Tag Archives: are

Business Insider: CISPA “is absolutely ludicrous insanity. The minds behind this in Congress should be forced to resign, immediately — they are acting in the interests of weird lobbying groups and defense contractors.”

Total surveillance of the people is what Congress ultimately wants, so it is no surprise that this is apparently a top legislative priority for them — even at a time when 1 out of every 2 recent college graduates face unemployment. Even at a time when our total public debt is above $15 trillion.

How bad is CISPA in its current form? Here’s some analysis from Techdirt: “Up until this afternoon, the final vote on CISPA was supposed to be tomorrow. Then, abruptly, it was moved up today—and the House voted in favor of its passage with a vote of 248-168. But that’s not even the worst part. [...] Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for ‘cybersecurity’ or ‘national security’ purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.”

Let me put this into perspective for you:

- If the government suspects you are a genuine “bad guy,” like a cyberterrorist, human trafficker, drug kingpin, etc… they can already seize all of this online activity information about you. It’s called obtaining a warrant. CISPA does away with that. It supercedes ALL existing federal privacy laws. As Techdirt’s Leigh Beadon put it, “Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government’s power.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cispa-is-ridiculously

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

America’s 1% never had it so good. Another 10% or so are OK. Most others face harder than ever hard times with no end of misery in sight. Expect no change post-November, no matter who’s elected president or controls Congress. Economist Paul Craig Roberts calls America’s economy “dead.”

What can’t go on forever, won’t. Progressive Radio News Hour guest Bob Chapman warned investors for years. It’s just a matter of time. Houses built on sand collapse. American and European economies are no exception. They’re sick and getting sicker.

Another Greek crisis approaches, Chapman warns, whether “via austerity, demonstrations, military coup,” or perhaps the worst of all three if public rage erupts in violence.

Ireland, Portugal, Belgium, Spain and italy are next. BRIC giants China, India and Brazil are weakening. Pyrrhic victories conceal core meltdown trouble. Are policy makers “dumb enough to believe that austerity, lower wages and higher taxes bring prosperity?” What’s happening in Europe and America looks “surreal.” Recovery’s an illusion.

Another dirty secret is that France, Britain, and other EU countries also show weakness. “These problems are going to go on and on and on,” says Chapman.

Economist David Rosenberg also warns of trouble. Disturbing signs are everywhere. In America alone, consumer spending stagnated. Core capex shipments are down. The trade deficit’s widening. Mortgage applications are falling. Mortgage refinancing activity collapsed. Gas prices are heading for $4 a gallon on their way perhaps to 5.

This is what Occupy Wall Street is fighting for.

Read more: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/31/papering

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

Occupy Wall Street says this is why America is f*cked: US Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), minority leader of Committee on Environment, denies science; says man-made climate change is impossible because it says so in Genesis 8:22, and it’s “outrageous” to believe humans are “able to change what God is doing in the climate”

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) appeared on Voice of Christian Youth America’s radio program Crosstalk with Vic Eliason yesterday to promote his new book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, where he repeated his frequent claim that human influenced climate change is impossible because “God’s still up there.” Inhofe cited Genesis 8:22 to claim that it is “outrageous” and arrogant for people to believe human beings are “able to change what He is doing in the climate.”

Read more: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/james-inhofe

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

Rick Santorum wants to eliminate the seperation of church and state so we would then become more like Iran, which he wants to blow off the face of the planet because they are controlled by religious zealots HA!

Rick Santorum is playing the victim game: “Christians aren’t allowed to be involved in politics according to former President John F. Kenenedy.”

Here is a quote from Rick Santorum:

To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American…Now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.

Wow, I think that’s pretty harsh. I mean – the idea that people of public faith can’t participate in government? That sounds awful discriminatory. John Kennedy must have been a really awful person if he’d said that!

Only – he didn’t. He said:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.(emphasis added)

So Kennedy – who by the way took advice from Catholic leaders (Occupy Wall Street: And by this I mean he took advice from people who were people in religious leadership because he valued their advice, not because he wanted the policy of their religious institution) – simply said something obvious: that no religious group should be special benefits or harm from government because of their religion. Kennedy described the same attitude that, in my opinion. I’d like to think I’d curry: I might not agree with your religious beliefs, but if you’re a basically good person who’s trying to go good things, then I’d want you working with me.

Rick Santorum isn’t just wrong about separation of church and state, his entire argument against what Kennedy said is by warping Kennedy’s words to mean the exact opposite of what he actually said and meant.

Because Rick Santorum and his ilk can’t handle one simple thing: the truth. And it’s a sad statement on his religious beliefs when he rejects the truth so he can gain power. And that is why no one should vote for him.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

Nineteen UC Davis students are suing in Federal Court campus police for unconstitutionally dispersing their “Occupy Wall Street”-style protest with pepper spray and targeting students for arrest.

SACRAMENTO (CN) – Nineteen UC Davis students claim in Federal Court that campus police unconstitutionally dispersed their “occupy”-style protest with pepper spray and targeted students for arrest.

The students set up tents on Nov. 17, 2011 to support the Occupy Wall Street Movement. They say that police in riot gear showed up the next day after Chancellor Linda Katehi ordered the tents removed.
“Students held another assembly, discussed the letter the Chancellor had delivered, and many decided to remove their tents and did so. Others resolved to remain,” the complaint states.

“Shortly before 3:00 p.m., a large number of police in riot gear armed with long batons, pepper-ball guns and other weapons were seen massing in formation adjacent to the quad. The students moved the remaining tents to the circle on the Centennial Walk, a concrete pathway in the middle of the campus quad, and stood around them.

Read more: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/23/44109.htm

Casually pepper spray everything cop: Lt. John Pike

Fox News Megyn Kelly on pepper spray: It's a food product essentially

Occupy Wall Street: The Game

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

So they renamed SOPA/PIPA to make it more catchy and are trying to re-introduce it. Are you f’ing kidding me?

Cybersecurity Act of 2012 Introduced
On February 14, a bipartisan group of senators introduced to the U.S. Senate the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, under which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would assess the risks and vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure systems and develop security performance requirements for the systems and assets designated as covered critical infrastructure. The bill is sponsored by Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT), committee ranking member Susan Collins (R-ME), Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Select Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). As explained in the statement announcing the measure, “[t]he bill envisions a public-private partnership to secure those systems, which, if commandeered or destroyed by a cyber attack, could cause mass deaths, evacuations, disruptions to life-sustaining services, or catastrophic damage to the economy or national security.”

Read more: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/cybersecurity

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

Who are the people that are actually voting for Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney is the anti-christ
I don’t get it. I keep on seeing him do well in these Primaries. Who are the people that approve of him? Who are the people that are voting for him?  I really want to know. I don’t know one person that is a fan of this guy.

What is Mitt Romney for? He’s for bigger government, he’s for less personal freedoms, and hates gay people. He’s a friend of Wall Street, wait what am I saying, he is Wall street. His top contributors are Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America.

He wants more wars. He wants to invade Iran. He wants more bases in other countries. He support NDAA and approves of detaining Americans indefinitely with no trial, judge or jury.

Why is no one mentioning his religious beliefs? I guess some Mormons will vote for their own kind no matter what he’s about (which is sad) but how is he getting so much of the Christian vote? Christianity and Mormonism have NOTHING to do with each other.  They are two extremely different ideologies. As a Mormon he believes he’ll get his own universe and become a god when he dies… that’s what he believes. He’s going to become a god of his own universe, just right after he becomes President of the United States.  President is a good thing for your resume when trying to get the coolest universe I guess.

Who is voting for this guy? I mean, of course there is an agenda out there that wants to keep this broken machine working, working so it wipes out the lower and middle class, but how is he getting so many votes? Do people vote solely based on his demeanor or that he might have said something witty in the media lately? How pathetic.

Mitt Romney doesn’t want to fix any of the problems in the country, he wants to further the agenda of the 1%. This country needs a lot more than a good looking hair cut and that’s all Mitt Romney is, a good looking hair cut.

Here’s some numbers of the top contributors from the top two candidates in this race
Top contributors of Ron Paul and Mitt Romney
Occupy Wall Street doesn’t support Mitt Romney. They don’t support anyone who is continuing the downward spiral of everything that is wrong with America.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

Ron Paul Campaign Celebrates Great Victory at Iowa Caucus

Here are comments from Ron Paul’s 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton:

“The Ron Paul campaign is celebrating a great victory tonight.

“There were three tickets out of Iowa, and Ron Paul earned one of them.

“One of the three tickets, the one belonging to Rick Santorum, is a dead-end due to Santorum’s weak fundraising and lack of national campaign organization.

“This is now a two way race between establishment candidate Mitt Romney and the candidate for real change, Ron Paul.

“Ron Paul has a top notch national organization, tremendous fundraising prowess, and unequaled enthusiasm among his volunteers and supporters.

“Dr. Paul has taken the first step towards earning the delegates it will take to be the GOP nominee and is the only candidate not named Mitt Romney with the ability to do so.

“Ron Paul is now off to New Hampshire, South Carolina, Louisiana, Nevada, Maine, North Dakota, Washington, Colorado, and beyond.

“See you on the campaign trail.”

Read more: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/04/ron-paul

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email

NDAA: U.S. citizens are NOT exempt from indefinite detention


Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groupsare now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.

For that reason, and Occupy Wall Street agrees, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):

Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.”  The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF  ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Email