Better Than You Could Ever Imagine!
As the Nov. 4th Elections role in we see that the
Television Networks, Newspapers and Magazines are
‘A Buzz’ with all of ‘the excitement!’ (Notice that i
did not capitalize the e?). Well, i just returned from a 9,000
mile car trip, and i saw at least 200,000 cars in that time;
i saw exactly three Romney and perhaps 250 Obama bumper
stickers —– there were far more Ron Paul signs than
both Romney and Obama put together!
Most of you know that all of the major networks, and
media are fully controlled by the Power Elite/Illuminati/Oligarchy/
Political Zionists/’Bad Guys’ – whatever you want to name these ‘dark rascals’
The Predominate Media does not want the American citizens to know
these simple facts concerning both Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama:
1. They both support military spending at levels over
80% greater than Bush’s highest levels (which were at all time highs)
2. They both support a continued war in Afghanistan (what
exactly is the objective there besides protecting the Caspian Pipe
Line that sends oil to China and India??)
3. Their largest campaign contributors — guess what – it
is the very same group – Goldman Sachs and J. P. Morgan
4. They have both given total and blind support to the Israel
war machine, to The Mossad and to the over 400 nuclear weapons
that Israel has stored.
5. They both give 100% support The Federal Reserve System
and Fractional Reserve Banking even though this system is: Unconstitutional
and has siphoned off $Trillions to the Power Elite
6.They both support the ‘Black Budgets of the NSA and CIA’ (which
at this time is over $100 Billion per year) and they fully defend the fairy tale
story of 9/11
7. They both support the National Defense Authorization Act (Good Bye
8. They both support massive deficit spending – and i mean massive!
9. Neither one will speak about the Economic time Bomb that is
about to explode – The Toxic Derivatives!
10. Neither one will talk about: Chemtrails, Monsanto, Flouride
or most other real environmental concerns
11. Neither one has the ‘balls’ or desire to truly bring back jobs
to the United States
And on, and on and on. Look friends our government has been hi-jacked a long time ago
by a very slick and criminal element that give not a ‘rats ass’ for the people of this nation. The
‘Two Party System’ and ‘Democracy’ (a word not once used in the Constitution) are used as
propaganda terms for the majority of the ignorant people (a majority of them significantly over-weight
and on some type of big-pharma medication) who believe they live in a free country. In my opinion,
anyone who believes in the goodness of the Republican or Democratic party or the Government in
general is either deluded or is receiving support.
I realize my words seem harsh,,,,,but the above is what i experience. As you know i believe
strongly in the concepts of freedom as expressed in the original
Constitution and Bill of Rights – as i hope you do! Well those ‘concepts’ have been co-opted a
long time ago and in fact we are living in a high-tech fascist country (controlled by the Corporations,
Banking Centers and an all expanding government). Presently, our government has a ‘Velvet Glove’
on but it is just a matter of time before this glove is removed.
This trend will continue unless enough good, intelligent, honest and strong citizens have
enough courage to come together to make the changes for: 1. Significantly Limited Government, 2. Constitutional
Money and Balanced Budgets, 3. An end to the dominance of the Secret Societies, NSA and CIA,
4. An open and de-centralized Media, 5. An end to these insane foreign wars, 6. Real energy
conservation and renewable energy, 7. True respect for the earth and environment 8. Protection
of our boarders, 9. An end to the dominance of the Corporations and a creation of private-high
integrity business and trade.
And,,,,,,,most importantly, we need to: open our hearts, and and minds and to live with a
heck of a lot more gratitude and joy! Thanks for listening to my rant —– and if any of this rings
true for you,,,,,,,,,you know what needs to be done!!!!!!!!!
This post came from a very dear friend of mine and I am on board and agree with this commentary fully!
Watch out folks there’s a knock at the door! The military are home from Iraq and Afghanistan and before they head off to occupy Iran they are going to practice detaining peaceful law abiding citizens right here at home. Sounds like a nightmare political movie right??!! And yet Congress and the senate don’t seem interested in us and what our country stands for. Yes we have to take it back and oppose them but I am convinced that we need to start and continue waking up our friends in uniform to what is going on, clearing the clouds from their brainwashing experience and enlightening them on the task at hand and how they can also widen the net of awareness amongst their fellow men and women in service. In this manner should the day come when they are ordered to arrest, detain or commit murder in the name of freedom, they might have the sense to think first rather than to simply obey orders. Read the article below on why we must oppose what is going on. First we nee to clamor for a presidential veto. It has already passed congress and the senate.
It’s a bad sign when George W. Bush’s defense team thinks that a military bill goes too far in violating your rights. But we’ve got just that with the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill authorizes the military to detain American citizens indefinitely without giving them their Constitutional rights. Basically, if the military suspects that an American citizen has terrorist ties it can just throw them in military jail without the rights to habeas corpus, an attorney or just about anything.
Let’s say that again — this new bill, which passed the Senate with an alarming majority, allows the military to arrest American citizens on American soil and keep them without trial. It’s being called the “America the Battlefield” bill, because it treats your front yard like a battlefield — and every citizen like a potential enemy. It basically puts a giant asterisk next to the Bill of Rights saying, “unless we don’t feel like it.”
It’s no wonder that former a Bush State Department adviser said that this bill “would likely have been as strongly opposed by the Bush administration as by the Obama administration.” The same people who brought us waterboarding and the PATRIOT Act think that this is a step too far.
In fact, the only people who think that this is a good idea are the people who voted for it in Congress, which has an approval rating lower than that of BP during the oil spill or Hugo Chavez, just to name a few. Even those who trying to see the law with an optimistic light, as Atlantic’s Andrew Cohen does, can only concede that at best “the Senate avoided the worst result here.” Not exactly ringing praise.
The Obama administration has signaled that it might veto this egregious attack on Americans’ rights, but his decision is still up in the air. To let him know how important constitutional liberties are to them, thousands of people are petitioning the President to veto the bill. If he fails to veto, it will likely go to the Supreme Court.
In this article from infowars we see yet again how dangerous it can be for us when the charlatans in Washington who are supposed to protect our interests are doing nothing but eroding them.
With the bill expected to be up for a vote within 48 hours, Senator Rand Paul has offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that will kill a provision allowing the militaryto detain individuals, including American citizens, without trial or due process.
The “indefinite detention” sections of the NDAA bill would turn the whole of the United States into a “battlefield” and hand the executive branch the power to have the military arrest U.S. citizens and hold them without trial.
The provision is merely an update to the “parallel legal system” had been in place under the auspices of the war on terror for over a decade, “In which terrorism suspects — U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike — may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system,” as the Washington Post reported in December 2002.
In attempt to kill the indefinite detention provision of the legislation, Senator Rand Paul aims to strike Section 1031 from the bill, which reads as follows.
“Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force…includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons…Detention under the law of war without trial”.
The amendment is seen as having more teeth than a change offered by Colorado Senator Mark Udall which the ACLU has urged voters to support. “There are other similar Amendments too, however none of them completely eliminate the Constitutionally offensive section,” reports the Tennessee Campaign for Liberty website.
Writing in the Washington Post today, Udall emphasizes the fact that the bill does affect American citizens.
“The provisions would require the military to dedicate a significant number of personnel to capturing and holding terrorism suspects — in some cases indefinitely — even those apprehended on U.S. soil. And they authorize the military to do so regardless of an accused terrorist’s citizenship, even if he or she is an American captured in a U.S. city,” writes Udall.
Republican Congressman Justin Amash also warned that the bill had been “carefully crafted to mislead the public,” in suggesting that the indefinite detention provision didn’t apply to American citizens when it clearly does.
“Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” Amash wrote on his Facebook page.
As we documented yesterday, every single piece of legislation passed in the name of catching terrorists has been used against American citizens on countless occasions.
In an op-ed for the SIlicon Valley Mercury News, S. Floyd Mori, national executive director of the Japanese American Citizens League, warns that the legislation would create the legal framework for internment without trial on a similar scale to how Japanese-Americans were held in concentration camps during World War II.
“Indefinite detentions based on fear-driven and unlawfully substantiated national security grounds, where individuals are neither duly charged nor fairly tried, violate the essence of U.S. law and the most fundamental values upon which this country was built,” he writes.
The National Defense Authorization Act is set for a procedural vote at midday on Wednesday.
If you don’t believe the government is watching you or worse know about it and don’t think it wrong, in which case you are completely lost in my opinion and nothing will wake you up, this article will certainly confirm that they are in fact watching and waiting…for what we are not certain. What is certain is that these rascals are using whatever reason suits their agenda to run ashod of the constitution and our rights, which by the way are now seemingly non existent.
I used to say we are a free country, much freer than any other, now I cannot any longer testify this to be true. It is a sad day.
Of course, NOTHING will be done about this latest incursion. Watch and weep folks, as this seems to be what we are increasingly becoming good at doing…mostly nothing significant.
Threat Level Privacy, Crime and Security Online
Feds Warrantlessly Tracking Americans’ Credit Cards in Real Time
Federal law enforcement agencies have been tracking Americans in real-time using credit cards, loyalty cards and travel reservations without getting a court order, a new document released under a government sunshine request shows.
The document, obtained by security researcher Christopher Soghoian, explains how so-called “Hotwatch” orders allow for real-time tracking of individuals in a criminal investigation via credit card companies, rental car agencies, calling cards, and even grocery store loyalty programs. The revelation sheds a little more light on the Justice Department’s increasing power and willingness to surveil Americans with little to no judicial or Congressional oversight.
For credit cards, agents can get real-time information on a person’s purchases by writing their own subpoena, followed up by a order from a judge that the surveillance not be disclosed. Agents can also go the traditional route — going to a judge, proving probable cause and getting a search warrant — which means the target will eventually be notified they were spied on.
The document suggests that the normal practice is to ask for all historical records on an account or individual from a credit card company, since getting stored records is generally legally easy. Then the agent sends a request for “Any and all records and information relating directly or indirectly to any and all ongoing and future transactions or events relating to any and all of the following person(s), entitities, account numbers, addresses and other matters…” That gets them a live feed of transaction data.
DOJ powerpoint presentation on Hotwatch surveillance orders of credit card transactions
It’s not clear what standards an agent would have to follow to get a “Hotwatch” order. The Justice Department told Sogohian the document is the only one it could find relating to “hotwatches” — which means there is either no policy or the department is witholding relevant documents.
The Justice Department did not return a call for comment.
Every year, the Justice Department does have to report to Congress the numbers of criminal and national security wiretaps undertaken, as well as the number of National Security Letters issued. Tens of thousands of NSLs are issued yearly — most with gag orders that forbid ISPs or librarians from ever saying they have ever been served with such a subpoena.
But the Justice Department does not report or make public the number of times it got real time or historic cell phone location information, nor how often it is using these so-called “hotwatch” orders.
Get active or just watch your choice. I am obviously of the former or I wouldn’t be doing this today. We need people to wake up NOW!
I don’t really like facebook and almost never do that myself. I mean a virtual friend is something I just don’t understand.
Now your new friend on facebook could be the FBI or some other representative of a ‘law enforcement’ agency…TSA, NSA or others! They become your friend to spy on ya! If that doesn’t give you pause then nothing will…
Federal Agents Urged to ‘Friend’ People on Social Networks, Memo Reveals
A privacy watchdog has uncovered a government memo that encourages federal agents to befriend people on a variety of social networks, to take advantage of their readiness to share — and to spy on them. In response to a Freedom of Information request, the government released a handful of documents, including a May 2008 memo detailing how social-networking sites are exploited by the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security
As of Thursday morning, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and Digg had not commented on the report, which details the official government program to spy via social networking. Other websites the government is spying on include Twitter, MySpace, Craigslist and Wikipedia, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which filed the FOIA request.
“Narcissistic tendencies in many people fuel a need to have a large group of ‘friends’ link to their pages, and many of these people accept cyber-friends that they don’t even know,” stated one of the documents obtained by the EFF. “This provides an excellent vantage point for FDNS to observe the daily life of beneficiaries and petitioners who are suspected of fraudulent activities,” it said.
According to the EFF, this memo — which specifically details how the government evaluates potential citizen requests — suggests there’s nothing to prevent an exaggerated, harmless or even out-of-date offhand comment in a status update from quickly becoming the subject of a full investigation.
With this revelation, the government joins a growing list of groups using social-networking sites for purposes other than social networking. As these sites have gained popularity, scammers and spammers have become rampant, and hackers are increasingly turning to networks such as Facebook to spread viruses and Trojan Horses.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN
John Cusack Calls for ‘Satanic Death’ of Fox News, GOP Leaders
Woman’s Body Cut in Half to Treat Aggressive Cancer
Colbert Offers Comedy Shtick in Farm Workers Testimony, Fails to Amuse Lawmakers
Aliens Are Monitoring Our Nukes, Worry Ex-Air Force Officers
Gordon Ramsay ‘Kitchen Nightmares’ Chef Commits Suicide
The EFF also uncovered efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to monitor social media during the inauguration of President Obama. According to the documents, the DHS collected a massive amount of data on individuals and organizations explicitly tied to the event.
The DHS notably attempted to ensure that its use of social networks was appropriate while gathering data online. The newly released documents cite the Fair Information Practices Principles, a 2008 policy memo by the Department of Homeland Security’s chief privacy officer that set guidelines for ensuring online privacy during the collection of information.
Another government agency, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, denies using social networks to spy on people.
“USCIS does not permit agency personnel to attempt to ‘friend’ immigration petitioners and their beneficiaries on social networks in an effort to reveal fraud.”
Still, the EFF worries that the DHS may be taking things too far. “While it is laudable to see DHS discussing the Fair Information Practice Principles as part of the design for such a project, the breadth of sites targeted is concerning,” the watchdog group wrote on its website.
Among the networks specifically cited for analysis “were general social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and Flickr, as well as sites that focus specifically on certain demographic groups such as MiGente and BlackPlanet, news sites such as NPR, and political commentary sites DailyKos,” the EFF wrote.
For more information, read the full report at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
FoxNews.com’s SciTech section is on Twitter! Follow us @fxnscitech.
So next time you friend someone, do you really know who they are and what they might want from you?
This is just one more intrusion into our privacy. Now a Federal court judge has ruled that agents of the government can secretly attach GPS device to your car and that information can be used against you in court.
I don’t do anything that would be considered illegal, at least not by todays measure, but I have to protest this ruling. I don’t think that Big Brother has the right to watch you or track you without a warrant. This is going a bit too far don’ you think?
Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars
By Dugald McConnell, CNN
(CNN) — Law enforcement officers may secretly place a GPS device on a person’s car without seeking a warrant from a judge, according to a recent federal appeals court ruling in California.
Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Oregon in 2007 surreptitiously attached a GPS to the silver Jeep owned by Juan Pineda-Moreno, whom they suspected of growing marijuana, according to court papers.
When Pineda-Moreno was arrested and charged, one piece of evidence was the GPS data, including the longitude and latitude of where the Jeep was driven, and how long it stayed. Prosecutors asserted the Jeep had been driven several times to remote rural locations where agents discovered marijuana being grown, court documents show.
Pineda-Moreno eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy to grow marijuana, and is serving a 51-month sentence, according to his lawyer.
But he appealed on the grounds that sneaking onto a person’s driveway and secretly tracking their car violates a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
“They went onto the property several times in the middle of the night without his knowledge and without his permission,” said his lawyer, Harrison Latto.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal twice — in January of this year by a three-judge panel, and then again by the full court earlier this month. The judges who affirmed Pineda-Moreno’s conviction did so without comment.
Latto says the Ninth Circuit decision means law enforcement can place trackers on cars, without seeking a court’s permission, in the nine western states the California-based circuit covers.
The ruling likely won’t be the end of the matter. A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., arrived at a different conclusion in similar case, saying officers who attached a GPS to the car of a suspected drug dealer should have sought a warrant.
Experts say the issue could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of the dissenting judges in Pineda-Moreno’s case, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, said the defendant’s driveway was private and that the decision would allow police to use tactics he called “creepy” and “underhanded.”
“The vast majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel’s ruling,” Kozinksi wrote in his dissent.
“I think it is Orwellian,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which advocates for privacy rights.
“If the courts allow the police to gather up this information without a warrant,” he said, “the police could place a tracking device on any individual’s car — without having to ever justify the reason they did that.”
But supporters of the decision see the GPS trackers as a law enforcement tool that is no more intrusive than other means of surveillance, such as visually following a person, that do not require a court’s approval.
“You left place A, at this time, you went to place B, you took this street — that information can be gleaned in a variety of ways,” said David Rivkin, a former Justice Department attorney. “It can be old surveillance, by tailing you unbeknownst to you; it could be a GPS.”
He says that a person cannot automatically expect privacy just because something is on private property.
“You have to take measures — to build a fence, to put the car in the garage” or post a no-trespassing sign, he said. “If you don’t do that, you’re not going to get the privacy.”
I guess we are all going to have to start looking under the car and checking the engine compartment for bugs…
In news that is not so new…but just a continuation on the history of the past decade or so as our rights just continue to recede bit by little bit. Before you know it they are all gone and then we wonder what happened!
Incrementalism, and the fact that humans don’t tend to remember anything at all, are our worst enemies!
Wake up and act!
High court trims Miranda warning rights bit by bit
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer – Mon Aug 2, 10:46 am ET
WASHINGTON – You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you’re remaining silent.
You have a right to a lawyer — before, during and after questioning, even though the police don’t have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can’t afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?
The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.
The high court has made clear it’s not going to eliminate the requirement that police officers give suspects a Miranda warning, so it is tinkering around the edges, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
“It’s death by a thousand cuts,” Fisher said. “For the past 20-25 years, as the court has turned more conservative on law and order issues, it has been whittling away at Miranda and doing everything it can to ease the admissibility of confessions that police wriggle out of suspects.”
The court placed limits on the so-called Miranda rights three times during the just-ended session. Experts viewed the large number of rulings as a statistical aberration, rather than a full-fledged attempt to get rid of the famous 1966 decision. The original ruling emerged from police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects taken into custody that they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can’t afford one.
The court’s three decisions “indicate a desire to prune back the rules somewhat,” Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims’ rights group. “But I don’t think any overruling of Miranda is in the near future. I think that controversy is pretty much dead.”
The Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects.
This year’s Supreme Court decisions did not mandate changes in the wording of Miranda warnings read by arresting police officers. The most common version is now familiar to most Americans, thanks to television police shows: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?”
However, the court did approve one state version of the Miranda warnings that did not specifically inform suspects that they had a right to have a lawyer present during their police questioning.
The Miranda warning used in parts of Florida told suspects: “You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.”
Lawyers â€” and the Florida Supreme Court â€” said that didn’t make clear that lawyers can be present as the police are doing their questioning. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the 7-2 majority decision, said all the required information was there.
“Nothing in the words used indicated that counsel’s presence would be restricted after the questioning commenced,” Ginsburg said. “Instead, the warning communicated that the right to counsel carried forward to and through the interrogation.”
The next day, the court unanimously limited how long Miranda rights are valid.
The high court said for the first time that a suspect’s request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody. The 9-0 ruling pulled back from an earlier decision that said that police must halt all questioning for all time if a suspect asks for a lawyer.
Police can now attempt to question a suspect who asked for a lawyer — once the person has been released from custody for at least two weeks — without violating the person’s constitutional rights and without having to repeat the Miranda warning.
“In our judgment, 14 days will provide plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody,” said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion.
And finally, the court’s conservatives used their 5-4 advantage to rule that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet if they want to invoke their “right to remain silent” and stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
All the criminal suspect needs to say is he or she is remaining silent, wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. “Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.’ Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.”
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority’s decision “turns Miranda upside down.”
“Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter intuitively requires them to speak,” she said. “At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.”
Police officers will look at these decisions and incorporate them into their training, said James Pasco of the National Fraternal Order of Police. “Officers are expected to adapt to changes required by the Supreme Court,” Pasco said. “This will be no different.”
But Fisher thinks the court’s Miranda decisions will make it easier for police to get confessions out of people who don’t want to confess. “Those decisions open up ways for cops to work around Miranda,” Fisher said.
There are ample sources for great information about just how far our rights have deteriorated!