with Iraq’s phantom WMDs, the empire advance men tell us Iran is building nuclear weapons, and Obama and Secretary of State Clinton say “all options are on the table,” which phrase includes hydrogen bombs. Once again a Big Lie is repeated without proof. The reason is simple: all evidence runs the other way. The government’s own intelligence agencies say Iran has no nuclear-weapons program, and the International Atomic Energy Agency is on the scene. But no matter. If it suits the tyrannical administration or its partner in empire, Israel, bombs of some kind will fall. The consequences all around will be horrible.

Can it really be tyranny if we get to vote? Yes. Thomas Jefferson warned of “elective despotism.” How valuable is your one vote when the government manipulates and distorts the flow of information, when Congress capitulates, and when the “adversarial” mainstream media act like government press agents, if not adoring lapdogs. The ugly truth is out there, but you have to want to know it.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1072

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

by Andy Greenberg

As the privacy controversy around full-body security scans begins tosimmer, it’s worth noting thatcourthouses andairport security checkpoints aren’t the only places where backscatter x-ray vision is being deployed. The same technology, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has also been rolling out on U.S. streets.

American Science & Engineering, a company based in Billerica, Massachusetts, has sold U.S. and foreign government agencies more than 500 backscatter x-ray scanners mounted in vans that can be driven past neighboring vehicles to see their contents, Joe Reiss, a vice president of marketing at the company told me in an interview. While the biggest buyer of AS&E’s machines over the last seven years has been the Department of Defense operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Reiss says law enforcement agencies have also deployed the vans to search for vehicle-based bombs in the U.S.

“This product is now the largest selling cargo and vehicle inspection system ever,” says Reiss.

Here’s a video of the vans in action.

The Z Backscatter Vans, or ZBVs, as the company calls them, bounce a narrow stream of x-rays off and through nearby objects, and read which ones come back. Absorbed rays indicate dense material such as steel. Scattered rays indicate less-dense objects that can include explosives, drugs, or human bodies. That capability makes them powerful tools for security, law enforcement, and border control.

It would also seem to make the vans mobile versions of the same scanning technique that’s riled privacy advocates as it’s been deployed in airports around the country. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is currently suing the DHS to stop airport deployments of the backscatter scanners, which can reveal detailed images of human bodies. (Just how much detail became clear last May, when TSA employee Rolando Negrin was charged with assaulting a coworker who made jokes about the size of Negrin’s genitalia after Negrin received a full-body scan.)

“It’s no surprise that goverments and vendors are very enthusiastic about [the vans],” says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC. “But from a privacy perspective, it’s one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable.”

AS&E’s Reiss counters privacy critics by pointing out that the ZBV scans don’t capture nearly as much detail of human bodies as their airport counterparts. The company’s marketing materials say that its “primary purpose is to image vehicles and their contents,” and that “the system cannot be used to identify an individual, or the race, sex or age of the person.”

Though Reiss admits that the systems “to a large degree will penetrate clothing,” he points to the lack of features in images of humans like the one shown at right, far less detail than is obtained from the airport scans. “From a privacy standpoint, I’m hard-pressed to see what the concern or objection could be,” he says.

But EPIC’s Rotenberg says that the scans, like those in the airport, potentially violate the fourth amendment. “Without a warrant, the government doesn’t have a right to peer beneath your clothes without probable cause,” he says. Even airport scans are typically used only as a secondary security measure, he points out. “If the scans can only be used in exceptional cases in airports, the idea that they can be used routinely on city streets is a very hard argument to make.”

The TSA’s official policy dictates that full-body scans must be viewed in a separate room from any guards dealing directly with subjects of the scans, and that the scanners won’t save any images. Just what sort of safeguards might be in place for AS&E’s scanning vans isn’t clear, given that the company won’t reveal just which law enforcement agencies, organizations within the DHS, or foreign governments have purchased the equipment. Reiss says AS&E has customers on “all continents except Antarctica.”

Reiss adds that the vans do have the capability of storing images. “Sometimes customers need to save images for evidentiary reasons,” he says. “We do what our customers need.”

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/?boxes=techchannelsections

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“Bring this guy to America… we need disclosing of our fraudulent voting machines.”

-F.F.

• By Kim Zetter

A security researcher in India has been arrested after he refused to provide authorities with the name of a person who supplied him with an electronic voting machine that was used to discover vulnerabilities in the system. The researcher had used the machine to demonstrate how someone could hack voting systems to easily subvert an election.

At 5:30 Saturday morning, nearly a dozen police converged on the home of Hari Prasad, managing director of Netindia, to question him about the source of the voting machine he received. After refusing to identify his source, he was reportedly arrested under suspicion of theft and receiving stolen property.

The voting system was allegedly taken from a storage facility at the district election office in Mumbai. It was reported missing on May 12, after Prasad disclosed on a television program in India that he had received a machine from an anonymous source. It’s not clear why it took authorities so long to act on the report, but the arrest comes about a week after two representatives of the India Election Commission got into a heated debate about the country’s machines, during a panel discussion at an electronic voting conference (.mp3) in Washington, D.C.

Following that discussion, 28 computer security researchers signed a letter to India’s election commission (.pdf) stating that the country’s voting machines “do not today provide security, verifiability, or transparency adequate for confidence in election results.”

India uses proprietary paperless electronic voting machines nationwide. The systems were developed by two government-controlled companies.

Despite concerns expressed by a number of the country’s political parties, election officials have insisted that the machines are secure and tamper-proof. In a press release following Prasad’s arrest, the election commission wrote:

“While the Commission has every respect for technologists and is always open to suggestions for improvement in the voting system, it cannot overlook any illegal act, especially the theft of a public property like the EVM given in its custody for conduct of elections.”

Last year Prasad challenged the election commission to prove that the machines were secure, but the commission refused to allow the voting systems to be independently examined. Then in February this year, an anonymous source provided Prasad with a machine that had been used in elections.

Prasad examined the system with two other researchers, J. Alex Halderman, a computer scientist at the University of Michigan, and Dutch hacker and longtime e-voting activist Rop Gonggrijp.

They demonstrated two attacks (see below) that could be conducted against the machines. One involves replacing a digital display board on the machine with a look-alike part that could be used to receive instruction from the hackers — sent wirelessly via a mobile phone — to steal votes for a candidate. The second attack uses a small device that connects to the machine’s memory to change votes stored on a machine after the election, before the votes are counted.

Halderman says the researchers believe the person who gave them the voting machine had legal access to it and provided it in the interest of transparency and scientific study. Halderman spoke with Prasad on the phone while he was in the back of a police car on Saturday (see audio above). Prasad told Halderman that the police had no choice but to arrest him, since they were receiving pressure from above.

“This kind of intimidation will hit the hearts of volunteers, and no volunteer will come forward if this kind of thing happens in future,” Prasad said during the phone call. “That’s the reason I’m going to take it on and I’ll face it, so that the volunteers get inspired by me. And the ultimate goal is we have to achieve that these machines are not fit enough for elections.”

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/researcher-arrested-in-india

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“Sorry folks… free speech is a privilege. Now shut up and deal with it you little maggots.”

-F.F.

By: MARK HEMINGWAY

It looks like cash hungry local governments are getting awfully rapacious these days:

Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she’s made about $50. To [Marilyn] Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it’s a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut.

In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license.

“The real kick in the pants is that I don’t even have a full-time job, so for the city to tell me to pony up $300 for a business privilege license, pay wage tax, business privilege tax, net profits tax on a handful of money is outrageous,” Bess says.

It would be one thing if Bess’ website were, well, an actual business, or if the amount of money the city wanted didn’t outpace her earnings six-fold. Sure, the city has its rules; and yes, cash-strapped cities can’t very well ignore potential sources of income. But at the same time, there must be some room for discretion and common sense.

When Bess pressed her case to officials with the city’s now-closed tax amnesty program, she says, “I was told to hire an accountant.”

She’s not alone. After dutifully reporting even the smallest profits on their tax filings this year, a number — though no one knows exactly what that number is — of Philadelphia bloggers were dispatched letters informing them that they owe $300 for a privilege license, plus taxes on any profits they made.

Even if, as with Sean Barry, that profit is $11 over two years.

To say that these kinds of draconian measures are detrimental to the public discourse would be an understatement.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/philly-requiring-bloggers-to-pay-300-for-a-business-license-101264664.html

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

The production of the RFID chips, an integral element of the new generation of German identity cards, has started after the government gave a 10 year contract to the chipmaker NXP in the Netherlands. Citizens will receive the mandatory new ID cards from the first of November.

The new ID card will contain all personal data on the security chip that can be accessed over a wireless connection.

The new card allows German authorities to identify people with speed and accuracy, the government said. These authorities include the police, customs and tax authorities and of course the local registration and passport granting authorities.

German companies like Infineon and the Dutch NXP, which operates a large scale development and manufacturing base in Hamburg, Germanyare global leaders in making RFID security chips. The new electronic ID card, which will gradually replace the old mandatory German ID cards, is one of the largest scale roll-outs of RFID cards with extended official and identification functionality.

The card will also have extended functionality, including the ability to enable citizens to identify themselves in the internet by using the ID card with a reading device at home. After registering an online account bonded to the ID card, are able to do secure online shopping, downloading music and most importantly interact with government authorities online, for example.

Biometric passports in a number of countries are equipped with RFID chips, containing a digital picture and fingerprints, and have been around for nearly 5 years after the United States required such passports for any person entering the country.

There are some concerns that the use of RFID chips will pose a security or privacy risk, however.

Early versions of the electronic passports, using RFID chips with a protocol called “basic access control” (BAC), where successfully hacked by university researchers and security experts.

The German ID card is using the BAC protocol as well, but only for the basic data which is printed on the front of the card, the picture and the name. Other fields are protected by a stronger proprietary protocol.

Illegal access to the stored data would be useful to create perfectly forged passports and for criminals to use hijacked identities for supposedly secure transactions online.

The responsible German ministry, however, cites the many advantages of employing a RFID chip, such as a longer card lifetime, the option to connect them to other future devices like RFID-reading mobile phones, and saving cost by being compatible with the existing infrastructure for the RFID passports.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/44536/20100821/identity-cards-with-rfid-chip-on-track-in-germany.htm

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

Posted by Lew Rockwell on August 21, 2010 09:22 AM

It’s been clear for some time that the Pentagon would love to put a bullet in Julian Assange’s brain. But as the founder of WikiLeaks became better known, sending off a team of professional hitmen–as is their wont–threatened to become bad PR. So phony sex charges are used instead, another typical tactic of the regime. BTW. a word to the disinfo artists of the military junta: we don’t believe you about Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Georgia, Russia, China, Israel, Palestine, Iran, or Assange.

UPDATE: So now the Pentagon’s trumped up charges against Julian Assange have been dropped, if not before the libel was implanted in at least some minds. Watch for more lies, not that they will work. One man can beat the Death Star.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/64056.html

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“Once again… the voice of reason.”

-F.F.

LAKE JACKSON, Texas–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Congressman Ron Paul today released the following statement on the controversy concerning the construction of an Islamic Center and Mosque in New York City:

“Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

“It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

“The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

“Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

“Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

“In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

“They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

“The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

“The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

“Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

“This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

“There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

“If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

“The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

“Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

“Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

“It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

“The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

“The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

“This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

“We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

“Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.”

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100820005843/en/Ron-Paul-Left-Demagogue-Mosque-Islam

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“If they do, it should be clear as an unmuddied lake that your government is your enemy and it’s time for a revolution, a revolution, a revolution…”

-Fred Face 8/19/10

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, August 19, 2010

The net-neutrality ending deal with Verizon is just the beginning of Google’s plans to kill the open and free Internet as part of their takeover agenda to completely control the world wide web and force independent media websites, radio and TV shows out of existence for good.

Google’s agreement with Verizon to speed certain Internet content to users opens the door to the complete sterilization of the world wide web as a force for political change. Under Google’s takeover plan, the Internet will closely resemble cable TV, independent voices will be silenced and the entire Internet will be bought up by transnational media giants.

People who want to run a simple blog will be priced out of existence, online TV and radio shows will cease to exist as the Internet is swallowed up by the corporate borg.

True net neutrality means that independent news outlets who attract an audience by telling the truth can compete on an even keel with corporate giants like ABC, CBS and CNN. The Google-Verizon pact will end that level playing field and in turn eliminate everything that is outside of the mainstream.

“A non-neutral Internet means that companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Google can turn the Net into cable TV and pick winners and losers online,” writes Josh Silver. “A problem just for Internet geeks? You wish. All video, radio, phone and other services will soon be delivered through an Internet connection. Ending Net Neutrality would end the revolutionary potential that any website can act as a television or radio network. It would spell the end of our opportunity to wrest access and distribution of media content away from the handful of massive media corporations that currently control the television and radio dial.”

The deal will also split the Internet into a two-tier system, a cyber toll road, where satisfactory speeds and service will only be obtainable by those willing to pay substantial fees.

The pact also gives Google and huge ISPs the leeway to block certain websites on wireless networks, meaning Prison Planet and Infowars will ‘go dark’ for millions of people.

Once Google’s fiercest critics have been silenced for good the company can then set about implementing its CIA-backed total information awareness program, which will scour Twitter accounts, blogs and websites for all sorts of information left by individual users, aiming to use this data to “predict the future” and completely direct and control people’s lives and behavior.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt has announced that Google, in conjunction with the CIA, is set to become the ultimate Big Brother entity that “will know so much about its users that the search engine will be able to help them plan their lives” by constantly tracking their location via smart phones and telling them where to go and what to do.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

We have previously reported on Google’s intimate and long standing connections to government spy networks.

There is also no doubt that Google is one of the corporations at the forefront of the government’s drive to use cybersecurity as a pretext for killing the free Internet, having previously worked with the NSA and the CIA.

The recent scandal involving the company’s street view roaming vehicles accessing the wi-fi details of internet users and mapping their online activities has also raised serious questions over intelligence links and abuse of privacy laws.

Check back soon for quotes and screenshots from an important new video in which Alex Jones breaks down Google’s plan to kill the web and explains why it’s the end of the Internet as we know it unless we stand up now and say no.

http://www.infowars.com/google-plans-to-kill-web-in-internet-takeover-agenda/

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“Is this arrogant prick for real. Little swarmy fuck. What about changing the illegal spying that your company takes part in? But the big joke is that google isn’t in bed with the NSA/CIA… they are the NSA/CIA.”

-Fred Face 8/18/10

By Murray Wardrop

Eric Schmidt suggested that young people should be entitled to change their identity to escape their misspent youth, which is now recorded in excruciating detail on social networking sites such as Facebook.

“I don’t believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time,” Mr Schmidt told the Wall Street Journal.

In an interview Mr Schmidt said he believed that every young person will one day be allowed to change their name to distance themselves from embarrasssing photographs and material stored on their friends’ social media sites.

The 55-year-old also predicted that in the future, Google will know so much about its users that the search engine will be able to help them plan their lives.

Using profiles of it customers and tracking their locations through their smart phones, it will be able to provide live updates on their surroundings and inform them of tasks they need to do.

“We’re trying to figure out what the future of search is,” Mr Schmidt said. “One idea is that more and more searches are done on your behalf without you needing to type.

“I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next.”

He suggested, as an example, that because Google would know “roughly who you are, roughly what you care about, roughly who your friends are”, it could remind users what groceries they needed to buy when passing a shop.

The comments are not the first time Mr Schmidt has courted controversy over the wealth of personal information people reveal on the internet. Last year, he notoriously remarked: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

Earlier this year, Google was condemned by the privacy watchdogs of 10 countries for showing a “disappointing disregard” for safeguarding private information of its users.

In a letter to Mr Schmidt, Britain’s Information Commissioner Chris Graham joined his counterparts in countries including Canada, France, Germany and Italy, in raising concerns over its Street View and Buzz social networking services.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7951269/Young-will-have-to-change-names-to-escape-cyber-past-warns-Googles-Eric-Schmidt.html#mce_temp_url#

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

By Daniel Tencer

Profiles of computer users ‘bought and sold on stock-market-like exchanges’

A class-action lawsuit filed in a federal court last week alleges that Disney and other large corporations spied on visitors to their Web sites using “Flash cookies” installed on users’ browsers.

The lawsuit, filed in a US District Court in California on behalf of a group of parents and their children, alleges that Clearpsring, a company contracted by Disney, Warner Bros. Records, Playlist.com and other Web site operators, used its AddThis Web page tool to install “Flash cookies” in computer browsers which would then track individual computer users.

According to a report at CNET, the lawsuit states these cookies can’t be erased using the usual methods of erasing browser history because they are built on Flash technology. Additionally, SecPoint.com reports that these Flash cookies can even un-delete, or “re-spawn,” regular cookies that were erased by the user.

Once installed, these small pieces of software tracked users “across numerous Web sites, even spotting and tracking users when they accessed the Web from different computers, at home and at work,” the lawsuit alleges.

“The data could reveal details about a person’s financial situation, sexual preference, name, home, and e-mail addresses and telephone numbers,” reports Greg Sandoval at CNET. “Perhaps one of the most disturbing charges that plaintiffs make is that health information could also be acquired by these companies.”

The suit was filed by the Law Office of Joseph Malley — the same law firm that last monthlaunched another suit, that one against Clearspring competitor Quantcast, which works with ABC and NBC, among other companies. That lawsuit made similar allegations against Quantcast, saying the company used Flash cookies to invade users’ privacy.

An investigation by the Wall Street Journal, published last month, found that about six percent of the cookies installed by major Web sites on people’s computers were un-deletable Flash cookies. That information was then used to create detailed profiles of computer users.

“These profiles of individuals, constantly refreshed, are bought and sold on stock-market-like exchanges that have sprung up in the past 18 months,” WSJ reported.

The investigation concluded that “the tracking of consumers has grown both far more pervasive and far more intrusive than is realized by all but a handful of people in the vanguard of the industry.”

A study from the University of California at Berkeley, published last year, found that, of its sample of major Web sites, more than half used Flash technology to track users. The study even identified government Web sites, such as WhiteHouse.gov, as using questionable tracking methods.

“Earlier litigation has confirmed the right of sites to place cookies, but certain tracking behaviors are still subject to legal questions,” the WSJ reports.

The plaintiffs in the Clearpring suit are petitioning to have their lawsuit classified as a class-action. They are seeking unspecified damages, CNET reports.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0815/lawsuit-disney-spied-surfing-habits/

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

rense.com
By Steve Green
8-6-10

S510 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US.

“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.” It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.” ~ Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower.

Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create without judicial review if it passes.

S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food AND FARMING.

History

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.

S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.

1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.

2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:

COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.

Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.

4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.

5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds  How to criminalize them, for more details.

6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.

7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production  put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.

8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.

9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil- based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed the Five Pillars of Food Safety are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.

10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review.

For further information, watch these videos

Food Laws  Forcing people to globalize?

Corporate Rule?

Reclaiming Economies?

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2010/08/s510-illegal-to-grow-share-trade-sell.html

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

By Nile Gardiner

What the great French historian Alexis de Tocqueville would make of today’s Obama administration were he alive today is anyone’s guess. But I would wager that the author of L’Ancien Régime and Democracy in America would be less than impressed with the extravagance and arrogance on display among the White House elites that rule America as though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity.

It is the kind of impunity that has been highlighted on the world stage this week by Michelle Obama’s hugely costly trip to Spain, which has prompted a New York Post columnist Andrea Tantaros to dub the First Lady a contemporary Marie Antoinette. As The Telegraph reports, while the Obamas are covering their own vacation expenses such as accommodation, the trip may cost US taxpayers as much as $375,000 in terms of secret service security and flight costs on Air Force Two.

The timing of this lavish European vacation could not have come at a worse moment, when unemployment in America stands at 10 percent, and large numbers of Americans are fighting to survive financially in the wake of the global economic downturn. It sends a message of indifference, even contempt, for the millions of Americans who are struggling just to feed their families on a daily basis and pay the mortgage, while the size of the national debt balloons to Greek-style proportions.

While the liberal-dominated US mainstream media have largely ignored the story, it is all over the blogosphere and talk radio, and will undoubtedly add to the President’s free falling poll ratings. As much as the media establishment turn a blind eye to stories like this, which are major news in the international media, the American public is increasingly turning to alternative news sources, including the British press, which has a far less deferential approach towards the White House.

The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Marbella and the complete disregard for public opinion and concerns over excessive government spending is symbolic of a far wider problem with the Obama presidency – the overarching disdain for the principles of limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise that have built the United States over the course of nearly two and a half centuries into the most powerful and free nation on earth.

It is epitomised above all by the President’s relentless drive towards big government against the will of the American people, and the dramatic increases in government spending and borrowing, which threaten to leave the US hugely in debt for generations. It is also showcased by Barack Obama’s drive towards a socialised health care system, which, as I’ve noted before, is “a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world’s most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government.”

There is however a political revolution fast approaching Washington that is driven not by mob rule but by the power of ideas and principles, based upon the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. It is a distinctly conservative revolution that is sweeping America and is reflected in almost every poll ahead of this November’s mid-terms. It is based on a belief in individual liberty, limited government, and above all, political accountability from the ruling elites. The Obama administration’s mantra may well be “let them eat cake”, as it continues to gorge itself on taxpayers’ money, but it will be looking nervously over its shoulder as public unease mounts.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050002/the-obama-presidency-increasingly-resembles-a-modern-day-ancien-regime-extravagant-and-out-of-touch-with-ordinary-people/

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“Another “conspiracy” theory gone mainstream. Yes, the pentagon has been taking samples of your babies blood. Every baby born in the US in the last 36 years has had their natural rights violated. What their going to do with it… who the fuck knows. Minority Report kinda shit.”

-Fred Face 8/8/10

AUSTIN (KXAN) – When Andrea Beleno gave birth to her son last year, she knew she’d do whatever it took to protect him.

But she never dreamed she’d be taking on the State of Texas to safeguard her son’s most private information.

And now, revelations are surfacing that not only did the state store that blood without parents’ knowledge – but they also actually bartered it for goods and services to for-profit companies, without the knowledge of parents or of state lawmakers.

Beleno and several other Texas families sued the State Department of Health Services after they learned the agency had been storing and using newborn blood samples, or blood spots, that were leftover after testing for the Newborn Screening Program.

The families weren’t suing for money. They were suing for the right to decide what happens to their babies’ blood specimens – and the information contained in them.

The suit prompted the Texas Legislature to step in and pass a new law giving parents the right to opt out of allowing the state to keep the samples leftover after screening.

Parents can direct Texas to destroy their child’s blood samples by submitting this form .

In December 2009, the Texas Department of State Health Services settled the lawsuit with Beleno and the families. As part of the settlement terms , the state agreed to destroy the nearly 5 million blood samples it had retained without consent and disclose how the spots had been used.

The state posted the list of research projects using the blood spots on its website.  The list gives a brief description of the 24 research projects that used just over 8,800 blood spots.

However, the number of research projects disclosed on its website didn’t match testimony by a DSHS official before the House Public Health Committee in March 2009.

Chairwoman Lois Kohlkorst asked DSHS lab director Susan Tanksley about the research and whether there had been any breakthroughs.

Tanksley said that there hadn’t been many – only 4 projects had been completed.

Texas Rep. John Davis asked whether the spots had been used for any criminal investigation purposes.

Tanksley denied any spots were used for that purpose.

But records obtained from DSHS show that’s not true.

In 2003 and in 2007, the state provided samples collected under the Newborn Screening Program for a project sponsored by the Department of Justice and conducted by the Armed Forces Institute for Pathology .

The samples were to help expand the DNA database for law enforcement purposes.

This was news that stunned parent Andrea Beleno.

“I think it’s a breach of public trust,” said Beleno.

Parents were kept in the dark about how the leftover spots were used and so were lawmakers. During extensive hearings about the Newborn Screening Program, there was no mention of how the vast majority of spots were used.

It took several requests, but KXAN finally obtained records that show that the state has been using the spots to barter with for-profit corporations for lab supplies, test kits and maintenance contracts.

Among those deals was a five year agreement in which the State provided 228,000 blood spots in exchange for $456,000 worth of lab supplies and maintenance services.

In another deal, the state provided at least 3600 spots in exchange for HIV test kits .

How much to charge and how to handle the billing was a source of internal discussions at DSHS.

We obtained one email sent by Barbara Kelly-King, who works in the Revenue Management Unit of DSHS.

In February 2006, Kelly-King responded to staff questions about how to bill for spots being provided to bioMerieux.

She wrote: “Originally this was to be handled through a contract but the Health and Safety Code 12.0122 entitled Sale of Laboratory Services does not allow for a contract. The lab is now asking bioMerieux to issue a $2.00 credit for every dried blood spot sent.”

A month later, on March 6, 2006, Lab Director Susan Tanksley’s email to staff says:

“We do not have a contract with bioMerieux but essentially an understanding that we will provide DBS [Dried Blood Spots] to them and they will in turn provide HIV reagents. Originally, we wanted a contract for $2/specimen, but we cannot provide this ‘laboratory service’ to them as they are a for-profit organization. Our attorney’s opinion was that it was acceptable to receive reagents in return for the DBS.”

See that whole email chain here.

By October of 2008, DSHS decided it could skip the bartering and charge a fee for providing spots to for-profit corporations. It charged MP Biomedicals $1,600 for 400 spots .

The same week, the State charged Avoiq $2,400 for 600 blood spots.

In another deal, a pending two-year contract with Avioq, DSHS agreed to provide a regular supply of blood spots at $4 each which would bring in $28,800 to the agency.

Carrie Williams, Acting Press Officer for the Texas Department Of State Health Services, said the charges were a nominal handling fee used to recoup taxpayer dollars.

nternal DSHS emails detail the processfor billing.

One dated August 26, 2008 asks how the income should be allocated: “What I’m looking for is this: which pot of moneywill it benefit us to book this under.”

In all, the State receives about 800,000 blood cards per year from babies born in Texas. By 2009, the number of stored spots had grown to about 5 million specimens.

When older spots were needed and were pulled from the A & M storage room supply, the university charged $15 for each specimen . All of those spots have since been destroyed as part of the settlement of the lawsuit filed by Andrea Beleno and the other parents.

Beleno said they were open to hearing options for preserving the spots for important research, but the state’s own actions have caused public distrust.

“I think the way they’ve behaved is unethical in the way that they’ve handled the disclosure of what they are actually doing,” said Beleno, “And I think it makes it really difficult for people to trust that they are in fact using those samples for public good rather than to make money.”

Williams says the agency is strengthening its process for reviewing and approving requests to use the spots. “The process will be more defined and will include more layers of review,” said Williams. She said the state was not selling the spots in any way shape or form. “Any benefit received from providing the bloodspots went directly back into the program or to the agency’s overall public health mission,” said Williams.

Any changes in the Newborn Screening Program will be up to the Legislature. The House Public Health Committee will be holding a hearing on May 17th to discuss the program and decide whether to recommend any changes to the program for the upcoming Legislative Session.

KXAN will be live streaming the hearing.

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/in_depth/bartering-your-babys-blood

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

by Saed Bannoura

Friday August 06, 2010 - IMEMC

Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh, who has taught at Yale and Duke Universities in the US, and is a renowned author and activist on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, has been issued an order by the Israeli military to appear before a military tribunal on August 9th.

Qumsiyeh’s supporters believe that he is being targeted by Israeli authorities for his documentation of non-violent demonstrations against the Israeli Annexation Wall in the Bethlehem area. He has posted dozens of videos on Youtube in recent months, showing Israeli troops attacking non-violent demonstrators engaged in ’sit-ins’ to protest the illegal construction of the Israeli Wall on their land, in violation of international law.

Professor Qumsiyeh has been targeted before for his outspoken opposition to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and his support for the non-violent movement in Palestine. He was recently detained for 12 hours by Israeli authorities on his way back to Bethlehem from Turkey, and told that he must report to the Israeli military post in Gush Etzion for an unknown ‘traffic offense’, as well as another ‘offense’ on which the Israeli authorities refused to elaborate.

Despite Israeli High Court rulings against the route of the Annexation Wall in Wallaja village, near Bethlehem, and Bil’in village, near Ramallah, construction of the Wall in both places continues unabated, and the people who have organized non-violent demonstrations and spoken publicly about the illegal construction have been targeted by the Israeli authorities. Organizer Eyad Bornat of Bil’in, and Mohammed Al-Qatib with the Popular Committee Against the Wall were both recently denied exit from the West Bank by Israeli authorities while on their way to international speaking engagements about the Wall construction.

Qumsiyeh has called the ongoing harassment of himself and other activists a blatant attempt by Israeli authorities to stifle dissent, and to silence those who would dare to speak out publicly against Israeli policies in the West Bank.

http://uruknet.com/?p=m68645&hd=&size=1&l=e

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

• By Noah Shachtman

Any citizen, any foreign spy, any member of the Taliban, and any terrorist can go to the WikiLeaks website, and download detailed information about how the U.S. military waged war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2009. Members of that same military, however, are now banned from looking at those internal military documents. “Doing so would introduce potentially classified information on unclassified networks,” according to one directive issued by the armed forces.

That cry you hear? It’s common sense, writhing in pain.

There was a time, just a few months ago, when the Pentagon appeared to be growing comfortable with the emerging digital media landscape. Troops were free to blog and tweet, as long as they used their heads and didn’t disclose secrets. Thumb drives and DVDs could be employed, as long as they didn’t carry viruses or classified information. But the WikiLeaks disclosures — tens of thousands of classified documents — seem to have reversed that trajectory.

Now, the Marine Corps is telling troops and civilian employees in a memo:

[W]illingly accessing the WIKILEAKS website for the purpose of viewing the posted classified material [constitutes] the unauthorized processing, disclosure, viewing, and downloading of classified information onto an UNAUTHORIZED computer system not approved to store classified information. Meaning they have WILLINGLY committed a SECURITY VIOLATION.

The other branches of the armed services have put out similar notices. The memos were initially reported in the Washington Times. But the story has been removed from the paper’s website.

Sumit Agarwal, the former Google manager now serving as the Defense Department’s social media czar, explained the Pentagon’s logic in an e-mail to Danger Room.

“I think of it as being analogous to MP3s or a copyrighted novel online — widespread publication doesn’t strip away laws governing use of those,” he writes. ”If Avatar were suddenly available online, would be legal to download it? As a practical matter, many people would download it, but also as a practical matter, James Cameron would probably go after people who were found to be nodes who facilitated distribution. It would still be illegal for people to make Avatar available even if it were posted on a torrent site or the equivalent.”

“With minor changes to what is legal/illegal re: classified material vs a copyrighted movie, doesn’t the analogy hold?” Argawal asks. “One person making it available doesn’t change the laws re: classified material. Our position is simply that servicemembers ought not to use government computers to do something which is still completely illegal (traffic in classified material).”

But it’s an imperfect analogy, at best. Cameron might plausibly argue that each pirated version of Avatar reduces his customer base for legitimate versions of the movie (even if the opposite has proven to be true). Banning troops from reading the WikiLeaks war logs won’t in any way impact how potentially nefarious consumers of that information behave. This is the equivalent of Cameron banning his own staff from watching Avatar — even after it’s been posted online.

Meanwhile, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell demanded Thursday that WikiLeaks “return all versions of all of these documents to the U.S. government and permanently delete them from its website, computers and records.”

But he quickly added: “I don’t know that we’re very confident they’ll have a change of heart. They’ve shown no indication thus far that they appreciate the gravity, the seriousness of the situation they have caused, the lives they have endangered, the operations they have potentially undermined, the innocent people who have potentially been put in harm’s way as a result. So I don’t know that we have a high degree of confidence that this — that this request, this demand, unto itself, will prevail upon them.”

Every officer in the military — and many of the enlisted men, too — have a basic, “secret,” clearance. That’s hundreds of thousands of potential sources to WikiLeaks. Seems to me that the only plausible explanation for the Pentagon’s arm-waving is to remind troops not to spill secrets. The question is: Does clinging to military regulations at the expense of basic logic encourage people to respect classification policy — or only make the secrecy regime seem more absurd?

Update: “Take ‘wikileaks’ out of your headlines,” one Army contractor e-mails Danger Room. The web filter “has been updated to block anything with wikileaks in the URL.”

“So, yeah, common sense out the window,” the contractor adds.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/pentagon-to-troops-taliban-can-read-wikileaks-you-cant/

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

WRITTEN BY ALEX NEWMAN

Just four days after the Supreme Court essentially struck down the City of Chicago’s draconian handgun ban as unconstitutional, the City Council unanimously approved a tough new gun-control regime — the strictest in the nation, actually. The new rules went into effect on July 12. But they are already being challenged in court.

The “Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance,” introduced by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, purports to require city-issued “permits,” registration, and special training for residents who wish to own guns. It will also limit the number of handguns eligible residents may purchase to one per month.

Under the new rules, only one operable weapon per household is allowed. Handguns are forbidden outside of the home (including in garages, back yards, or on porches) and must be transported broken down and in a case. They cannot be sold within city limits, and only a list of “safe” guns drawn up by the police superintendent will be permitted.

Aldermen (city councilors) generally agreed with the Mayor’s anti-gun crusade, as evidenced by the 45-0 vote in favor of the new set of rules. Many Aldermen quoted in media reports expressed outrage that the High Court struck down the city’s ban in the recent 5-4 McDonald v. City of Chicago ruling.

Those favoring strict control measures like Chicago’s claim that gun ownership leads to increases in crime. Empirical evidence suggests the opposite is true. After the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s draconian gun rules in 2008, the city experienced a 30-percent decrease in murder rates, explained John Lott, Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime and one of the world’s foremost experts on the relationship between guns, gun control, and crime.

Because of the new restrictive rules, “I assume that relatively few people are going to register handguns in Chicago and as such I think that the change in the law will have a relatively small impact on crime rates,” Lott told The New American. “The regulations go as far towards banning guns as Chicago thinks that they can go,” he said, adding that the rules will disarm the poorest citizens, “who are most likely to be victims of crime.”

But at least two major lawsuits against the city’s new ordinance are already in progress, and more are anticipated in the near future. Joe Franzese, for example, owner of Second Amendment Arms in nearby Lake Villa, filed suit because he wants to open as many as five gun shops in Chicago. But the ordinance prohibits it. “I want to sell a legal product and you can’t outlaw a legal product,” he told theLibertyville Review.

In the lawsuit, Franzese attacks the new law from multiple angles: “By banning gun shops and the sale [of] handguns, Chicago and Mayor Daley currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs, practices and policies under color of state law which deprive individuals, including the plaintiffs, of their right to keep and bear arms, and engage in commerce by selling them, lawful products, in violation of the Second and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

Another lawsuit challenging the new rules was filed by four Chicago residents who want to bear arms, and the non-profit Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, which says some of its members want to operate gun stores and shooting ranges in the city. The plaintiffs, backed by the National Rifle Association, hope to have the restrictive regulations struck down because they violate constitutionally protected rights.

Attorney Stephen Holbrook, who serves as outside counsel to the NRA and worked on the McDonald case, said the city was basically flaunting the Supreme Court’s decision. “But if the courts take the Second Amendment seriously, the chances are good” that Chicago’s new ordinance will be struck down, he told The New American.

Gun Owners of America, widely regarded as the nation’s fiercest and most principled defender of gun rights, also attacked the ordinance. “Obviously these policies are a failure; they don’t protect the people,” Executive Director Larry Pratt told The New American, pointing to gun-crime statistics and highlighting the fact that Aldermen are allowed to carry weapons. “Crime will remain high in Chicago because many law-abiding people are going to be daunted by the new law,” he said, predicting that the restrictions could end up back at the Supreme Court.

Potential outcomes from legal challenges remain very much uncertain, since the Supreme Court ruled that “reasonable restrictions” were still permissible under the Second Amendment. Just what exactly “reasonable” means is hard to know, but it will likely determine whether Chicago’s new ordinance is upheld.

“The right to keep and bear arms is not ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,’” claimed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion rejecting Chicago’s outright ban.

How that wording will be interpreted by the courts remains to be seen, but it will surely have serious implications for state and local gun laws across the country, many of which are already coming under fire after the court’s ruling.

http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/crime/4194-chicagos-new-gun-control-regime-challenged-in-court

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

Feds admit they lied over storing images, why trust them over safety, functionality and efficiency of radiation-firing machines?

The proof comes in the form of a letter (PDF), obtained by The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), in which William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, admits that “approximately 35,314 images…have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine” used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse.

Full Story HERE

Bookmark It Punk!

Hide Sites

“Sorry to say, we told you so.”

-F.F.

by Declan McCullagh

For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they’re viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that “scanned images cannot be stored or recorded.”

Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.

This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for “testing, training, and evaluation purposes.” The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.

Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers.

This privacy debate, which has been simmering since the days of the Bush administration, came to a boil two weeks ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that scanners would soon appear at virtually every major airport. The updated list includes airports in New York City, Dallas, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has filed a lawsuitasking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction pulling the plug on TSA’s body scanning program. In a separate lawsuit, EPIC obtained a letter (PDF) from the Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, and released it on Tuesday afternoon.

These “devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing,” EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET. “We think it’s significant.”

William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, acknowledged in the letter that “approximately 35,314 images…have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine” used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse. In addition, Bordley wrote, a Millivision machine was tested in the Washington, D.C. federal courthouse but it was sent back to the manufacturer, which now apparently possesses the image database.

The Gen 2 machine, manufactured by Brijot of Lake Mary, Fla., uses a millimeter wave radiometer and accompanying video camera to store up to 40,000 images and records. Brijot boasts that it can even be operated remotely: “The Gen 2 detection engine capability eliminates the need for constant user observation and local operation for effective monitoring. Using our APIs, instantly connect to your units from a remote location via the Brijot Client interface.”

This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners–and how they’re being used in practice–is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else.

A 70-page document (PDF) showing the TSA’s procurement specifications, classified as “sensitive security information,” says that in some modes the scanner must “allow exporting of image data in real time” and provide a mechanism for “high-speed transfer of image data” over the network. (It also says that image filters will “protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.”)

“TSA is not being straightforward with the public about the capabilities of these devices,” Rotenberg said. “This is the Department of Homeland Security subjecting every U.S. traveler to an intrusive search that can be recorded without any suspicion–I think it’s outrageous.” EPIC’s lawsuit says that the TSA should have announced formal regulations, and argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable” searches.

TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz told CNET on Wednesday that the agency’s scanners are delivered to airports with the image recording functions turned off. “We’re not recording them,” she said. “I’m reiterating that to the public. We are not ever activating those capabilities at the airport.”

The TSA maintains that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: “The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html

Bookmark It Punk!