takeliberty

Archive for November, 2013|Monthly archive page

SPYING STOPPED ON BANKERS; WILL CONTINUE ON EVERYONE ELSE

In Uncategorized on November 17, 2013 at 8:50 pm

It really couldn’t be more clear.  We, the People, have lost all control.  Ours is not, and has not been for a very long time, a “government of the people”, although we still claim, and many still believe, it is.

The revelations of the past six months notwithstanding; *they* were already conditioning us, in the Pavlovian sense, for at least several years, to accept that we were, and are, under constant surveillance.  Two examples, “brought to you by” *CBS* and *ABC* (media divisions of “multinational” corporations; see http://goldfingerchronicles.blogspot.com/2013/10/miss-direction-paging-miss-direction.html), are, respectively, “Person of Interest” and “Scandal”.  Each now in its respective third season, had informed us that we are all being watched.  Of course, “Person of Interest” did so from its very first episode, while “Scandal” didn’t spill the beans until its second season.  In a very real “sense”, Snowden’s revelations weren’t “news”.

This is not to say that “the networks of NBC/Universal” (or any other “network” media) are any different.  USA, for example, advertises Law and Order: Special Victims Unit reruns as appealing to those who “like a little flexibility in their Bill of Rights”.  Because that’s what it’s there for, right?

So, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that within 2 weeks of learning “Obama orders NSA to stop spying on IMF, WorldBank headquarters”, we are told that promises of “transparency” regarding NSA’s criminal activities won’t be kept.

Any cursory examination of the origins of the NSA (and the CIA; DoD, etc.) reveals that it (they) were started by what we’ve been trained to call “elites”; “a scattershot collection of Wall Street brokers, Ivy League eggheads, soldiers of fortune, ad men, news men, stunt men, second-story men, and con men”, Legacy of Ashes, Tim Weiner, DOUBLEDAY, p.4.  It was *they*, that created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, having intended “Council” also created by the 1947 National Security Act to be ” a mechanism to handle domestic as well as foreign concerns”, Running the World; The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power, David Rothkopf, PUBLIC AFFAIRS (a member of the Perseus Books Group), p. 435.  

That’s us.  “[D]omestic…concerns”.  We’ve been in their crosshairs for longer than I’ve been alive (and likely my preceding generation).

Advertisements

Evil Is As Evil Does

In Uncategorized on November 12, 2013 at 10:39 pm

“Don’t Be Evil”.

That’s the “unofficial” motto of what I refer to as “NSA’s Go ogle”.  As new revelations suggest, perhaps that motto should be “Don’t Be Evil”.  Or, perhaps, just abandon the nugatory word altogether.

Remember, this is the organization that tracks ALL of your websearches (“for a better user experience”, of course), stole wifi data globally (and “stole” is the only proper word for what their “streetmaps” cars did), and sends ads to its email users as if those targeted ads were genuine emails, ALL OF WHICH, because it became (their, not your) “business records”, is now bereft of 4th Amendment protection.  Not to mention the likely sale of (their, not your) information.

It’s not like people haven’t known this. And many have been “creeped out” by the knowledge.  For example, Do a non-Go ogle websearch for “Don’t Be Evil” (I use – and suggest – Startpage).  You’ll find results like “What Is ‘Evil’ to Go oqle? – Ian BOQost- The Atlantic”; “Go oqle burns promise of ‘no big banner ads’ Don’t Be Evil next”; and “Go ogle From “Don’t Be Evil” to Evil Empire? I Mother Jones” (and yes, I added the midword space because I don’t want this post to show up in a redundant search for you-know-who).

Couldn’t get much more “evil” than that, right?

Wrong.

I found this little tidbit in an email (I “subscribe” to a lot of what others might call “junk” or “spam”, simply because I find, amongst all the chaff, kernels of wheat like thishttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/google_patent_tattoo_a_mobe_microphone_on_your_throat/ .

Yes, that’s right. Having bought a company which was, for all practical purposes, created to be a “defense” contractor, i.e., a black hole that attracts (only) “money” sucked out of productive hands; having “proctologized” (an apt, if uncomfortable, analogy – pun intended) “consumers” (remember, we are “consumers”, sometimes “resources”, but never, ever, ever, people) and having stolen private data, as discussed above, Go ogle “has filed an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for a “system and method” to tattoo a mobile-device microphone with lie-detector circuitry onto your throat.” (quoted directly from The Register, which quotes the patent application).

Apparently grasping that their “flexible substrate” (not really a tattoo) might not ultimately be workable, Go ogle suggests that a final form might be “a collar or band that would be worn around the throat [of] a user.”  (again, quoted directly from The Register)

And, as The Register’s article points out, “nowhere in the 4,000-plus word filing does the word “remove” appear.”

Shock collar, anyone?

Nietsche the Prophet

In Uncategorized on November 11, 2013 at 6:56 pm

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. ”

  – Friedrich Nietzsche

The headline suggested cause for hope, but it was, effectively, a lie. 

“For the First Time Ever, a Prosecutor Will Go to Jail for Wrongfully Convicting an Innocent Man”

The article, attributed to , the Director of the Ohio Innocence Project, and a “Carmichael Professor of Law” at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, pointed out that a Texas judge – like most judges, a former prosecutor – would “spend 10 days in jail”, as well as relinquishing his law “license“,  and doing “community service”.

Thus, as published at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-godsey/for-the-first-time-ever-a_b_4221000.html?utm_hp_ref=tw, the hopeful headline contains 2 lies; the first, a lie of degree; the second (which also serves to explain the first) is the reason.

You see, Ken Anderson, the miscreant subject of Godsey’s HuffPo article, wasn’t convicted for his crime: causing an innocent man to go to prison for 25 years by withholding evidence that may have cleared his victim, “including statements from the crime’s only eyewitness” that his target wasn’t the killer. 

A companion HuffPo article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/ken-anderson_n_4242431.html, discloses that Ken Anderson had been looking at “up to 10 years in prison if convicted of tampering with evidence”, and cut a sweet plea deal to “do” 1 day for each of the 365 days he “could” be doing; 1 day for each 915 days his victim was wrongfully imprisoned.  And you can bet that he’ll “do his time” – his ten whole days – away from convicts who have done much less, and in relative comfort. 

Ken Anderson wasn’t even required to admit he stole a man’s most productive years. In fact, according to the companion article, he “apologized to [his victimfor what he called failures in the system but has said he believes there was no misconduct.”

And that’s most outrageous thing of it all.  He knew he had the evidence.  He knew he was required to share the evidenceAnd he deliberately withheld the evidence to send an innocent man to prison.

The saddest thing of it is that a law professor believes that Ken Anderson “was actually punished in a meaningful way”.

There is only one “meaningful” punishment for something like this:  Ken Anderson should serve a sentence equal to his victim’s.

Do You Know What You’re Saying?

In Uncategorized on November 7, 2013 at 4:03 am

The “seed” of this post was planted when I came across the headline: “Americans Disillusioned With Government May Be The New Face Of Domestic Terrorism”. (I’ve already posted about this article, and another involving misused, misconstrued – and misappropriated – words, on f*c*book.)  The subtitle, “Does the string of mass killings reflect the government’s all-time low approval ratings?”, was no less alarming.  How, exactly, do “mass killings” equate to “terrorism”?  I don’t recall Tend Bundy, BTK, or Daumer, or any of a number of serial killers, being characterized as “terrorists”.

What, then, is meant by the word “terrorism”?  (Note: “terrorist” is defined as one who engages in terrorism; not helpful.)

If you websearch the term, you’ll find that Wikipedia says “There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term “‘terrorism’”.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism. Unsurprisingly, Wikipedia hyperlinks the term to a generally-accepted (and profoundly more elaborate) definition:

“Terrorism is the systematic use of violence (terror) as a means of coercion for political purposes. In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

The “legal” definition (remember, Wikipedia says “There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term “‘terrorism’”) used by the United States Government is in relative agreement with Wikipedia’s generally-accepted (and profoundly more elaborate) definition.  It’s on FBI’s website:

“There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).  http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005.”

In order to “qualify”, if you will, as “terrorism”, an act must be, at least, “unlawful use of force and violence…in furtherance of political or social objectives”, 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85, and, as more generally accepted, “violent acts…intended to create fear (terror)… for a religious, political, or ideological goal…[that] deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).”

Which brings us back to my initial question:  How, exactly, do “mass killings” equate to “terrorism”?

As clearly intended, based upon the url http://www.mintpressnews.com/lax-shooting-prompts-questions/171956/, the “conversation” was supposed to relate to the shooting of three uniformed government employees (does that make them “civilians”?).  The article goes on to discuss Miriam Carey, a reportedly “delusional” woman of color (curiously, this is never mentioned) shot to death in the District of Columbia for ramming White House entrance barricades and police cars; and Aaron Alexis, a Navy contractor (also a term that has been tortured) of color (also, curiously, never mentioned) who was allowed (the facts indicate that “allowed” is the only proper term) to “shoot up” the Washington Navy Yard.

These, then, these three events, criminal tragedies that they are, form the entire foundation for the headline, “Americans Disillusioned With Government May Be The New Face Of Domestic Terrorism”.

But “terrorism” had nothing to do with these crimes.  I know that, WE know that, because we have the one thing that neither the columnist, nor, apparently, his editor, had; knowledge that neither Paul Ciancia (LAX),  Miriam Carey (D.C.), nor Aaron Alexis (D.C.) committed these “violent acts…[with the] inten[t] to create fear (terror)…for a religious, political, or ideological goal…[by] deliberately target[ing] [although they apparently disregarded the safety of] non-combatants (civilians)” (paraphrasing Wikipedia’s definition).  

Not one of them committed their “[] unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).”

Unless it has gone unreported (and one would be wont to believe so given the obvious political capital to be derived), none of the three sought any “change”, or made any demands.  That, alone, strips the crimes of any connection to “terrorism”; not one of them acted, or used their “weapon of choice” (one was a car!) “for a religious, political, or ideological goal”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism, or “in furtherance of political or social objectives” as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).” http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005.

In fact, the article appears to clearly establish that Ciancia, Carey, and Alexis were the ones who were terrorized.

Ciancia allegedly had “an explanatory note [“on his person”] ranting against the New World Order…” http://www.mintpressnews.com/lax-shooting-prompts-questions/171956/, “…as well as anti-government and anti-TSA claims.”   The article relates “According to multiple reports [from New Jersey Newsday, and who would know better what happened in La than a New Jersey source?)  the note indicated that Ciancia wanted to ‘kill TSA’ and ‘pigs.’”

Carey and Alexis were, respectively, convinced that “the president…had her home under electronic surveillance…” (maybe she didn’t vote for him?), and “he was being controlled or influenced by extremely low frequency electromagnetic waves” (maybe he did?).

If “terrorism” – as defined – is afoot, what “religious, political, or ideological goal”; what political or social objectives”, were sought?  And by whom?

 

The other misused, misconstrued – and misappropriated – word that gave me pause today (and it has since October, 2001), is “insurgent”.  Posted on f*c*book by Ron Paul  (and thank you, sir, for YOUR service!), http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/givevetsavoice/, was an excerpt from a Marine who did his time in Iraq:

“I was beginning to question the logic behind what we were doing there in the first place shortly after arriving in Iraq. What I realized is that if some occupying power greater than the US arrived on our shores and did the same thing we were doing to Iraq, that I would be the first to become an insurgent, just as the Iraqis had done in response to our presence.”

“Insurgent”.  The term has, alternately, confused and irritated me.  Just as a “terrorist” is one who engages in terrorism, “insurgent” can only mean “one who participates in an insurge”.

As I commented on Ron Paul’s post, “If we don’t comprehend words, and their true meaning, all verbal and written communication is gibberish. “Insurge” is not even a word in English. But it is in French, and has an interesting meaning: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/…/insurg%C3%A9

Actually, the French word is “insurgée”, and its English translations are “adjective: insurgent, rebel”; and “masculine noun, feminine noun” insurgent, rebel”. (the colons are added)

Perhaps now you grasp why I found the meaning interesting.  An “insurgent” is a “rebel”, i.e.,

“opposing or taking arms against a government or ruler”, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebel;

“a person who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against the government or ruler of his or her country”, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rebel;.

 Can anyone remind me which Iraqis were “opposing or taking arms against…”, “refus[ing] allegiance to, resist[ing], or ris[ing] in arms against…”, or “refus[ing] allegiance to and oppos[ing] by force…” – after March, 2003 – the elected President of Iraq?

Because those were the only people who could have been, by definition, “insurgents”.