Friday, March 30, 2012
USA Military Now Defends Dictator Not Constitution
PATRIOTS RON PAUL AND JESSE THORSEN
The uniformed solider who endorsed Ron Paul during a rally in Iowa in January has been officially reprimanded by the US Army.
After being cut short during a CNN interview on January 3, Reserve Corporal Jesse Thorsen, who has served two tours in Afghanistan and was due to head back for a third, was invited on to the stage by Paul himself to address Paul’s cheering supporters.
“If there’s any man out there that’s had a vision out there, it’s definitely [Ron Paul],” Thorsen said. “His foreign policy is by far, hands down better than any other candidate’s out there, and I’m sure you all know that. We don’t need to be picking fights overseas and I think everybody else knows that, too.”
Someone within the military infrastructure did not take kindly to Thorsen’s remarks, and a move was immediately set in motion to punish the 10-year veteran for his words.
Detractors began pointing to Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 which states that active duty troops wearing a uniform are expected to avoid activities that “imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement” of political figures.
As military news site Stars and Stripes reports, Army reserve officials said Thursday that Thorsen’s actions clearly violated Defense Department rules, and that a letter of reprimand has been placed in his personnel file.
Following the announcement, Thorsen appeared on the Veterans for Ron Paul online radio show to defend his actions.
“The Army works for Congress,” Thorsen said during the show. “If a Congressman invites you up on stage, doesn’t he have the right to do that?
“Why can’t a combat veteran go up on stage and support a presidential candidate in his best suit, which is his American uniform?” Thorsen added, also noting that he had fully cooperated with the Army’s investigation.
Thorsen added that he believed the reprimand was “absolutely worth it” because “it gave me the platform to spread the message of liberty and constitutional freedom to more people.”
Thorsen also claimed that higher ups in the Army had been looking to throw the book at him for his actions, and that he was relieved to receive only a reprimand.
“Let’s be frank – It basically says, ‘You’ve been a real bad soldier, don’t do that again.’… OK, I won’t.” Thorsen said.
The Army is clearing aiming to make an example out of Thorsen. One has to question whether the same punishment would have been handed out if he had been seen endorsing anyone other than Ron Paul.
Furthermore, over a thousand veterans, reservists and active duty soldiers, some in uniform, participated in a march on the White House for Ron Paul just one month later in February, where Thorsen also gave a speech.
An email leaked prior to the event by multiple active duty personnel revealed that the military issued a warning to troops encouraging them not to take part in the march.
Will the army reprimand thousands more soldiers? Unlikely, perhaps given that the event was roundly ignored by the mainstream media.
Dictator Hussein Obama Mum On Illegal Detention Document
Asawin Suebsaeng, who is an editorial fellow at Mother Jones, seems to have a problem understanding the Constitution and the national security state. He takes the political “right” to task for warning about the National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order signed by Obama earlier this month. This particular EO is no big deal and if you really want to place blame, place it on Harry Truman, Suebsaeng writes.
DICTATOR HUSSEIN OBAMA
He’s right about Truman. The National Security Act of 1947 was passed by Congress and signed into law by president Truman. It has allowed the Pentagon and the CIA to encroach on our civil liberties ever since.
It created a national security establishment that has issued a number of unconstitutional executive orders. Mr. Suebsaeng mentions these in passing. It enabled the military-industrial complex president Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address in 1961.
Both the national security state and the military-industrial complex (which are actually inseparable) experienced a renaissance following the engineered demise of the Soviet Union, the supposed (and endlessly celebrated) end of the Cold War and the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Eisenhower warned that the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist” and this is precisely what happened prior to and following his speech.
Suebsaeng tells us the National Defense Resources Preparedness EO is not unique and it is basically a rerun of executive orders by Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Dwight Eisenhower.
“It’s your standard government readiness policy – nothing particularly exciting or groundbreaking,” he writes without delving into what a “readiness policy” is and what it means for a nation that is supposedly a republic based on the Constitution.
“Manufacturing a far-fetched conspiracy out of something so routine is a distraction,” Suebsaeng complains in what we can only conclude is ignorance of the issue and a knee-jerk reaction in defense of Obama, who many liberals still blindly follow despite the obvious fact he is a teleprompter reading stooge little different than his predecessor.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness EO and most of the FEMA EOs before it almost completely eviscerate due process (explicitly stated in the Fifth Amendment with a heritage going back to the Magna Carta).
The EOs sprouting from the Defense Production Act of 1950 allowing the government to mobilize national resources in the event of “national emergencies” set the stage for a complete government takeover and the implementation of martial law and confiscate private property.
Reading the EOs make this abundantly clear despite the arguments of apologists like Mr. Suebsaeng, who dismisses legitimate concerns about egregious violations of the Constitution as the “right’s latest phony freak-out about Obama’s wielding of executive power.”
Supposed liberals usually only complain about abuses of executive power when so-called conservatives are in the White House. They routinely give Democrat presidents a blank check to attack the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For them, the Constitution is a partisan football.
If Mr. Suebsaeng were a fair and impartial observer instead of a Democrat apologist for maximum state power over the individual, he would mention that presidents regardless of party affiliation have repeatedly violated the Constitution – from Abraham Lincoln to Woodrow Wilson to Bush and Obama.
The commentary of Sean Hannity, Pamela Geller, the Daily Paul, Reason and Alex Jones – all excoriated as right-wing nuts and extremists by Suebsaeng – come in a distant second to the in-your-face derogation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights given the nod by Mother Jones’ editorial fellow.
Although technically not an executive order, the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) was not mentioned by Suebsaeng. Obama had attached a signing order to the legislation passed into law by Congress.
The ACLU, usually identified with liberals such as Suebsaeng, stated following Obama’s signature on the NDAA that “it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law.
The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial.”
Moreover, Mr. Suebsaeng did not mention the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and other legislation passed into law or signed by executive fiat. The National Defense Resources Preparedness EO is part of a larger and increasingly portentous effort by the government to establish the framework of a police state and an excuse to impose martial law.
The NDAA gives the government the power to arrest without warrant (as stipulated under the Fourth Amendment) any U.S. citizen and hold him or her indefinitely, a concept abhorrent to the founders and more likely to be the practice of a military dictatorship.
Both the so-called liberal and conservative sides of the establishment ignored the NDAA – not because they are unaware of the legislation and its purpose (which has nothing to do with al-Qaeda), but because the establishment does not want the NDAA discussed.
It looks like Suebsaeng has decided to respect their wish as well.
DICTATOR HUSSEIN OBAMA
He’s right about Truman. The National Security Act of 1947 was passed by Congress and signed into law by president Truman. It has allowed the Pentagon and the CIA to encroach on our civil liberties ever since.
It created a national security establishment that has issued a number of unconstitutional executive orders. Mr. Suebsaeng mentions these in passing. It enabled the military-industrial complex president Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address in 1961.
Both the national security state and the military-industrial complex (which are actually inseparable) experienced a renaissance following the engineered demise of the Soviet Union, the supposed (and endlessly celebrated) end of the Cold War and the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Eisenhower warned that the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist” and this is precisely what happened prior to and following his speech.
Suebsaeng tells us the National Defense Resources Preparedness EO is not unique and it is basically a rerun of executive orders by Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Dwight Eisenhower.
“It’s your standard government readiness policy – nothing particularly exciting or groundbreaking,” he writes without delving into what a “readiness policy” is and what it means for a nation that is supposedly a republic based on the Constitution.
“Manufacturing a far-fetched conspiracy out of something so routine is a distraction,” Suebsaeng complains in what we can only conclude is ignorance of the issue and a knee-jerk reaction in defense of Obama, who many liberals still blindly follow despite the obvious fact he is a teleprompter reading stooge little different than his predecessor.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness EO and most of the FEMA EOs before it almost completely eviscerate due process (explicitly stated in the Fifth Amendment with a heritage going back to the Magna Carta).
The EOs sprouting from the Defense Production Act of 1950 allowing the government to mobilize national resources in the event of “national emergencies” set the stage for a complete government takeover and the implementation of martial law and confiscate private property.
Reading the EOs make this abundantly clear despite the arguments of apologists like Mr. Suebsaeng, who dismisses legitimate concerns about egregious violations of the Constitution as the “right’s latest phony freak-out about Obama’s wielding of executive power.”
Supposed liberals usually only complain about abuses of executive power when so-called conservatives are in the White House. They routinely give Democrat presidents a blank check to attack the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For them, the Constitution is a partisan football.
If Mr. Suebsaeng were a fair and impartial observer instead of a Democrat apologist for maximum state power over the individual, he would mention that presidents regardless of party affiliation have repeatedly violated the Constitution – from Abraham Lincoln to Woodrow Wilson to Bush and Obama.
The commentary of Sean Hannity, Pamela Geller, the Daily Paul, Reason and Alex Jones – all excoriated as right-wing nuts and extremists by Suebsaeng – come in a distant second to the in-your-face derogation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights given the nod by Mother Jones’ editorial fellow.
Although technically not an executive order, the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) was not mentioned by Suebsaeng. Obama had attached a signing order to the legislation passed into law by Congress.
The ACLU, usually identified with liberals such as Suebsaeng, stated following Obama’s signature on the NDAA that “it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law.
The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial.”
Moreover, Mr. Suebsaeng did not mention the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and other legislation passed into law or signed by executive fiat. The National Defense Resources Preparedness EO is part of a larger and increasingly portentous effort by the government to establish the framework of a police state and an excuse to impose martial law.
The NDAA gives the government the power to arrest without warrant (as stipulated under the Fourth Amendment) any U.S. citizen and hold him or her indefinitely, a concept abhorrent to the founders and more likely to be the practice of a military dictatorship.
Both the so-called liberal and conservative sides of the establishment ignored the NDAA – not because they are unaware of the legislation and its purpose (which has nothing to do with al-Qaeda), but because the establishment does not want the NDAA discussed.
It looks like Suebsaeng has decided to respect their wish as well.
Kenyan Hussein Obama Continues As White House Fraud
Who is Barack Obama? Where was he born, in the United States, or in Kenya? Where is the hard copy of his birth certificate? Did he hold an Indonesian passport? Does he qualify as a Natural Born Citizen? Does he qualify to hold the office of President of the United States?
Since 2007, these questions have remained largely unanswered, not least because the White House’s legal team has gone to great lengths and costs to seal all documents related to the President’s identity. The result of this – is a nation gradually tearing apart at the seams.
Arizona is currently leading a multi-state, head-on charge towards this issue with a bill requiring the president to prove he qualifies for office. Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has mounted the only official law enforcement effort to date that has dared to investigate the President’s presented credentials –asking the burning question: has there been forgery or fraud committed by, or on behalf of the President?
In a famous passage from Aesop’s Fables, it tells a story of a slave named Androcles who was wandering through the forest when he came upon a Lion lying down moaning and in pain. At first he turned to flee, but finding that the Lion did not pursue him, he turned back and went up to him.
As he came near, the Lion put out his paw, which was swollen and bleeding. Androcles found a huge thorn, causing all the pain. He pulled out the thorn and bound up the paw of the Lion, who was soon able to rise and lick the hand of Androcles like a dog.
From a consensus reality perspective, the prevailing mainstream media interpretation of this fable might portray President Obama and his Federal government in the role of the Lion, and the Arizona state legislature along with Sheriff Joe Arpaio – as the thorn in the White House’s paw.
The part of Androcles would be played by the mainstream media itself, dutifully rescuing the lion from an annoying state effort to inflict pain on the White House.
From a Constitutional perspective however, the roles represented would look more like this: the Lion represents the 50 States of the Union, and the thorn in its paw is Obama’s inability to clear his name in the face of a damning investigation into his eligibility to hold the office of US President.
This thorn is buried deep into the fabric of the Union and it also includes the ruling establishment’s own clandestine effort to conceal the truth.
And, what of the slave Androcles? Androcles should be played by the press, the fabled Fourth Estate or ‘watchdog’, supposedly meant to be a dutiful servant of the people of the United States. Sadly, here in 2012, those romantic tales of the mainstream corporate press fighting corruption and bringing criminal activity in government to book are all but ancient history.
So far, media coverage of Arizona’s “Candidate Certification Bill” HB2480 has been dismissive, ignoring the contents of the Bill. The Establishment’s lapdog corporate media have only seen fit to delve into its own pre-laid surface covering the issue, with its own adolescent level analysis dismissing Arizona’s efforts as a mere “Birther Bill”, and attacking Arizona ad hominem as “the Birther state”.
For an event as unprecedented as this, the ensuing intentional media blackout which has descended on Obama’s missing birth certificate story is disturbing – but not surprising. Media coverage of law enforcement efforts to this point has been reduced to personally attacking Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse – rather than asking critical questions about the actual evidence they have discovered.
So who is left to play Androcles? In this story, it’s rightly being played by elected representatives in Arizona who drafted state Bill HB2480 and Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse of volunteer investigators. They are neither heroic, nor extraordinary.
They are merely doing the job which has been laid out by the Constitution of the state and country respectively, that is, rightly serving the interests of their constituents – the people of the United States. And so it should be. The Founders of this nation designed their country whereby the government should be servants of the electorate – and not the other way around.
George Washington once described the ideal relationship between the government and the electorate stating:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
More than anything, the controversy surrounding the President’s lack of authentic identification is an opportunity to test the system and voracity of the laws which are meant to govern how we work and interact in a free Constitutional Republic.
Unfortunately, this is not how the story is being framed in the mainstream media.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case investigation into the forgery and fraud evidence surrounding President Obama’s PDF birth certificate, Selective Service registration card and the missing INS microfilms – is ongoing and will likely unearth many more discoveries that will further cast a shadow on his Presidency.
The fate of Arizona’s Obama eligibility bill is less certain. If the law is killed in committee or later vetoed by Arizona’s governor, it will only go to prove that persons in positions of power do not have to observe even the basic vetting or requirements of proving their identity – as the average American citizen has to on a daily basis.
Although many would prefer not to face up to it, the whole issue of Obama’s records has become a thorn in the paw of the Union. If employees of the Federal government are not held to the same standards as their state counterparts, or even individuals – then we are staring at nothing less than a modern tyranny.
If we are to learn anything from all this, we should stop to consider who ‘s the Lion in own contemporary political story.
Since 2007, these questions have remained largely unanswered, not least because the White House’s legal team has gone to great lengths and costs to seal all documents related to the President’s identity. The result of this – is a nation gradually tearing apart at the seams.
Arizona is currently leading a multi-state, head-on charge towards this issue with a bill requiring the president to prove he qualifies for office. Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has mounted the only official law enforcement effort to date that has dared to investigate the President’s presented credentials –asking the burning question: has there been forgery or fraud committed by, or on behalf of the President?
In a famous passage from Aesop’s Fables, it tells a story of a slave named Androcles who was wandering through the forest when he came upon a Lion lying down moaning and in pain. At first he turned to flee, but finding that the Lion did not pursue him, he turned back and went up to him.
As he came near, the Lion put out his paw, which was swollen and bleeding. Androcles found a huge thorn, causing all the pain. He pulled out the thorn and bound up the paw of the Lion, who was soon able to rise and lick the hand of Androcles like a dog.
From a consensus reality perspective, the prevailing mainstream media interpretation of this fable might portray President Obama and his Federal government in the role of the Lion, and the Arizona state legislature along with Sheriff Joe Arpaio – as the thorn in the White House’s paw.
The part of Androcles would be played by the mainstream media itself, dutifully rescuing the lion from an annoying state effort to inflict pain on the White House.
From a Constitutional perspective however, the roles represented would look more like this: the Lion represents the 50 States of the Union, and the thorn in its paw is Obama’s inability to clear his name in the face of a damning investigation into his eligibility to hold the office of US President.
This thorn is buried deep into the fabric of the Union and it also includes the ruling establishment’s own clandestine effort to conceal the truth.
And, what of the slave Androcles? Androcles should be played by the press, the fabled Fourth Estate or ‘watchdog’, supposedly meant to be a dutiful servant of the people of the United States. Sadly, here in 2012, those romantic tales of the mainstream corporate press fighting corruption and bringing criminal activity in government to book are all but ancient history.
So far, media coverage of Arizona’s “Candidate Certification Bill” HB2480 has been dismissive, ignoring the contents of the Bill. The Establishment’s lapdog corporate media have only seen fit to delve into its own pre-laid surface covering the issue, with its own adolescent level analysis dismissing Arizona’s efforts as a mere “Birther Bill”, and attacking Arizona ad hominem as “the Birther state”.
For an event as unprecedented as this, the ensuing intentional media blackout which has descended on Obama’s missing birth certificate story is disturbing – but not surprising. Media coverage of law enforcement efforts to this point has been reduced to personally attacking Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse – rather than asking critical questions about the actual evidence they have discovered.
So who is left to play Androcles? In this story, it’s rightly being played by elected representatives in Arizona who drafted state Bill HB2480 and Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse of volunteer investigators. They are neither heroic, nor extraordinary.
They are merely doing the job which has been laid out by the Constitution of the state and country respectively, that is, rightly serving the interests of their constituents – the people of the United States. And so it should be. The Founders of this nation designed their country whereby the government should be servants of the electorate – and not the other way around.
George Washington once described the ideal relationship between the government and the electorate stating:
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
More than anything, the controversy surrounding the President’s lack of authentic identification is an opportunity to test the system and voracity of the laws which are meant to govern how we work and interact in a free Constitutional Republic.
Unfortunately, this is not how the story is being framed in the mainstream media.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case investigation into the forgery and fraud evidence surrounding President Obama’s PDF birth certificate, Selective Service registration card and the missing INS microfilms – is ongoing and will likely unearth many more discoveries that will further cast a shadow on his Presidency.
The fate of Arizona’s Obama eligibility bill is less certain. If the law is killed in committee or later vetoed by Arizona’s governor, it will only go to prove that persons in positions of power do not have to observe even the basic vetting or requirements of proving their identity – as the average American citizen has to on a daily basis.
Although many would prefer not to face up to it, the whole issue of Obama’s records has become a thorn in the paw of the Union. If employees of the Federal government are not held to the same standards as their state counterparts, or even individuals – then we are staring at nothing less than a modern tyranny.
If we are to learn anything from all this, we should stop to consider who ‘s the Lion in own contemporary political story.
Fools Being Idiots (FBI) Braces For Internet Censorship
Shawn Henry, an FBI executive assistant director, admitted that the ramped up and over-hyped effort by the government to put an end to hacking will not work unless there are “changes in technology.”
FBI STOOGE
Mr. Henry did not specify what changes he had in mind, but despite this we have a good idea since the government has harangued us for years now on the changes it has in mind – nothing short of revamping the internet.
The establishment keeps telling us the internet is broken and we must start over. “Last year, the level and ferocity of cyber-attacks on the internet reached such a horrendous level that some are now thinking the unthinkable: to let the internet wither on the vine and start up a new more robust one instead,” professor Alan Woodward, billed as a cybersecurity expert, told the BBC earlier this year.
Congress proposed Obama be allowed to shut down the internet with a kill switch – sort of like the dictator Mubarak shutting down the internet, but on steroids – but the proposal was shelved in response to criticism and outrage. The SOPA and PIPA Trojan Horses also faced withering criticism and were subsequently withdrawn (or sent back to be modified and appear less draconian up re-introduction).
The Europeans are one step ahead of rustic Americans. They don’t have an antiquated and quaint (as the globalists see it) Constitution and Bill of Rights. For the European elites, freedom of speech is extended by government as it was once handed down by kings. It is not an innate or god-given right. It is a privilege that can be withdrawn at any time.
Last August, the European Commissin drafted a number of propsoals designed to regulate the internet, including the creation of a list of names, drawn up by governments, that would be banned from registering with the internet’s domain name system.
If recent history is any indicator, the list will contain the names of websites and individuals who are not politically correct (for instance, websites that question aspects of the Holocaust would almost undoubtedly be banned as would those making apologies for Nazism or that deviate from official histories).
EC papers drawn up last August “also foresee that the enormous shift in power toward governments will happen within the next 12 months.” The documents appear to coincide with efforts on this side of the pond to propose drastic internet technology changes in response to supposed cyber security concerns.
Henry’s “grim appraisal of the nation’s efforts to keep computer hackers from plundering corporate data networks” published by the Wall Street Journal is the latest foray by the elite to lend an air of legitimacy to an ongoing effort to ultimately sanitize the internet and turn it into a corporatized Disneyland offering meaningless cultural and political pablum and where no serious challenges to the elite will be permitted (as they are not currently on the dinosaur television media platform owned largely by transnational communications corporations).
“I don’t see how we ever come out of this without changes in technology or changes in behavior, because with the status quo, it’s an unsustainable model. Unsustainable in that you never get ahead, never become secure, never have a reasonable expectation of privacy or security,” Henry said.
In February, NSA boss Gen. Keith Alexander made the absurd claim that the suspicious hacktivist collective Anonymous would be able to take down the nation’s power grid via the internet. As we noted at the time, it is not easy to disrupt the power grid in the United States.
Most systems use proprietary operating systems and applications that are “not readily available for study by your average hacker,” writes Michael Tanj. Power grid systems and networks are not connected to the public internet.
Once again, Anonymous was being used (like a useful idiot is used) as an excuse by the government as it continue to roll out increasingly draconian surveillance programs under the aegis of “cyber security” and terror prevention.
As The Daily Bell notes, the ruling elite’s memes are beginning to crumble due to coverage by the alternative media.
“What the Internet has shown us with increasing clarity over this past decade is that Western banking elites and their enablers and associates will stop at nothing in their quest for ultimate power,” they write.
The exposure of the elite’s goals and its methodologies – its dependence on the corrupt counterfeiting practices of central banks for the trillion-dollar torrents of capital necessary to build world government – has led to an upswell of indignation and scrutiny around the world.
As a result, many of the elite’s dominant social themes are beginning to founder and fail. The elites had high hopes apparently for installing a carbon currency around the world based on the fraudulent message of global warming. But the Internet helped reveal emails that exposed the fraud.
The so-called war on terror has long been revealed to be both fraudulent and unpopular. Creating a so-called long war to generate the kind of chaos that is necessary to move the world toward global governance is perhaps a good idea from an elite standpoint … but not one that has worked out well.
As elite memes have degraded, the attacks on the Internet have stepped up.
The FBI’s Henry is merely the latest government character to call for “changes in technology” that will if implemented not so much protect corporations as usher in a new era of control and banish the truth tellers to a pre-internet wilderness.
FBI STOOGE
Mr. Henry did not specify what changes he had in mind, but despite this we have a good idea since the government has harangued us for years now on the changes it has in mind – nothing short of revamping the internet.
The establishment keeps telling us the internet is broken and we must start over. “Last year, the level and ferocity of cyber-attacks on the internet reached such a horrendous level that some are now thinking the unthinkable: to let the internet wither on the vine and start up a new more robust one instead,” professor Alan Woodward, billed as a cybersecurity expert, told the BBC earlier this year.
Congress proposed Obama be allowed to shut down the internet with a kill switch – sort of like the dictator Mubarak shutting down the internet, but on steroids – but the proposal was shelved in response to criticism and outrage. The SOPA and PIPA Trojan Horses also faced withering criticism and were subsequently withdrawn (or sent back to be modified and appear less draconian up re-introduction).
The Europeans are one step ahead of rustic Americans. They don’t have an antiquated and quaint (as the globalists see it) Constitution and Bill of Rights. For the European elites, freedom of speech is extended by government as it was once handed down by kings. It is not an innate or god-given right. It is a privilege that can be withdrawn at any time.
Last August, the European Commissin drafted a number of propsoals designed to regulate the internet, including the creation of a list of names, drawn up by governments, that would be banned from registering with the internet’s domain name system.
If recent history is any indicator, the list will contain the names of websites and individuals who are not politically correct (for instance, websites that question aspects of the Holocaust would almost undoubtedly be banned as would those making apologies for Nazism or that deviate from official histories).
EC papers drawn up last August “also foresee that the enormous shift in power toward governments will happen within the next 12 months.” The documents appear to coincide with efforts on this side of the pond to propose drastic internet technology changes in response to supposed cyber security concerns.
Henry’s “grim appraisal of the nation’s efforts to keep computer hackers from plundering corporate data networks” published by the Wall Street Journal is the latest foray by the elite to lend an air of legitimacy to an ongoing effort to ultimately sanitize the internet and turn it into a corporatized Disneyland offering meaningless cultural and political pablum and where no serious challenges to the elite will be permitted (as they are not currently on the dinosaur television media platform owned largely by transnational communications corporations).
“I don’t see how we ever come out of this without changes in technology or changes in behavior, because with the status quo, it’s an unsustainable model. Unsustainable in that you never get ahead, never become secure, never have a reasonable expectation of privacy or security,” Henry said.
In February, NSA boss Gen. Keith Alexander made the absurd claim that the suspicious hacktivist collective Anonymous would be able to take down the nation’s power grid via the internet. As we noted at the time, it is not easy to disrupt the power grid in the United States.
Most systems use proprietary operating systems and applications that are “not readily available for study by your average hacker,” writes Michael Tanj. Power grid systems and networks are not connected to the public internet.
Once again, Anonymous was being used (like a useful idiot is used) as an excuse by the government as it continue to roll out increasingly draconian surveillance programs under the aegis of “cyber security” and terror prevention.
As The Daily Bell notes, the ruling elite’s memes are beginning to crumble due to coverage by the alternative media.
“What the Internet has shown us with increasing clarity over this past decade is that Western banking elites and their enablers and associates will stop at nothing in their quest for ultimate power,” they write.
The exposure of the elite’s goals and its methodologies – its dependence on the corrupt counterfeiting practices of central banks for the trillion-dollar torrents of capital necessary to build world government – has led to an upswell of indignation and scrutiny around the world.
As a result, many of the elite’s dominant social themes are beginning to founder and fail. The elites had high hopes apparently for installing a carbon currency around the world based on the fraudulent message of global warming. But the Internet helped reveal emails that exposed the fraud.
The so-called war on terror has long been revealed to be both fraudulent and unpopular. Creating a so-called long war to generate the kind of chaos that is necessary to move the world toward global governance is perhaps a good idea from an elite standpoint … but not one that has worked out well.
As elite memes have degraded, the attacks on the Internet have stepped up.
The FBI’s Henry is merely the latest government character to call for “changes in technology” that will if implemented not so much protect corporations as usher in a new era of control and banish the truth tellers to a pre-internet wilderness.
_01.jpg)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)