News of Interest

[pman35]

Came across this site and there is a group in Boston

www.larouchepac.com/

Not sure what to think of them , does anyone know anything bout them.

[Cyrellys]

Recieved from:
Gary Marbut-MSSA [e-mail]
show details Jan 18 (1 day ago)


The Daily Reckoning Presents
Blackout Wednesday: The Time Has Come

Jeffrey Tucker
Wikipedia, that ever-evolving monument to human collaboration in the cause of global enlightenment, goes completely black today, Wednesday, Jan. 18. The blackout is a choice, and a brilliant one, made by founder Jimmy Wales in consultation with the whole Wikipedia community. It is a protest, a statement, a symbolic warning to the world of what can happen if governments attack the free flow of information.

The online protest is directed, in particular, against two bills roiling around Congress right now, called SOPA in the House and PIPA in the Senate. Early versions have been tabled. The Obama administration has said that it opposes the current versions, but the opposition was weak and suspiciously nuanced.

People who are digitally aware and politically savvy know that this is only round one. The attempt by governments to block information flows on the Web will continue in new and different bills and regulations. No new laws are even necessary; government possesses the power now to crush the information age on a bureaucratic whim.

In fact, this goes on every day. That’s because governments everywhere, in all times and places, want to control information and will use all their power to do it. It is also because the legal framework that rules how information is produced and distributed is fundamentally corrupted by the fraudulent notion of “intellectual property,” which, if consistently enforced, would put an end to the Internet as we know it...


Just this past week, a judge ruled that a 23-year-old British college student can be extradited to the US for a 10-year prison sentence, all for linking to other servers that illicitly host copyrighted content;

Late last year, US officials shut down 150 domains without hearings or trials on grounds that they were suspected of selling goods that violate trademark law. It was done on “Cyber Monday” for a reason: It was an announcement to the digital world that government is in charge;

In the spring of last year, the FBI arbitrarily shut down every online poker domain they could find and seized the bank accounts of some of the largest and smartest people who play online poker ­ and all of this happened before the recent announcement that online poker is being re-legalized;

Earlier in the year, the Department of Homeland Security seized 84,000 domains and put up an announcement that each was trafficking in child porn. Problem: It was all a mistake. Not one was actually guilty. To date, there has been no explanation of how this could have happened;

In 2010, the feds seized some 73,000 domains for the crime of linking to content that was said to be distributed illegally in violation of copyright.

Already, the damage of this sort of thing is enormous. Ten years ago, the Internet represented liberation, a new frontier of innovation, commerce, opinion sharing and spontaneous organizing. Today, more and more people are consumed by fear. Bloggers are unclear about what existing law does or does not allow. No one knows for sure how to define “fair use.” The deepest pockets are winning case after case. Faced with this uncertainty, many are choosing less over more content ­ which is exactly what the government and private monopolists want.

The Wikipedia protest is a way of saying: If this kind of thing continues and ends up institutionalized in new legislation, there will be no more Wikipedia, which is the No. 1 content-rich site on the Web and the main way people learn today (how far we’ve come from the debunking that was common only five years ago).

And this is just one example. Individual blogs would only contain government-approved content. Search engines would only produce only government-approved sites. Digital entrepreneurship would be suffocated by fears of threats, confiscations and jails. It is hard to see how even Facebook and Twitter could survive.

It is just marvelous that Wikipedia has taken this bold direction, and it is only possible because of the unique nature of the media in question. Many large businesses during the 1930s tried their best to protest New Deal price controls. But they could hardly shut down their giant stores. The revenue loss would have been devastating, and the victims would have been the employees. So in the end, the private sector was forced to submit to the controls. It was the same in the 1970s with wage and price controls. How could the merchants resist?

But digital enterprises are in a different position entirely. They can vanish with a few clicks, giving the world a conjectural look at what happens when the state attacks the lifeblood of innovation and progress. Small changes in the law can have a gigantic effect. Just as one click can shut down this site, one law can do the same.

It is not only Wikipedia. Others are doing the same. WordPress, the open-source platform that powers nearly a quarter of new websites and has the most-popular content management system on the Web, has also stepped out in front with a call for action: “Normally, we stay away from... politics here at the official WordPress project...Today, I’m breaking our no-politics rule...How would you feel if the Web stopped being so free and independent? I’m concerned ­ freaked right the heck out about the bills that threaten to do this, and as a participant in one of the biggest changes in modern history, you should be, too.”

There are many such examples. And even if successful, it is not enough. With or without SOPA, digital freedom is under attack. For example, ICANN, the gateway for all domain registration, is now requiring a verified official identity, supplied by government, for domain ownership. This change sets the stage for continuing shutdowns and strangulation.

The struggle is intensifying, and the sides are very clear: It is the government and old-line media companies that depend on the state’s laws versus everyone else. Everyone else consists of the independently active, privately owned global society that lives and thrives in the digital age. The astonishing innovations of this age have taught an entire generation about the miraculous power of information generation and delivery, about the capabilities embedded in the spontaneous actions of individuals, about the capacity of people around the world to generate order and progress through cooperation and exchange.

The notable thing is that the Web as we know it has been built by private hands working together, not by bureaucrats and politicians. This is the great lesson that our Jetsons world has taught us, and it points to a truth that all governments want to suppress: namely, that order is the daughter of liberty. How dare the bureaucrats and politicians presume to be the lords of what they had nothing to do with creating!

If government gets its way with this legislation and these overall trends, the costs will be immense and tragically unseen. Digital media and information freedom is directly and indirectly responsible for most of the economic growth we've experienced over the last 20 years. Without it, government controls, taxes, regulations and wars would have instituted a new dark age by now.

For government to attack Internet freedom today would be akin to burning the seventh-century manuscripts of St. Isidore of Seville, who produced, in the hardest times, the book that summarized all the knowledge of the ancient world (a Wikipedia of his time) and remains a primary source today.

It would be like murdering Venerable Bede in the eighth century, so that he could not have written his history of England that passed on knowledge and wisdom in the darkest of times.

It would be like smashing the 15th-century Gutenberg presses so that printing could have never gotten off the ground.

Historians constantly remind us that all great leaps in human history are inspired by the sharing and spreading of information. This is the precondition. When the first crusaders returned with new manuscripts from the ancient world, we began to see the first signs of the birth of modernity in the West. When populations moved to cities where they could leave behind their isolation and collaborate with others, economic growth followed. And when the Internet blasted down the barriers around the world and allowed anyone to discover new ideas, we saw a new dawn of technology and efficiency.

Information is the most-valuable commodity, and one that so happens to be infinitely reproducible. But today, governments have rallied around this notion of “intellectual property” and used it as an excuse to set up monopolies and censor ideas. We'll never be safe from this kind of legislation and arbitrary dictate until this fallacy is pulled up from its very roots and we are better able to distinguish between real and fake property rights.

The two dominant trends of our time are, on the one hand, the darkening of the physical world ruled by governments and, on the other hand, the re-enlightening of the world thanks to the spontaneous order of digital media controlled by everyone else. Governments are seeking to drag it down and shut off the lights. The protests against these proposed controls constitute a mighty statement that we will not let the raiders, the barbarians, the vandals, have their way.

Regards,

Jeffrey Tucker
for The Daily Reckoning

Joel’s Note: Everyone’s favorite, bow-tied freedom advocate, Jeffrey Tucker is publisher and executive editor of Laissez-Faire Books and also author of Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo and It’s a Jetsons World. Might we suggest you visit the site and buy the books today...before they’re burned in some sick, SOPA- induced digital bonfire.

[Cyrellys]

Tiffiniy Cheng [e-mail] via bounce.bluestatedigital.com to me
show details 12:29 PM (48 minutes ago)

Subject: Woohooo!

Images are not displayed.
Display images below - Always display images from

[e-mail]

Hi everyone!

A big hurrah to you!!!!! We’ve won for now -- SOPA and PIPA were dropped by Congress today -- the votes we’ve been scrambling to mobilize against have been cancelled.

The largest online protest in history has fundamentally changed the game. You were heard.

On January 18th, 13 million of us took the time to tell Congress to protect free speech rights on the internet. Hundreds of millions, maybe a billion, people all around the world saw what we did on Wednesday. See the amazing numbers here and tell everyone what you did.

This was unprecedented. Your activism may have changed the way people fight for the public interest and basic rights forever.

The MPAA (the lobby for big movie studios which created these terrible bills) was shocked and seemingly humbled. “‘This was a whole new different game all of a sudden,’ MPAA Chairman and former Senator Chris Dodd told the New York Times. ‘[PIPA and SOPA were] considered by many to be a slam dunk.’”

“'This is altogether a new effect,' Mr. Dodd said, comparing the online movement to the Arab Spring. He could not remember seeing 'an effort that was moving with this degree of support change this dramatically' in the last four decades, he added."

Tweet with us, shout on the internet with us, let's celebrate: Round of applause to the 13 million people who stood up - #PIPA and #SOPA are tabled 4 now. #13millionapplause


We're indebted to everyone who helped in the beginning of this movement -- you, and all the sites that went out on a limb to protest in November -- Boing Boing and Mozilla Foundation (and thank you Tumblr, 4chan)! And the grassroots groups -- Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Demand Progress, CDT, and many more.
#SOPA and #PIPA will likely return in some form. But when they do, we'll be ready. Can you make a donation to Fight for the Future, to help us keep this fire going?

We changed the game this fall, and we're not gonna stop. $8, $20, every little bit helps.
13 million strong,
Tiffiniy, Holmes, Joshua, Phil, CJ, Donny, Douglas, Nicholas, Dean, David S. and Moore... Fight for the Future!


P.S. China's internet censorship system reminds us why the fight for democratic principles is so important:

In the New Yorker: "Fittingly, perhaps, the discussion has unfolded on Weibo, the Twitter-like micro-blogging site that has a team of censors on staff to trim posts with sensitive political content. That is the arrangement that opponents of the bill have suggested would be required of American sites if they are compelled to police their users’ content for copyright violations. On Weibo, joking about SOPA’s similarities to Chinese censorship was sensitive enough that some posts on the subject were almost certainly deleted (though it can be hard to know).
...
After Chinese Web users got over the strangeness of hearing Americans debate the merits of screening the Web for objectionable content, they marvelled at the American response. Commentator Liu Qingyan wrote:

‘We should learn something from the way these American Internet companies protested against SOPA and PIPA. A free and democratic society depends on every one of us caring about politics and fighting for our rights. We will not achieve it by avoiding talk about politics.’"

#######
(press release is here: fightfortheftr.wordpress.com/press-releases/)

[Cyrellys]

fromBilly-Joe: Mauldin [e-mail]
to
dateFri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:17 AM
subjectTroops May Be Needed To Quell U.S. Civil Unrest
Important mainly because of the people in the conversation.

show details 10:17 AM (4 hours ago)


www.prisonplanet.com/army-strategic-shock-report-says-troops-may-be-needed-to-quell-us-civil-unrest.html

Army ‘Strategic Shock’ Report Says Troops May Be Needed To Quell U.S. Civil Unrest

“Purposeful domestic resistance” would require military to “rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States.”
Steve Watson & Paul Watson

Infowars.net
Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008

A recent report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it has termed “strategic shock.”
The report, titled Known Unknowns: Unconventional Strategic Shocks in Defense Strategy Development, also suggests that the military may have to be used to quell domestic disorder.

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, reads.

“Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.” it continues.
“An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home…”

“Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.” Lt. Col. Freir concludes.

See Pages 31-32 (PDF) for quoted sections.

Freir is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He joined the think tank in April 2008 after retiring from the U.S. Army after 20 years as a lieutenant colonel. In his role at CSIS he rubs shoulders with a whole host of globalist luminaries including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Richard Armitage.

Echoing recent comments made by Pentagon advisors, along with other notable figures such as Colin Powell and Joe Biden, Freir also warns that the incoming Obama administration should prepare for a “first term crisis” that could act as a catalyst for such unrest.

“The current administration confronted a game-changing ‘strategic shock’ inside its first eight months in office,” the report reads. “The next administration would be well-advised to expect the same during the course of its first term. Indeed, the odds are very high against any of the challenges routinely at the top of the traditional defense agenda triggering the next watershed inside DoD [Department of Defense].”

We have recently highlighted plans to station thousands more U.S. troops inside America for purposes of “domestic security” from September 2011, an expansion of Northcom’s militarization of the country in preparation for potential civil unrest following a total economic collapse or a mass terror attack.

“The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials,” reported the Washington Post last month.

In a September 8 Army Times article, Northcom announced that the first wave of the troop deployment, which was put in place on October 1st at Fort Stewart and at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, would be aimed at tackling “civil unrest and crowd control”.

After a controversy arose surrounding the admissions made in the Army Times article, Northcom retracted the claim but conceded that both lethal and non-lethal weaponry traditionally used in crowd control and riot situations would still be used in the field.

The increasing militarization of America is part of a long term agenda to abolish Constitutional rule and establish a “military form of government,” following a large scale terror attack or similar disaster, as Tommy Franks, the former commander of the military’s Central Command, alluded to in a November 2003 Cigar Aficionado piece.

Franks outlined the scenario by which martial law would be put in place, saying, “It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

In the short term, the domestic deployment of troops is likely aimed at combating likely civil unrest that will ensue after a complete economic collapse followed by a devastating period of hyperinflation.
This warning was again echoed a few days ago in a leaked internal memo from Citibank.

“The world is not going back to normal after the magnitude of what they have done. When the dust settles this will either work, and the money they have pushed into the system will feed through into an inflation shock,” wrote Tom Fitzpatrick, Citibank’s chief technical strategist.

The memo predicts “depression, civil disorder and possibly wars” as a fallout from an economic collapse that many say is on the horizon.

Naturally, the claim that such troop deployments are merely to aid in disaster relief efforts is a thin veil aimed at distracting from the real goal. Should a real tragedy occur, volunteers and already existing civil aid organizations are fully capable of dealing with such events, as we witnessed on 9/11.

The military are primarily trained to kill people and break things, and their role during the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts was mainly focused on detaining people in sports stadiums, shooting alleged looters and seizing guns from wealthy home owners in the high and dry areas, while real recovery measures were left to volunteers and local state authorities.

The open admission that U.S. troops will be involved in law enforcement operations as well as potentially using non-lethal weapons against American citizens is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances.

Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, “The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal. It remains to be seen whether President elect Obama will reverse Bush’s signing statement.

The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States.

For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, “(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”

Is the incoming Obama administration and Northcom waiting for such a scenario to unfold, an event that completely overwhelms state authorities, before unleashing the might of the U.S. Army against the American people?

[Ret.] Lt. Col. Freir’s Known Unknowns report addresses this specifically, stating:

“A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home.”

The deployment of National Guard troops to aid law enforcement or for disaster relief purposes is legal under the authority of the governor of a state, but using active duty U.S. Army in law enforcement operations inside America absent the conditions described in the Insurrection Act is completely illegal.

The political left and right need to join forces and denounce this plan for what it is – another unconstitutional step towards the incremental implementation of martial law and the militarization of America.


pub890.pdf
476K View Download

[Cyrellys]

Backchannelling: Track II diplomacy, an unofficial channel of communication between states or other political entities


Putin meets Kissinger on global issues, bilateral ties

January 21, 2012
Print Version
Source: Xinhua


Visiting former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin discussed global issues Friday, and vowed to enhance ties between the two countries.

Without giving details of the talks, Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the "private meeting" lasted some 40 minutes, local press reported Saturday.

Interfax news agency said Kissinger described the bilateral relations as "of key global importance" and expressed hope they would keep improving.

The pair met frequently in recent years, as Kissinger once called Putin "extremely intelligent" in 2007, while Putin said in 2006 that the two can "understand each other well" and can find compromise.

Russian media noted that Friday's meeting came just weeks before the March 4 presidential elections, in which Putin is seeking a third term as president.

Read More...

[Cyrellys]

Obama Administration “Rigging” US Census By Counting Illegal Aliens

Categories: Archived Columns, Columns by Chuck Baldwin

Share|The Barack Obama administration is quietly in the process of rigging use of the US Census of 2010, which deliberately counted millions of illegal aliens, for the purpose of restructuring the apportionment of the US House of Representatives. Accordingly, as candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of one of the negatively affected states (Montana), Mr. Bob Fanning and I have joined with several others in becoming amici curiae in a pending federal lawsuit brought by the State of Louisiana against the US Secretary of Commerce, et al., which was filed January, 13, 2012 in the United States Supreme Court.

What has happened is, the US Census Bureau erroneously claims that it “‘is required by the U.S. Constitution count everyone living in this country, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.’” Accordingly, they have counted millions of illegal aliens in the 2010 Census and are using those figures to apportion the US House of Representatives. If this egregious misinterpretation of the US Constitution is allowed to stand, five states (Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio) will lose representation in the US Congress to which they are lawfully entitled, while three states (California, Texas, and Florida) will be awarded additional representation in the US Congress to which they are not lawfully entitled. And, of course, this will also directly impact the makeup of the Electoral College, which ultimately elects the President of the United States.

Of course, this manipulation of the 2010 US Census also impacts the election of the US President, as those states that are granted more seats in the US Congress are also granted more votes in the Electoral College as the Electoral College is composed of a “Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. . . .” (Article. II. Section. I. Clause. 2. US Constitution). And, as everyone knows, under the US Constitution, it is the Electoral College that ultimately elects the President of the United States. Thus, the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio, will be unjustly denied their lawful votes in the Electoral College, while California, Texas, and Florida, are being unjustly granted unlawful votes in the Electoral College. Would it not be extraordinary if the margin by which President Obama is re-elected in the Electoral College would be provided by the manipulation of the census data under his control? Again, this would be an outrage!

In essence, the Obama administration is rigging the US Census to steal a congressional seat from the State of Montana. This rigging will keep Montana from having a second congressional representative. If the illegals in California, Texas, and Florida are not included, then Montana will receive two congressional seats and four electoral votes. Under Obama’s rigging plan, Montana will continue to have only one congressional seat and three electoral votes.

Considering the major media and even most “conservative” talking heads have said virtually nothing about this monstrous misallocation of constitutional government is just the latest example of how truly out of touch the people who are entrusted to inform the American people really are.

The plaintiff in this case is the State of Louisiana, which has now been joined and supported by amici U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, English First, English First Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Public Advocate of the United States, Policy Analysis Center, Virginia Del. Bob Marshall, Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key, Maryland Del. Don Dwyer, Washington Rep. Matt Shea, Wyoming Sen. Kit Jennings, as well as Candidate for Governor of Montana, Bob Fanning, and Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Montana, Chuck Baldwin.

Attorneys filing this brief before the US Supreme Court are Herbert W. Titus, William J. Olson, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan (of the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia) and Gary G. Kreep (of the U.S. Justice Foundation).

As citizens of the State of Montana, and as candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the State of Montana, Bob Fanning and I are outraged at this unconstitutional manipulation of the 2010 US Census, and the subsequent unconstitutional and unlawful misapportionment of the US House of Representatives. We are further outraged that our own governor, Brian Schweitzer (the incumbent Democrat governor who is term-limited out of office after the completion of his current term) has done nothing to prevent the people of the State of Montana from being denied the rightful seating of an additional US House member from the Montana delegation to Washington, D.C. He has not served as Montana’s watchman, to make certain that our State is being treated fairly by the Obama administration. Louisiana has been forced to go it alone, as the only State willing to bring this challenge. By not joining the lawsuit against the Obama administration, what Governor Schweitzer in essence is doing is allowing illegal aliens to deny the due representation of the citizens of Montana in Washington, D.C. This is an outrage!

It is a gross misinterpretation of the US Constitution to claim that the US Census is supposed to “count everyone living in this country.” Article. I. Section. I. Clause 3. as amended by Section. 2. of the 14th Amendment authorizes “a targeted decennial census of the ‘respective numbers’ of ‘the People’ of the several States, not a wholesale count of the numbers of persons found ‘living’ in the United States.” The term “the People” is a technical term used in the U.S. Constitution to refer to the polity, that is, the people who constituted the government and who are legal citizens of the nation. Only by such a tailored count can the constitutionally-authorized decennial census serve the purpose for which that census has been required–the apportionment of representation of the people of the several states in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“It is manifestly untrue that the decennial census ordained by the Constitution is to be taken without regard to a person’s ‘immigration or citizenship status.’ The decennial census is conducted for the apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives, the members of which are ‘chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.’ (Article. I. Section. 2. Clause. 1. US Constitution). The first sentence of the 14th Amendment establishes a symbiotic relationship between a person’s United States citizenship and that person’s State citizenship. Thus, whether a person is part of ‘the People’ of a State is largely, if not exclusively, dictated by a person’s ‘immigration or citizenship status.’ Any census that ignores that connection is fatally flawed.”

In the afore-mentioned lawsuit, we are asking the US Supreme Court to preserve the integrity of the US House of Representatives and Electoral College.

I can tell you that the people who want to disassemble constitutional government in this country are hoping that no one notices what the Obama administration is doing to manipulate the 2010 US Census to unlawfully reconstruct the US House of Representatives and Electoral College. Well, I can tell you, Bob Fanning and I (along with the other amici curiae supporting Louisiana in this lawsuit) are not going to let that happen!

I will be holding a press conference to blow the whistle on what is taking place to deny the people of the State of Montana (along with the people of the states of Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio) their lawful representation in Washington, D.C. I am also using the influence and outreach of this column to alert the American people as to how the Obama administration is attempting to manipulate the US House of Representatives and Electoral College.

It is more than interesting also that the “anointed” establishment neocon Republican Montana gubernatorial candidate, Rick Hill, has, himself, not even bothered to alert the people of Montana to this travesty. Why not? Rick is a career politician who once served in the US House of Representatives from Montana. One would think he would want to protect the people of the State of Montana from this outrage. But he has said nothing! Plus, have you heard anything about this from any of the “conservative” talking heads on FOX News? No you haven’t! Why not? Why is it left to this column to alert you to this gross violation of constitutional government?

Therefore, I unashamedly appeal to readers to help Bob and I carry this fight to preserve the integrity of the US House of Representative and the Electoral College to the US Supreme Court. Please go to our web site at:

www.fanning-baldwin.com

I also highly encourage readers to visit the web site of the law firm filing this brief. William J. Olson, Herbert Titus, et al., have been at the front lines in helping to defend constitutional government for longer than many of us have been alive. Bill Olson and Herb Titus have defended a sizeable number of patriot organizations and individuals against federal usurpation for decades. I don’t know of another law firm with the credentials and track record of fighting for constitutional government, Second Amendment rights, and individual liberty anywhere in the country than the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C.

To learn more about this lawsuit and the Olson law firm, go to:

www.lawandfreedom.com/

More at: chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4422

[Cyrellys]

ACTA



fromBrasscheck TV [e-mail] via aweber.com
toCyrellys <[e-mail]>

dateMon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:03 AM
subjectInternet censorship laws go world wide
mailed-bysmtp-coi-g05-013.aweber.com
signed-byaweber.com
unsubscribeUnsubscribe from this sender

hide details 3:03 AM (6 hours ago)


===========================================
NOTE to Brasscheck TV subscribers:
Anytime you want to unsubscribe just click
the link at the very bottom of this e-mail.
===========================================

Cyrellys,

Why pass a law when you can pass a global treaty?

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been in the
works for several years, but back in October of last year they
completed a final draft.

Now that it appears SOPA and PIPA (internet censorship bills before
the U.S. Congress) appear to be stalled for the moment, they are
now going full steam ahead with ACTA.

ACTA appears to be just as bad for the internet, but goes a good
deal further than just the internet...

Video:

www.brasschecktv.com/page/9083.html

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.


*********


How to act against ACTA


ACTA is one more offensive against the sharing of culture on the Internet. ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) is an agreement secretly negotiated by a small "club" of like-minded countries (39 countries, including the 27 of the European Union, the United States, Japan, etc). Negotiated instead of being democratically debated, ACTA bypasses parliaments and international organizations to dictate a repressive logic dictated by the entertainment industries.

ACTA would impose new criminal sanctions forcing Internet actors to monitor and censor online communications. It is thus a major threat to freedom of expression online and creates legal uncertainty for Internet companies. In the name of trademarks and patents, it would also hamper access to generic medicines in poor countries.

Learn more about ACTA and how to stop it, here and here.

www.brasschecktv.com/videos/censorship/what-is-the-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement.html

[Cyrellys]

Homeland Security Is Reading and Recording Every Keystroke

Written by Joe Wolverton, II
Friday, 13 January 2012 16:50

With so many of our most essential liberties under attack from the oligarchy on the Potomac, it is little wonder that the freedom of the press and speech are next on the government guillotine.

The Department of Homeland Security’s National Operations Center (NOC) released its Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative last year and in that report the intelligence-gathering arm of the DHS, the Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) gives itself permission to “gather, store, analyze, and disseminate” data on millions of users of social media (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) and business networking sites (Linkedin).

Specifically, the Initiative sets out the plan and purpose behind the DHS’s collection of personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters, or anyone else who posts articles, comments, or other information to many popular web outlets. The report defines the target audience as anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”

Journalists and bloggers need not worry, however. DHS promises that it will not routinely gather and use Personally Identifiable Information (PII). From the abstract of the Initiative:

While this Initiative is not designed to actively collect Personally Identifiable Information (PII), OPS is conducting this update to the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) because this initiative may now collect and disseminate PII for certain narrowly tailored categories. For example, in the event of an in extremis situation involving potential life and death, OPS will share certain PII with the responding authority in order for them to take the necessary actions to save a life, such as name and location of a person calling for help buried under rubble, or hiding in a hotel room when the hotel is under attack by terrorists.

In other words, the government promises that all the personal electronic data that it monitors and records will only be used in “narrowly tailored” circumstances, saving a life, for example. There is no requirement that the data be used only in those instances, but there is a promise that it will be.

This unconstitutional, unwarranted search of private information is designed by DHS “to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture” of target audiences.

A story in the New York Times reports on the specific sites that show up on the DHS radar:

Homeland Security seems to have a real affinity for Twitter. It advises its employees to follow not only Twitter itself but also Twitter search sites like Monitter, Tweetzi and Tweefind and more than 10 Twitter trend sites like TweetStats and Trendistic.

It monitors Facebook and, while it also recommends monitoring MySpace, it notes the once-popular social network has “limited search” capabilities. Homeland Security employees also monitor video sites like YouTube, Vimeo and Hulu — “situational awareness” apparently entails full episodes of “The Bachelor.”

Among the blogs the department follows: Wired’s Threat Level and Danger Room, Krebs on Security and, at The New York Times, The Lede blog. The list also includes more controversial sites like JihadWatch, Wikileaks and “Narcotráfico en México.”

Prior to this new initiative, operative guidelines instructed NOC to collect data only “under authorization set forth by the written code,” whereas these new provisions permit agents of the NOC to track the online movements and postings of every level of writer or commentator from Brian Williams to nearly anonymous bloggers.

Writers aren’t the only group to be watched by the never-blinking eye of Homeland Security. According to the report, the following individuals may also be spied on and have their “usernames and passwords” recorded for future reference:

1) U.S. and foreign individuals in extremis situations involving potential life or death circumstances; 2) senior U.S. and foreign government officials who make public statements or provide public updates; 3) U.S. and foreign government spokespersons who make public statements or provide public updates; 4) U.S. and foreign private sector officials and spokespersons who make public statements or provide public updates; 5) names of anchors, newscasters, or on-scene reporters who are known or identified as reporters in their post or article or who use traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed; 6) current and former public officials who are victims of incidents or activities related to Homeland Security; and 7) terrorists, drug cartel leaders or other persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest, (e.g., mass shooters such as those at Virginia Tech or Ft. Hood) who are killed or found dead.

How many people might be shoe-horned into one of those categories if the federal government decided it wanted to put them under online surveillance?

An article published by RT.com asked a very relevant question: "Why [is] the government ... going out of their way to spend time, money and resources on watching over those that helped bring news to the masses?"

The specific procedure followed by NOC agents is described in the initiative, as well:

To monitor social media, NOC Media Monitoring analysts only use publicly available search engines, content aggregators, and site-specific search tools to find items of potential interest to DHS. Once the analysts determine an item or event is of sufficient value to DHS to be reported, they extract only the pertinent, authorized information and put it into a specific web application (MMC application) to build and format their reports.

Once the raw data is collected and collated and a picture of the person’s behavior is compiled, DHS will “disseminate relevant and appropriate information to federal, state, local, and foreign governments, and private sector partners.”

The piece in RT.com reports some of the partners to have availed themselves of the critical online information secretly amassed by the DHS.

The development out of the DHS comes at the same time that U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady denied pleas from supporters of WikiLeaks who had tried to prevent account information pertaining to their Twitter accounts from being provided to federal prosecutors. Jacob Applebaum and others advocates of Julian Assange’s whistleblower site were fighting to keep the government from subpoenaing information on their personal accounts that were collected from Twitter.

Last month the Boston Police Department and the Suffolk Massachusetts District Attorney subpoenaed Twitter over details pertaining to recent tweets involving the Occupy Boston protests.

Fast Company reports that in addition to federal, state, and local government agencies, DHS is sharing with “international partners” the information gathered under the new guidelines.

Nowhere in the 23-page document does the DHS make clear what it takes to make an “item or event” of “sufficient value,” and that’s how the government wants to keep it. What the report does make very clear, however, is that every keystroke, whether it be Google searches or Facebook status updates, will be recorded and cataloged by DHS snoops who will then rifle through it and see if there is anything that might someday be useful in compiling a profile of activity of a target individual. Then, that profile may reveal activities, interests, or posts that can be presented to another nameless bureaucrat who can authorize a more thorough investigation into that person’s private life.

Another gap in the report on this initiative is precisely what means were employed by the federal government to bypass the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

The official responsible for implementing the directives contained in the “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness Initiative Update” is the Acting Director of the National Operations Center Office of Operations Coordination and Planning, Donald Triner. His phone number is [phone].


Source: www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/computers/10540-homeland-security-is-reading-and-recording-every-keystroke

[Cyrellys]

Iceland Declares Independence From International Banks

January 23, 2012
Print Version
Source: Net Right Daily



By Bill Wilson – Iceland is free. And it will remain so, so long as her people wish to remain autonomous of the foreign domination of her would-be masters — in this case, international bankers.

On April 9, the fiercely independent people of island-nation defeated a referendum that would have bailed out the UK and the Netherlands who had covered the deposits of British and Dutch investors who had lost funds in Icesave bank in 2008.

At the time of the bank’s failure, Iceland refused to cover the losses. But the UK and Netherlands nonetheless have demanded that Iceland repay them for the “loan” as a condition for admission into the European Union.

In response, the Icelandic people have told Europe to go pound sand. The final vote was 103,207 to 69,462, or 58.9 percent to 39.7 percent. “Taxpayers should not be responsible for paying the debts of a private institution,” said Sigriur Andersen, a spokeswoman for the Advice group that opposed the bailout.

A similar referendum in 2009 on the issue, although with harsher terms, found 93.2 percent of the Icelandic electorate rejecting a proposal to guarantee the deposits of foreign investors who had funds in the Icelandic bank. The referendum was invoked when President Olafur Ragnur Grimmson vetoed legislation the Althingi, Iceland’s parliament, had passed to pay back the British and Dutch.

Under the terms of the agreement, Iceland would have had to pay £2.35 billion to the UK, and €1.32 billion to the Netherlands by 2046 at a 3 percent interest rate. Its rejection for the second time by Iceland is a testament to its people, who feel they should bear no responsibility for the losses of foreigners endured in the financial crisis.

Read more at NetRightDaily.com...

[Cyrellys]

Motion Picture Industry Threatens Politicians


January 23, 2012
Print Version

Source: Tech Dirt

Reinforcing the fact that Chris Dodd really does not get what’s happening, and showing just how disgustingly corrupt the MPAA relationship is with politicians, Chris Dodd went on Fox News to explicitly threaten politicians who accept MPAA campaign donations that they’d better pass Hollywood’s favorite legislation… or else:

“Those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,”

This certainly follows what many people assumed was happening, and fits with the anonymous comments from studio execs that they will stop contributing to Obama, but to be so blatant about this kind of corruption and money-for-laws politics in the face of…

Read More... www.techdirt.com/articles/20120120/14472117492/mpaa-directly-publicly-threatens-politicians-who-arent-corrupt-enough-to-stay-bought.shtml

[Cyrellys]

Pentagon Scientists Use ‘Time Hole’ to Make Events Disappear

January 22, 2012
Print Version
Source: Wired

Soldiers could one day conduct covert operations in complete secrecy, now that Pentagon-backed physicists have figured out how to mask entire events by distorting light.

A team at Cornell University, with support from Darpa, the Pentagon’s out-there research arm, managed to hide an event for 40 picoseconds (those are trillionths of seconds, if you’re counting). They’ve published their groundbreaking research in this week’s edition of the journal Nature.

This is the first time that scientists have succeeded in masking an event, though research teams have in recent years made remarkable strides in cloaking objects. Researchers at the University of Texas, Dallas, last year harnessed the mirage effect to make objects vanish. And in 2010, physicists at the University of St. Andrews made leaps towards using metamaterials to trick human eyes into not seeing what was right in front of them.

Masking an object entails bending light around that object. If the light doesn’t actually hit an object, then that object won’t be visible to the human eye.

Where events are concerned, concealment relies on changing the speed of light. Light that’s emitted from actions, as they happen, is what allows us to see those actions happen. Usually, that light comes in a constant flow. What Cornell researchers did, in simple terms, is tweak that ongoing flow of light — just for a mere iota of time — so that an event could transpire without being observable.

Read More...
www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/time-hole/

[pman35]

Planetary Defense: An Extraterrestrial Imperative

larouchepac.com/planetarydefense?utm_source=ElectionMall%20Technologies%20Inc.&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=120124_1_24_112

To much info to cut and paste please go to this link I think you'll find some interesting information

[Cyrellys]

Steven Aftergood to me
show details 9:45 AM (1 hour ago)


Format Note: If you cannot easily read the text below, or you prefer to
receive Secrecy News in another format, please reply to this email to let
us know.

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2012, Issue No. 6
January 25, 2012

Secrecy News Blog: www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/


** NEW LEAK CASE RELIES ON 1982 LAW ON INTELLIGENCE IDENTITIES
** DOMESTIC USE OF DRONES IS WELL UNDERWAY
** PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS, AND MORE FROM CRS


NEW LEAK CASE RELIES ON 1982 LAW ON INTELLIGENCE IDENTITIES

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou this week became the latest person to be
charged under the Espionage Act with unauthorized disclosures of classified
information. But unlike the previous defendants, Mr. Kiriakou was also
charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for
allegedly disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence officer to a
journalist.

www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/01/kiriakou.html

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act was enacted in 1982 to combat
the efforts of Philip Agee and his colleagues to expose CIA personnel
around the world. The Act made it a felony to reveal the names of "covert
agents," i.e. intelligence officers who are under cover and whose
identities are classified information.

But until now, the Act has never been used in a contested prosecution. "There do not appear to be any published cases involving prosecutions under
this act, despite some high-profile incidents involving the exposure of
U.S. intelligence agents," according to a Congressional Research Service
report on the subject from last year.

There has, however, been one conviction under the Act. In 1985, former
CIA clerk Sharon Scranage pleaded guilty to providing classified
information in violation of the Act concerning U.S. intelligence operations
in Ghana. She served two years in jail.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act is one of the very few
classification-related statutes that purport to apply to anyone, not only
to government officials who possess authorized access to classified
information. The language of the Act explicitly indicates that it also
applies to private individuals -- reporters, researchers, or anyone else --
who expose covert agents, if they do so as part of a "pattern of
activities" and with the requisite knowledge and intent.

In the present case, Mr. Kiriakou is charged with providing the name of a
"covert agent" in response to inquiries from a reporter, "Journalist A,"
who then passed that information on to defense attorneys at Guantanamo. (The attorneys used the information in a classified pleading that they
filed in 2009, which is what first brought the unauthorized disclosure to
official attention.)

An FBI affidavit attached to the criminal complaint against Kiriakou
states repeatedly that no laws were broken by the defense team that
received the classified information. The FBI notably does not volunteer
the same assurance concerning Journalist A (whose name is not yet on the
public record), who actively solicited the proscribed information from
Kiriakou and forwarded it to the defense attorneys.

www.fas.org/sgp/jud/kiriakou/complaint.pdf

But Journalist A would presumably not be subject to the Intelligence
Identities Protection Act because his efforts were not part of a systematic
effort to expose classified identities. (The name of the covert agent that
he allegedly elicited and conveyed to the defense team at Guantanamo has
not been publicly disclosed.)

According to the Congressional Research Service report, the Act "would
appear to preclude the prosecution of a recipient of covered information,
whether solicited or not, who publishes the information but has not engaged
in a prohibited 'pattern of activities' intended to disclose the names of
covert agents."

The CRS report also makes the curious observation that "It is not an
offense for... a covert agent to disclose his or her own identity." See
"Intelligence Identities Protection Act," January 28, 2011:

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RS21636.pdf

Mr. Kiriakou is the sixth individual to be charged in the Obama
Administration's unprecedented campaign against leaks of classified
information to the media, following Shamai Leibowitz, Jeffrey Sterling,
Thomas Drake, Bradley Manning and Stephen Kim. Among other things, the
Administration's aggressive pursuit of leaks represents a challenge to the
practice of national security reporting, which depends on the availability
of unauthorized sources if it is to produce something more than
"authorized" news.


DOMESTIC USE OF DRONES IS WELL UNDERWAY

The use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) within the United States is
certain to increase in the years to come, as a new Army policy has recently
made clear. ("Army Foresees Expanded Use of Drones in U.S. Airspace,"
Secrecy News, January 19.) But in fact the use of unmanned aircraft or
drones within U.S. airspace has already advanced to a degree that is not
widely recognized.

As of 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration had already issued
hundreds of "certificates of authorization" (COAs) for the domestic use of
drones.

"Right now, today as we sit here, we have 251 certificates of
authorization for unmanned aircraft, 140 of them are DOD related," said
Hank Krakowski of the FAA at an informative Senate hearing in September
2010. "We have not rejected or denied any DOD COAs in 2010, and we keep
moving forward."

On the other hand, Mr. Krakowski cautioned, "While UASs offer a promising
new technology, the limited safety and operational data available to date
does not yet support expedited or full integration into the NAS [National
Airspace System]. Because current available data is insufficient to allow
unfettered integration of UASs into the NAS--where the public travels every
day-- the FAA must continue to move forward deliberately and cautiously, in
accordance with our safety mandate."

"Unmanned aircraft systems [were] originally and primarily designed for
military purposes," he noted. "Although the technology incorporated into
UASs has advanced, their safety record warrants caution. As we attempt to
integrate these aircraft into the NAS, we will continue to look at any
risks that UASs pose to the traveling public as well as the risk to persons
or property on the ground."

See "The Integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) Into the National
Airspace System (NAS): Fulfilling Imminent Operational and Training
Requirements," Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology,
September 13, 2010 (published September 2011):

www.fas.org/irp/congress/2010_hr/uas.html

In the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress included language
requiring a report on "the integration of unmanned aerial systems into the
national airspace system."

The legality of the use of drones in CIA targeted killing programs is
among the topics that is explored in the brand new issue of the Journal of
National Security Law and Policy on the subject of covert war. It can be
read online here:

www.jnslp.com/


PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS, AND MORE FROM CRS

President Obama has used "signing statements" to take exception to
provisions of law enacted by Congress with significantly less frequency
than did President George W. Bush. He has also abandoned reference to the
"unitary executive" concept that was favored by the Bush Administration.

In most other respects, however, the Obama Administration's use of signing
statements is consistent and continuous with recent past practice,
according to a newly updated report from the Congressional Research
Service. The report reviewed the basis for signing statements, their legal
implications, and the controversy that has surrounded them.

See "Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and Institutional
Implications," January 4, 2012:

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf

Some other new or newly updated CRS reports that have not been made
readily available to the public include the following.

"Legal Issues Associated with the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline," January
23, 2012:

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42124.pdf

"'Who is a Veteran?' -- Basic Eligibility for Veterans' Benefits," January
23, 2012:

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42324.pdf

"Federal Aid to Roads and Highways Since the 18th Century: A Legislative
History," January 6, 2012:

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42140.pdf

"Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for
Congress," January 6, 2012:

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf

"Iran Sanctions," January 6, 2012:

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf


_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

The Secrecy News Blog is at:
www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, go to:
www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/subscribe.html

To UNSUBSCRIBE, go to
www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/unsubscribe.html

OR email your request to [e-mail]

Secrecy News is archived at:
www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

Support the FAS Project on Government Secrecy with a donation:
www.fas.org/member/donate_today.html


_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: [e-mail]
voice: [phone]
twitter: @saftergood

[Cyrellys]

And here in the following article is part and parcel to how the under the table Censure-ship Wars is attempting to go above board. Ref. Current Event Here,here, and here.

Now Read:

UK D-Notices to Go Worldwide

By Kurt Nimmo
Source: Infowars.com Newsletter

Google and the British government are working together to sweep websites into Orwell's memory hole. It is a joint effort that will soon go worldwide as the global elite continue to build and refine their censorship apparatus.

Google told The Telegraph today that national security is "the single biggest category" among the reasons cited for scrubbing pages from Google search results. Google's Daphne Keller flew to the UK to testify before the the Leveson Inquiry and said her company had cooperated with the British government in 82 per cent of cases. PM David Cameron established the inquiry in the wake of the News International telephone hacking scandal last year.

The collaboration between Google and the British government is reminiscent of practices established under the so-called D Notice system, a modernized version of the Official Secrets Act used to censor political speech. Newspaper and periodical editors now routinely check with the government's D Notice Committee before publishing information, a process that operates as de facto self-censorship.

The D Notice system was used in the Dr. Kelly case. Kelly was suicided after he accused the British government of planting in a dossier a questionable claim that WMDs could be released from Iraq within 45 minutes.

Earlier in the week, a former Soros Open Society minion and Stanford University scholar called on Google to act as a thought crime enforcer by providing warnings about websites that contain "conspiracy theories" such as the belief, held by a majority of Americans, that global warming is not primarily man-made.

As Paul Joseph Watson noted on Tuesday, the call by Evgeny Morozov to render the internet politically correct according to the dictates of the global elite and their bureaucrats is similar to an argument made by Obama's science czar, Cass Sunstein, to force websites to carry warnings if they post content deemed inappropriate by the government.
In keeping with its mission to surveil and track and trace its users - allegedly for commercial purposes - Google has announced that it will follow the activities of users across nearly all of its ubiquitous sites, including YouTube, Gmail and its leading search engine, according to the Washington Post. Consumers won't be able to opt out of the changes, which take effect March 1.

Popular social networking site Facebook also tracks and traces users and keeps the data. In September, hacker and writer Nik Cubrilovic posted information on his blog revealing that Facebook keeps track of every website users visit, even when they are logged out of the site.

The latest Google revelations arrive as the Department of Homeland Security presents a white paper on its "evolving mission" to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

"Crafted by the Aspen Institute Homeland Security Group, co-chaired by former DHS chief Michael Chertoff and composed of a who's who of national security figures, the report outlines a total mission creep, as the title 'Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission' implies," writes Aaron Dykes for Infowars.com.

The paper proposes a transition from focusing on traditional terrorism to intelligence gathering and surveillance of supposed domestic threats. "Achieving this new aim includes co-opting local law enforcement and other regional agencies," Dykes notes.

Obama's DHS wants to build "a new analytic foundation that emphasizes data" and related systems that will integrate all aspects of law enforcement, including those on the local level. The DHS proposal, in other words, continues and accelerates the federalization of state and local law enforcement, a process that picked up steam during the Clinton administration in the 1990s.

The modern Stasi surveillance state and a government mandated and corporately enforced Ministry of Truth naturally go hand-in-hand as the globalists move to complete their totalitarian overlay designed to control humanity.

Increasingly, it can be argued that the internet and an array of ubiquitous technological devices were specifically designed and manufactured to facilitate the control mandates of the surveillance state.

Google's high-tech D-notice technology - delisting and outright censoring websites deemed offensive by our rulers - is a less obtrusive version of the Great Firewall of China, a sprawling network of filters designed to craft information to the overriding prerogatives of an authoritarian and totalitarian state.

[Cyrellys]

Discussion of legal fiction created to legitimize prior interpretation of policy and consent ~ a roughly 42 minute video. The context that the video as a whole builds has serious relationship and application to how the response and attempt to control/eradicate public knowledge cache's is happening and the lengths to which the behavior is being taken. It clearly lays out what level of conduct is politically legitimate under prior interpretation applied within the terms of consent.

Remember the National Security State operates all the octopus under terms of policy and interpretation not under laws.......until now...as Catherine Austin Fitts attempted in one report to point out, they are attempting to prepare for the paradigm and bring certain aspects of it up to surface level.

Now the nature of what emerges in any given facet and who controls what may well vary because there is a Conflict Paradigm in play. If any man or any group has a nature, then that nature will be individually expressed in its acts. The whole part of Free Will in this is that: control and influence is in truth a shell game. For any aspect in any facet there is a choice which is entirely personal to the one who makes it.