Obama Erases Campaign Promises from Election Website

by

The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental , nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. – George Orwell, 1984 President Transparency, in the … Read more

How Internet in the UK is “Sleepwalking into Censorship”

by

A great article has emerged from Open Rights Group detailing just how egregious David Cameron’s plan to censor the internet in the UK really is. While I’m sure most of you are aware of Cameron’s proposed plan to automatically block web access to “porn” from the British citizenry, you probably aren’t aware of some of the specifics. As usual, the devil is in the details and you discover what the whole thing is really about – censorship of political material that would prove inconvenient for the elite criminal class.

There are two main things to be aware of. First, under the rules proposed to go into effect in 2014, the default setting will be to filter a wide range of material. Second, the filtering isn’t just of porn, rather it includes nine other categories, such as “esoteric material,” “web forums,” and “extremist and terrorist related content.”

See how dangerous this is? Do you trust government to define for us what “extremist or terrorist” content is when these same governments incredibly tell us that our enemies list is “classified.” Furthermore, who defines what “esoteric” material is? Esoteric could easily be defined as anything not covered by the mainstream media, which is everything that matters.

From Open Rights Group:

After brief conversations with some of the Internet Service Providers that will be implementing the UK’s “pornwall” we’ve established a little bit about what it will be doing. 

The essential detail is that they will assume you want filters enabled across a wide range of content, and unless you un-tick the option, network filters will be enabled. As we’ve said repeatedly, it’s not just about hardcore pornography.

You’ll encounter something like this:

EDIT NOTE: the category examples are based on current mobile configurations and broad indications from ISPs

(1) Screen one

“Parental controls”
Do you want to install / enable parental controls
☑ yes
☐ no

[next]

(2) Screen two [if you have left the box ticked]

“Parental controls”

Do you want to block

☑ pornography
☑ violent material
☑ extremist and terrorist related content
☑ anorexia and eating disorder websites
☑ suicide related websites
☑ alcohol
☑ smoking
☑ web forums
☑ esoteric material
☑ web blocking circumvention tools

Remember, all of the boxes checked above represent the “default setting” for your web browser under the proposed rules. Furthermore, what about “violent material.” While that seems reasonable, something like police brutality caught on tape would surely fall into that category. Or perhaps the police tasering an elderly person to death, which just happened in the state of Illinois. That would also likely be blocked. For your own good of course.

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

95-Year Old Man Tasered to Death by Police in Illinois Nursing Home

by

It appears that the militarized police force running rampant on the streets of America just can’t handle the threats of a 95-year old man in a nursing home armed with a cane. Although it appears the officers are attempting to justify their violent and aggressive behavior by claiming he was wielding a “12 inch knife,” … Read more

Google Engineer Wins Award from the NSA and then Slams it

by

In accepting the award I don’t condone the NSA’s surveillance. Simply put, I don’t think a free society is compatible with an organisation like the NSA in its current form.

– Dr. Joseph Bonneau

In case you weren’t aware, Dr. Joseph Bonneau, a google engineer, received an award for the Best Scientific Cybersecurity Paper of 2012 from the National Security Agency’s first annual “Science of Security Competition” on July 19th. He experienced such mixed emotions upon its receipt that he felt the need to express them publicly in a blog post. We should all be thankful he had the courage to do so.

While his post may at first seem like no big deal, it represents another example of the extraordinarily positive impact Edward Snowden’s leaks are having throughout American culture. When a person who wins an award from the NSA immediately expresses his revulsion of its practices as a result of what he learned from Snowden’s act of civil disobedience, we can rest assured the cultural grounds underneath our feet are shifting for the better. Let’s not forget that the latest version of Congress’ internet spy bill, CISPA, has been placed on the back burner as a result, and instead Congress is being forced to vote on positive things, such as the Amash Amendment.  Dr. Bonneau’s statement simply would not have been written if it weren’t for Mr. Snowden’s whistle-blowing. His key points are:

Yesterday I received the NSA award for the Best Scientific Cybersecurity Paper of 2012 for my IEEE Oakland paper “The science of guessing.” I’m honored to have been recognised by the distinguished academic panel assembled by the NSA. 

On a personal note, I’d be remiss not to mention my conflicted feelings about winning the award given what we know about the NSA’s widespread collection of private communications and what remains unknown about oversight over the agency’s operations. Like many in the community of cryptographers and security engineers, I’m sad that we haven’t better informed the public about the inherent dangers and questionable utility of mass surveillance. And like many American citizens I’m ashamed we’ve let our politicians sneak the country down this path.

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Chris Christie Calls Libertarianism a “Dangerous Thought”

by

As anyone paying attention has noticed in the past couple of years, Chris Christie simply represents more of the same within the political establishment ruining America, albeit within a more generous physical frame. If we were unfortunate enough to elect him President he would behave exactly like Barack Obama and George W. Bush before him. This isn’t just conjecture, he straight up says it.

What is so interesting and offensive about his comments about libertarians, is not just the base manner in which he demonizes them for engaging in “intellectual debates,” but he is  clearly positioning himself against his primary Republican competitor in 2016, Rand Paul.

I don’t want to make this a Chris Christie versus Rand Paul article, since I’m still concerned Rand is more of a politician than a statesman compared to his dad, but lines are clearly being drawn within the GOP as well as within the Democratic party. So here are some of the more inane comments by Christie. From Politico:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is ripping libertarians — including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — for challenging government surveillance programs and failing to understand the dangers of terrorism.

“This strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought,” the New Jersey GOP governor said on Thursday at a Republican governors forum in Aspen, Colo. “You can name any number of people and (Paul is) one of them.”

I think it should always be a rule of thumb to never trust a politician who thinks “thoughts” are dangerous. Furthermore, he seems concerned that this strain of libertarianism is “going through both parties.” Here’s an idea Christie. Why don’t you actually try to examine why these “dangerous thoughts” are spreading like wildfire throughout the country. Maybe you should get your head out of the sand for a minute and recognize that people are getting fed up with the surveillance state.

Christie furthers demonstrates his disdain for intellectualism in the following quote, and then becomes even more demagogic by invoking the family members that lost loved ones on 9/11.

“These esoteric, intellectual debates — I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have,” Christie said.

“Esoteric, intellectual debates,” I mean who do these serfs think they are? Don’t they know they are supposed to buy iPads, drink cherry coke, watch television and shut up?

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Who Are We at War With? Sorry, That’s “Classified”

by

You’d think that a nation that has allowed the shredding of the civil liberties enshrined in its founding document might deserve to know who the dastardly enemy is to justify such a dramatic transgression, right? Wrong. Amazingly, Carl Levin (D-Michigan) asked the Pentagon to define who exactly the “Al-Qaeda affiliates” we are at war with are. While Mr. Levin received and answer, guess what he told the public? Yep, you guessed it. It’s classified.

From ProPublica:

In a major national security speech this spring, President Obama said again and again that the U.S. is at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.”

So who exactly are those associated forces? It’s a secret.

At a hearing in May, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the Defense Department to provide him with a current list of Al Qaeda affiliates.

The Pentagon responded – but Levin’s office told ProPublica they aren’t allowed to share it. Kathleen Long, a spokeswoman for Levin, would say only that the department’s “answer included the information requested.”

A Pentagon spokesman told ProPublica that revealing such a list could cause “serious damage to national security.”

There’s that “national security” line again.

“Because elements that might be considered ‘associated forces’ can build credibility by being listed as such by the United States, we have classified the list,” said the spokesman, Lt. Col. Jim Gregory. “We cannot afford to inflate these organizations that rely on violent extremist ideology to strengthen their ranks.”

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Incredibly, Mayor Bloomberg Claims Whites are Overly Victimized by “Stop and Frisk”

by

Being in NYC for a visit means I’m back in the loop of local gossip, which essentially consists of idiotic statements from the current mayor and sext messaging from the soon to be mayor, Carlos Danger. As they say, you get the leaders you deserve. One thing that caught my attention was a recent absurd … Read more

Meet Two of the Biggest Hypocrites in Congress

by

Back in 2005, Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) was up in arms about the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. So much so that she issued a press release to highlight her opposition within the House of Representatives. In it she stated:

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky, Chief Deputy Whip, delivered a statement in the House of Representatives urging her colleagues to vote against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.  Representative Schakowsky has continually fought to limit the expansive new powers the Patriot Act grants federal agencies such as allowing them to secretly search personal records, including medical and library records, and permitting law enforcement officers to install roving wiretaps without specifying a suspect or telephone.

“Mr. Speaker, I voted against the PATRIOT Act four years ago and I remain opposed to it.  While I support a number of the tools the PATRIOT Act grants to law enforcement in the fight to combat terrorism, it went too far in eroding important civil liberties, limiting the right to due process, and unnecessarily targeting immigrants.” 

“The Constitution that I carry is not a Republican document, it’s not a Democratic document, it’s an American document that we want to preserve.  The PATRIOT Act is an affront to our civil rights and civil liberties, as guaranteed by our Constitution.”

Oh yeah, you tell ’em sister! Interesting language, because it seems pretty obvious that you see things entirely in partisan terms. While you voted against the Patriot Act in 2001, it has now become abundantly clear that you would have voted in favor of it with a smile if your lord and savior Barack Obama had been in office at the time. Just like you voted NO on the Amash amendment yesterday. I haven’t seen a statement from your office on that vote yet, but I look forward to it.

Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) was equally outraged back in 2005 over the Patriot Act. He also issued a statement at the time. Here are some choice excerpts:

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Feds Raid Marijuana Dispensaries in Washington State

by

Like an insecure bully trying to demonstrate how tough he or she is and feel better about itself, the Feds raided marijuana dispensaries in Washington state despite the fact that Proposition 502 made it legal. Recall, I warned about this last year in my piece: Colorado Legalizes Marijuana: Your Move Eric Holder. In a country … Read more

This is Why I Don’t Watch Television

by

I had free television on my flight to NYC yesterday and I decided to flip through the stations. Now mind you, I never flip through TV stations unless I am on a plane. When I say never, I mean it simply does not happen in my life. Ever. Every now and again I’m confronted by … Read more