Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle skewer and parody Barack Obama’s “Road We Traveled” campaign propaganda video.
(BIN) The Obama agents, through the DHS and other assorted colluders, are plotting a major ‘Reichstag’ event to generate racial riots and produce the justification for martial law, delaying the November 2012 elections, possibly indefinitely, a DHS whistleblower informed the Canada Free Press on Tuesday.
The ‘Reichstag Event’ would take the form of a staged assassination attempt against Barack Obama, “carefully choreographed” and manufactured by Obama operatives. It would subsequently be blamed on “white supremacists” and used to enrage the black community to rioting and looting, the DHS source warned.
The Obama administration would then use the violence and chaos they created as justification for the imposition of martial law in major urban cities in America, the creation of DHS checkpoints, restriction of travel, and the indefinite delay of the November 2012 elections.
The Reichstag event refers to a fire started during Hitler’s rise to power. The fire allowed him to grab emergency powers and murder his opposition. Historians have long believed that Hitler started the fire himself, while he blamed it on the Communists.
The anonymous whistleblower elaborated on how the Obama administration is using the Occupy movement, labor unions, and other assorted subversive groups to create massive chaos within the nation.
“Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,” the DHS source shared.
“Obama is using some high profile people as pawns to forment the revolution. I heard several times through very credible sources that [Louis] Farrakhan is on the CIA payroll. Other have been named as well, but I’m not prepared to identify them yet. Farrakhan is to coordinate the Blacks and the Muslims to prepare for riots this summer, using any means necessary.”
The recent revelations appeared to complement warnings given by other government insiders, who alleged that Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson were all agent provocateurs whose mission was to inflame racial tensions and spark open conflict in the streets of America.
According to the DHS source, a global economic collapse is coming, which the Obama administration is well aware of. They wish to build a system of global governance from the ashes of the previous financial system. In order for this mission to be completed, the Obama administration needs more time at the helm of power. Their reasons for concern are justified; as recently as May 8, influential political prognosticator Dick Morris predicted a Romney landslide if the election were held today.
The shocking news also seemed to confirm recent actions taken by the DHS, such as their purchase of 450 million rounds of ammunition and their recent BlackHawk helicopters operation in Chicago, which looked frighteningly similar to a civil unrest exercise, but was described as “routine training”.
The concept of a staged assassination attempt against Barack Obama is not new as well and was first voiced by a knowledgeable White House insider known only as “WHI”.
Ulsterman: So what is it? Pull what off?
Insider: A manufactured threat against the President of the United States. Something easily digested by the media and the American public. Not a real threat – something totally of their own making. They will use it if they need to – got no doubt whatsoever about that. Jarrett has approved the idea…and did so a long time ago. There were whispers of it during the 2008 campaign. McCain was so god-awful it never reached a serious consideration…but the plan was discussed. If needed – they were willing to go that route. It would be the ultimate use of the race card in the history of American politics. And…it would likely work if they got away with it.
Ulsterman: They would go that far? Risk something like that?
Insider: You don’t need to ask that question. Not after what we’ve discussed this past year. Not after what I’ve told you has proven out over and over again. So stop asking the fu—ing question. You need to accept the fact…if you haven’t done so yet – you need to accept the fact these people are playing for keeps. I told you – how many times? How many times have I said it? These are not Democrats. These folks are something else entirely. And they are willing to push the country – all of us, right against the fu—ing wall. Hard. I’m pushing back. Others are too. All of this is part of that effort. A small part, but an important one.
As with the Occupy movement, it appears as if the Obama administration executed a test-run of the plot, with a “shot being fired” at the White House. This would lend credibility when they choreographed the attempt for the masses.
As early as August 2011, WHI also predicted race riots coming in the summer of 2012. The use of the Trayvon Martin death and the subsequent incitements to violence by the media, Obama operatives, and useful idiots, followed by the subsequent threats by the NBPP of a coming “race war” appear to have been merely a sign of what’s to come.
Middle-class American citizens were shocked and appalled at the allegations, with many hoping they were not true. Some said they had harbored similar suspicions for quite some time, due to the many anomalies and inaccuracies emanating from the current operatives inhabiting the White House.
The DHS source claimed that campaign funds were being directly used to fund the incitements to violence and rioting that the Obama administration was seeking to spark.
“Using untracked campaign funds, they are paying people to infiltrate the various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. That began last year, but has increased ten-fold already this year,” stated this source.
“He added that they are using some lower level DHS agents to make the payments under the context of tracking subversives, but they are the unwitting subversives.”
The use of campaign funds, funneled through DHS agents to street-level agitators for the purpose of fomenting violence, would be extremely legally questionable, if not outright illegal, certain legal experts shared.
Intelligence officials said that if the allegations were true, the degree to which extremists had penetrated the upper echelons of the American government, finance, and security structure was unparalleled.
“Let’s just say that we are not taking these accusations lightly,” one official remarked on condition of anonymity. “Certain figures will be placed under a microscope, along with their associates.”
Valerie Jarrett, the shadowy figure always at Obama’s side, has been accused by some of “manipulating” or “controlling’ the President. Just who does she work for? Who does she take orders from?
The possibility that Barack Obama’s operatives, under the direction of Valerie Jarrett, was actively involved in the facilitation of street violence and mob chaos disturbed citizens, with many deeming it unpatriotic, subversive, and possibly seditious.
“Isn’t this why HUAC was created?”, one middle-class citizen angrily questioned. “Congress must re-instate HUAC, hold hearings, and find out if there is any truth to this.”
The intensely close co-ordination of seemingly separate entities confirmed the suspicions of many that communist agents had infiltrated major institutions, organizations, and trade unions, and were working together to sabotage America.
“Their apparatus can be seen as a type of octopus, having many tentacles,” one intelligence source confided on condition of anonymity. “Occupy is one tentacle, the unions are another, the Black Panthers are another, the radical black/Islamic supremacists(Wright, Farrakhan, Van Jones, Sharpton) are another, DHS and its’ umbrella agencies are another, the mainstream press is another,” the source explained. “These tentacles are all working together, seemingly separate, but eventually they are controlled by the same small group of people. They receive their directives and marching orders and mindlessly execute them.”
The intelligence official predicted that in the very near future, all of the seemingly separate entities would be clearly exposed as working together, coordinating their activities together, and driving for the same goal – the destruction of America as a constitutional republic, the destruction of its capitalist system, and the dethroning of the U.S. as a superpower.
(FTTWR) Premier Obama has signed yet another executive order, this one is Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens, that when coupled with his Executive Order Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation and Executive Order Establishing a White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities, opens a direct path to bring United Nations regulations to the grass roots of our body politic.
This latest executive order will allow the soviet socialists in our local communities through their committees to adopt and enact United Nations regulations designed to establish absolute United Nations’ control over our every resource.
The laws of the United States, individual states, counties, cities, and local municipalities, under our Constitution must be legislated. These executive orders bypass the legislative process and essentially nullify our representative form of government under the guise of allowing us to voice our opinion in reference to new regulation rather than enforce our will through elected representation.
The international soviet socialists have been failing to enact international regulatory policies like the Kyoto Protocol through the legislative process because the legislators know that if they enact any more laws to further cripple our economy they will be ousted and replaced at the next election.
Barack Obama AKA Barry Soetoro AKA Barry the Rat is an international socialist and that is where his priorities lie. Obama, in violation of our Constitution, became the first sitting President of the United States to Chair the UN Security Council. He has been given an assignment by the United Nation’s Politburo and that assignment is to bring the United States into the one world socialist order, using every means at his disposal.
If one examines these three executive orders closely, Obama’s agenda becomes clear. The international socialists, known as the United Nations, are worming their way into our political system at every level. Through the local socialist committees that will be assembled, local commissars will be elected.
These commissars, working in coalition with state and local agencies and sovereign nations/Indian Tribes, will attempt to initiate UN dictatorship over our lands, both private and public. And through regulation of the land, they will attempt to establish dictatorial control over the actions of we the people.
This is a sneak attack and it will not be publicized in the mainstream media. You will know these words are true when you see the soviet socialists in your area seizing control over your public and private lands using regulatory powers derived directly from the United Nations Agenda 21.
God bless the Republic, death to the international corporate mafia, we shall prevail.
(THE HILL) Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said President Obama is making a “grave mistake” by cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries that are legal in some states.
“It’s unfair and will hurt innocent people,” Frank told The Hill.
Frank, a longtime supporter of more liberal rules on marijuana, said he is “very disappointed” that Obama isn’t sticking with his campaign promise to let state laws rule on the medical use and distribution of the drug.
“I think it’s bad politics and bad policy,” Frank said. “I’m very disappointed. I think it’s a grave mistake.”
Liberal supporters of the president have decried federal action against marijuana dispensaries in states like California and Colorado, where the use and sale of the drug is permitted in some cases.
Federal officials have raided more than 100 medical marijuana businesses since 2009, when Attorney General Eric Holder wrote that those in compliance with state law would not be a federal priority, according to reports.
The president defended his administration’s actions in an interview with Rolling Stone released this week.
“What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana,” Obama said, adding that he can’t “nullify congressional law.”
Obama sought to clarify the administration’s position this week.
“I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana,” Obama said, “and the reason is, because it’s against federal law.”
Frank said he has told Obama personally that he is “making a mistake on this,” though he doubts medical marijuana will be an issue for the president in the 2012 campaign.
“Not against Mitt Romney,” Frank said of the presumptive GOP nominee.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Obama’s New Drug Control Report Calls for More Workplace Drug Testing, Nationwide Zero Tolerance Laws, Prescription-Only Ephedrine Products
(REASON) The first thing you should know about President Barack Obama’s 2012 Drug Control Strategy report is that it begins and ends with the declaration that the war on drugs is working and will continue apace.
Obama administration policies have “yielded significant results,” according to the President’s introductory letter, which concludes by saying, “While difficult budget decisions must be made at all levels of government, we must ensure continued support for policies and programs that reduce drug use and its enormous costs to American society.”
The report ends with a familiar refrain: “Legalization of drugs will not be considered in this approach. Making drugs more available and more accessible will not reduce drug use and its adverse consequences for public health and safety. We will continue to educate young
people and all Americans about the science on the harmful health effects of marijuana use.”
The pages in between those two statements contain a broad outline for increased drug enforcement, mandatory rehabilitation programs for people who don’t need or want them, and the return of melodramatic Reefer Madness-style agitprop aimed at teenagers.
The worst policy plans contained in the report are outlined after the jump.
- The report implicitly blames the debate over drug reform—one Obama recently told Univision he’s more than willing to hear—for increased use of drugs by teens:
One possible influence on this observed trend in drug use and perception of risk is the decreased exposure of youth to prevention messages and the presence of messages and policies that downplay the consequences of drug use. While the Administration supports ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine, to date, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine has found the marijuana plant itself to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition. The Administration also recognizes that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use.
- The report encourages carte blanche workplace drug testing, on the grounds that it will curtail productivity losses associated with drug use and improve users’ lives. It also describes the Obama administration’s attempt to develop on oral test for workplace drug testing:
In addition to the youth programs mentioned previously, as our young people enter the workplace and others remain engaged in workforce, it is important to ensure a drug-free workplace. The consequences of illicit drug use in America’s workforce include job-related accidents and injuries, absenteeism, health care costs, and lost productivity.
Workplace programs that provide clear policies regarding drug use; offer prevention and education opportunities for employers and supervisors; conduct drug testing to detect and deter use; and support referral and treatment for those who have substance use disorders can play a large role in reducing the demand for drugs throughout our Nation and in helping drug users get into treatment.
These programs provide employees with the opportunity to self-identify and get help. Often, such programs give employees an opportunity to return to the same job, or a similar job in the same industry, thereby creating an incentive to succeed in their recovery and resume a fulfilling career. Consequently, drug-free workplace programs are beneficial for our labor force, employers, families, and communities in general.
In 2011, the Administration committed to funding for the scientific determination for oral fluids testing as a complement to urine testing. HHS published a Federal Register notice requesting public comment on the scientific basis for oral fluid testing . HHS is moving forward to set standards for oral fluid testing that will be published in the future for public comment before they can be finalized in the Mandatory Guidelines for Drug Workplace Testing. These Guidelines will also be available for state and local jurisdictions to apply as appropriate for the prosecution of drugged driving violations, and to encourage the drug testing industry to develop accurate point-of-collection oral fluid testing devices.
- The report contains a request to Congress for $20 million to Revamp and Re-energize the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, which was defunded by Congress last year because it doesn’t work:
Since 2005, there has been a significant public investment in developing the widely-recognized “Above the Influence” (ATI) brand, a campaign that has been found by independent scientific analyses to be effective, relevant to youth, and instrumental to drug prevention efforts in communities across the country. Unfortunately, despite evidence of its effectiveness, Congress appropriated no funding for the Media Campaign in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, and the campaign is now operating on a minimal budget composed of its unobligated balances as the Youth Drug Prevention Media Program.
The report also calls for a nationwide zero tolerance policy for “drugged driving,” which would mean all drivers would be subjected to laws that currently affect only commercial drivers:
The Administration encourages states to pursue enhanced legal responses, such as per se (or “zero tolerance”) laws. Seventeen states already have per se statutes, and additional states should consider adopting these standards. These same standards have been applied to 12 million commercial drivers in the United States for the past two decades. The Administration has developed educational packets for states, providing them with information on the dangers of drugged driving and why per se laws are beneficial.
- The report also says that “Several options are being considered to further reduce methamphetamine production including prescription-only status for pseudoephedrine/ephedrine products.”
The Marijuana Policy Project’s Rob Kampia has called the report “appalling,” adding, “The drug czar is trying to resurrect those stupid TV ads, like the one where a teenager gets his fist stuck in his mouth. The budget intentionally undercounts the federal government’s expenditures on incarcerating drug offenders, who comprise more than half of the federal prison population. And the budget dangerously proposes a massive escalation in using the military to fight drugs domestically. Congress should just ignore this budget and start from scratch. Specifically, Congress should not provide the Obama administration with any money to go after nonviolent marijuana users, growers, or distributors.”
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition also attacked the report.
“President Obama keeps saying he is open to a discussion but he never seems willing to actually have that discussion,” said LEAP Director Neil Franklin said in a press release. “Polls show that three out of four U.S. voters think the ‘war on drugs’ is a failure and a majority now support marijuana legalization. The time for real change is now, but at the Summit of the Americas President Obama announced more than $130 million in aid to fund the continued effort to arrest drug traffickers in Latin America. This prohibition strategy hasn’t worked in the past and it cannot work in the future. Latin American leaders know it, and President Obama must know it. Let’s stop the charade and begin to bring drugs under control through legalization.”
Former ONDCP senior advisor Kevin Sabet, meanwhile, is doing promotion for the report, which he refers to as “Wake Up and Grow Up.” In anticipating criticism of the report, Sabet writes, “The 2012 release is likely to be attacked by those who are waiting for the day the President will make a U-turn and support legalization—but attackers will unfortunately miss the nuance and striking clarity which characterizes this particular document and its connection with the first Strategy.” Fun fact: Sabet wrote the first strategy!
More Reason on Obama’s drug policies, including investments in police violence, the myth that the president’s policies are “compassionate” and Jacob Sullum’s must-read feature on how Obama turned out to be just another drug warrior.
(Antifascist Calling) “cybersecurity,” the new all-purpose bogeyman to increase the secret state’s already-formidable reach, the Obama administration and their congressional allies are crafting legislation that will open new backdoors for even more intrusive government surveillance: portals into our lives that will neverbe shut.
As Antifascist Calling has frequently warned, with the endless “War on Terror” as a backdrop the federal government, most notably the 16 agencies that comprise the so-called “Intelligence Community” (IC), have been constructing vast centralized databases that scoop-up and store all things digital–from financial and medical records to the totality of our electronic communications online–and do so without benefit of a warrant or probable cause.
The shredding of constitutional protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment, granted to the Executive Branch by congressional passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) after the 9/11 attacks, followed shortly thereafter by the oxymoronic USA Patriot Act set the stage for today’s depredations.
Under provisions of multiple bills under consideration by the House and Senate, federal officials will be given broad authority over private networks that will almost certainly hand security officials wide latitude over what is euphemistically called “information-sharing” amongst corporate and government securocrats.
As The Washington Post reported in February, the National Security Agency “has pushed repeatedly over the past year to expand its role in protecting private-sector computer networks from cyberattacks” but has allegedly “been rebuffed by the White House, largely because of privacy concerns.”
“The most contentious issue,” Post reporter Ellen Nakashima wrote, “was a legislative proposal last year that would have required hundreds of companies that provide such critical services as electricity generation to allow their Internet traffic to be continuously scanned using computer threat data provided by the spy agency. The companies would have been expected to turn over evidence of potential cyberattacks to the government.”
Both the White House and Justice Department have argued, according to the Post, that the “proposal would permit unprecedented government monitoring of routine civilian Internet activity.”
National Security Agency chief General Keith Alexander, the dual-hatted commander of NSA and U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM), the Pentagon satrapy that wages offensive cyberwar, was warned to “restrain his public comments after speeches in which he argued that more expansive legal authority was necessary to defend the nation against cyberattacks.”
While we can take White House “objections” with a proverbial grain of salt, they do reveal however that NSA, the largest and most well-funded of the secret state’s intel shops will use their formidable surveillance assets to increase their power while undermining civilian control over the military in cahoots with shadowy security corporations who do their bidding. (Readers are well-advised to peruse The Surveillance Catalog posted byThe Wall Street Journal as part of their excellent What They Know series for insight into the burgeoning Surveillance-Industrial Complex).
As investigative journalist James Bamford pointed out recently in Wired Magazine, “the exponential growth in the amount of intelligence data being produced every day by the eavesdropping sensors of the NSA and other intelligence agencies” is “truly staggering.”
In a follow-up piece for Wired, Bamford informed us that when questioned by Congress, Alexander stonewalled a congressional subcommittee when asked whether NSA “has the capability of monitoring the communications of Americans, he never denies it–he simply says, time and again, that NSA can’t do it ‘in the United States.’ In other words it can monitor those communications from satellites in space, undersea cables, or from one of its partner countries, such as Canada or Britain, all of which it has done in the past.”
And with the eavesdropping agency angling for increased authority to monitor the electronic communications of Americans, the latest front in the secret state’s ongoing war against privacy is “cybersecurity” and “infrastructure protection.”
‘Information Sharing’ or Blanket Surveillance?
Among the four bills currently competing for attention, the most egregious threat to civil liberties is the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA, H.R. 3523).
Introduced by Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), the bill amends the National Security Act of 1947, adding language concerning so-called “cyber threat intelligence and information sharing.”
“Cyber threat intelligence” is described as “information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from: (1) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (2) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.”
In keeping with other “openness” mandates of our Transparency Administration™ the Rogers bill will require the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to establish procedures that permit IC elements to “share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities, and (2) encourage the sharing of such intelligence.”
These measures however, will not protect the public at large from attacks by groups of organized cyber criminals since such intelligence is only “shared with certified entities or a person with an appropriate security clearance,” gatekeepers empowered by the state who ensure that access to information is “consistent with the need to protect U.S. national security, and used in a manner that protects such intelligence from unauthorized disclosure.”
In other words, should “cleared” cyber spooks be directed by their corporate or government masters to install state-approved malware on private networks as we discovered last year as a result of the HBGary hack by Anonymous, it would be a crime punishable by years in a federal gulag if official lawbreaking were disclosed.
The bill authorizes “a cybersecurity provider (a non-governmental entity that provides goods or services intended to be used for cybersecurity purposes),” i.e., an outsourced contractor from any one of thousands of spooky “cybersecurity” firms, to use “cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information in order to protect the rights and property of the protected entity; and share cyber threat information with any other entity designated by the protected entity, including the federal government.”
Furthermore, the legislation aims to regulate “the use and protection of shared information, including prohibiting the use of such information to gain a competitive advantage and, if shared with the federal government, exempts such information from public disclosure.”
And should the public object to the government or private entities trolling through their personal data in the interest of “keeping us safe” well, there’s an app for that too! The bill “prohibits a civil or criminal cause of action against a protected entity, a self-protected entity (an entity that provides goods or services for cybersecurity purposes to itself), or a cybersecurity provider acting in good faith under the above circumstances.”
One no longer need wait until constitutional violations are uncovered, the Rogers bill comes with a get-out-of-jail-free card already in place for state-approved scofflaws.
Additionally, the bill also “preempts any state statute that restricts or otherwise regulates an activity authorized by the Act.” In other words, in states like California where residents have “an inalienable right to privacy” under Article 1, Section 1 of the State Constitution, the Rogers bill would be abolish that right and effectively “legalize” unaccountable snooping by the federal government or other “self-protected,” i.e., private entities deputized to do so by the secret state.
Social Media Spying
How would this play out in the real world? As Government Computer News reported, hyped-up threats of an impending “cyber-armageddon” have spawned a host of new actors constellating America’s Surveillance-Industrial Complex: the social media analyst.
“Companies and government agencies alike are using tools to sweep the Internet–blogs, websites, and social media such as Facebook and Twitter feeds–to find out what people are saying about, well, just about anything.”
Indeed, as researchers Jerry Brito and Tate Watkins pointed out last year in Loving the Cyber Bomb?, “An industrial complex reminiscent of the Cold War’s may be emerging in cybersecurity today.”
Brito and Watkins averred that “the military-industrial complex was born out of exaggerated Soviet threats, a defense industry closely allied with the military and Department of Defense, and politicians striving to bring pork and jobs home to constituents. A similar cyber-industrial complex may be emerging today, and its players call for government involvement that may be superfluous and definitely allows for rent seeking and pork barreling.”
Enter social media analysis and the private firms out to make a buck–at our expense.
“Not surprisingly,” GCN’s Patrick Marshall wrote, “intelligence agencies have already been looking at social media as a source of information. The Homeland Security Department has been analyzing traffic on social networks for at least the past three years.”
While DHS claims it does not routinely monitor Facebook or Twitter, and only responds when it receives a “tip,” such assertions are demonstrably false.
Ginger McCall, the director of the Electronic Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Open Government Program told GCN that the department is “explicitly monitoring for criticism of the government, for reports that reflect adversely on the agency, for public reaction to policy proposals.”
But DHS isn’t the only agency monitoring social media sites such as Facebook and Google+.
As Antifascist Calling reported back in 2009, according to New Scientist the National Security Agency “is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks.”
Not to be outdone, the CIA’s venture capital investment arm,In-Q-Tel, has poured millions of dollars into Visible Technologies, a Bellevue, Washington-based firm specializing in “integrated marketing, social servicing, digital experience management, and consumer intelligence.”
According to In-Q-Tel “Visible Technologies has developed TruCast®, which takes an innovative and holistic approach to social media management. TruCast has been architected as an enterprise-level solution that provides the ability to track, analyze, and respond to social media from a single, Web-based platform.”
Along similar lines, the CIA has heavily invested in Recorded Future, a firm which “extracts time and event information from the web. The company offers users new ways to analyze the past, present, and the predicted future.”
The firm’s defense and intelligence analytics division promises to “help analysts understand trends in big data, and foresee what may happen in the future. Groundbreaking algorithms extract temporal and predictive signals from unstructured text. Recorded Future organizes this information, delineates results over interactive timelines, visualizes past trends, and maps future events–all while providing traceability back to sources. From OSINT to classified data, Recorded Future offers innovative, massively scalable solutions.”
As Government Computer News pointed out, in January the FBI “put out a request for vendors to provide information about available technologies for monitoring and analyzing social media.” Accordingly, the Bureau is seeking the ability to:
• Detect specific, credible threats or monitor adversarial situations.
• Geospatially locate bad actors or groups and analyze their movements, vulnerabilities, limitations, and possible adverse actions.
• Predict likely developments in the situation or future actions taken by bad actors (by conducting trend, pattern, association, and timeline analysis).
• Detect instances of deception in intent or action by bad actors for the explicit purpose of misleading law enforcement.
• Develop domain assessments for the area of interest (more so for routine scenarios and special events).
So much for privacy in our Orwellian New World Order!
Backdoor Official Secrets Act
Social media “harvesting” by private firms hot-wired into the state’s Surveillance-Industrial Complex will be protected from challenges under provisions of CISPA.
As the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) pointed out, “a company that protects itself or other companies against ‘cybersecurity threats’ can ‘use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property’ of the company under threat. But because ‘us[ing] cybersecurity systems’ is incredibly vague, it could be interpreted to mean monitoring email, filtering content, or even blocking access to sites. A company acting on a ‘cybersecurity threat’ would be able to bypass all existing laws, including laws prohibiting telcos from routinely monitoring communications, so long as it acted in ‘good faith’.”
And as EFF’s Rainey Reitman and Lee Tien aver, the “broad language” concerning what constitutes a cybersecurity “threat,” is an invitation for the secret state and their private “partners” to include “theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.”
“Yes,” Reitman and Tien wrote, “intellectual property. It’s a little piece of SOPA wrapped up in a bill that’s supposedly designed to facilitate detection of and defense against cybersecurity threats. The language is so vague that an ISP could use it to monitor communications of subscribers for potential infringement of intellectual property. An ISP could even interpret this bill as allowing them to block accounts believed to be infringing, block access to websites like The Pirate Bay believed to carry infringing content, or take other measures provided they claimed it was motivated by cybersecurity concerns.”
More troubling, “the government and Internet companies could use this language to block sites like WikiLeaks and NewYorkTimes.com, both of which have published classified information.”
Should CISPA pass muster it could serve as the basis for establishing an American “Official Secrets Act.” In the United Kingdom, the Act has been used against whistleblowers to prohibit disclosure of government crimes. But it does more than that. The state can also issue restrictive “D-Notices” that “advise” editors not to publish material on subjects deemed sensitive to the “national security.”
EFF warns that “online publishers like WikiLeaks are currently afforded protection under the First Amendment; receiving and publishing classified documents from a whistleblower is a common journalistic practice. While there’s uncertainty about whether the Espionage Act could be brought to bear against WikiLeaks, it is difficult to imagine a situation where the Espionage Act would apply to WikiLeaks without equally applying to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and in fact everyone who reads about the cablegate releases.”
And with the Obama regime’s crusade to prosecute and punish whistleblowers, as the recent indictment of former CIA officerJohn Kiriakou for alleged violations of the Espionage Act and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for disclosing information on the CIA’s torture programs, we have yet another sterling example of administration “transparency”! While Kiriakou faces 30 years in prison, the former head of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., who was responsible for the destruction of 92 torture videotapes held by the Agency, was not charged by the government and was given a free pass by the Justice Department.
As the World Socialist Web Site points out: “More fundamentally, the prosecution of Kiriakou is part of a policy of state secrecy and repression that pervades the US government under Obama, who came into office promising ‘the most transparent administration in history.’”
Critic Bill Van Auken observed that Kiriakou’s prosecution “marks the sixth government whistleblower to be charged by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act, twice as many such prosecutions as have been brought by all preceding administrations combined. Prominent among them is Private Bradley Manning, who is alleged to have leaked documents exposing US war crimes to WikiLeaks. He has been held under conditions tantamount to torture and faces a possible death penalty.”
“In all of these cases,” the World Socialist Web Site noted, “the World War I-era Espionage Act is being used to punish not spying on behalf of a foreign government, but exposing the US government’s own crimes to the American people. The utter lawlessness of US foreign policy goes hand in hand with the collapse of democracy at home.”
The current crop of “cybersecurity” bills are sure to hasten that collapse.
Under Rogers’ legislation, “the government would have new, powerful tools to go after WikiLeaks,” or anyone else who challenges the lies of the U.S. government by publishing classified information that contradicts the dominant narrative.
“By claiming that WikiLeaks constituted ‘cyber threat intelligence’ (aka ‘theft or misappropriation of private or government information’),” EFF avers, “the government may be empowering itself and other companies to monitor and block the site. This means that the previous tactics used to silence WikiLeaks–including a financial blockade and shutting down their accounts with online service providers–could be supplemented by very direct means. The government could proclaim that WikiLeaks constitutes a cybersecurity threat and have new, broad powers to filter and block communication with the journalistic website.”
Since January, Obama has signed legislation (NDAA) granting the Executive Branch authority to condemn alleged “enemy combatants,” including U.S. citizens detained in America, indefinite military detention without charges or trials, and with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder asserting that the president has the “right” to assassinate American citizens anywhere on earth, it clear to anyone who hasn’t drunk the Hope and Change™ Kool-Aid, that the architecture of an American police state is now in place.
(INFOWARS) A retired postal worker who delivered mail to Tom and Mary Ayers in a Chicago suburb in the late 1980s and early 1990s and claims to have met Obama in front of the Ayers home. Corsi is the author of numerous books, including The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada and Where’s the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President.
(FOXNEWS) The Obama Justice Department has roughly 24 hours to explain to a federal appeals court whether the administration believes judges have the power to overturn federal laws — in the latest escalation between the two branches of government over the federal health care overhaul.
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday at noon whether the administration believes judges have that authority. The challenge came after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care law and warned that such an act would be “unprecedented.”
One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a “challenge” to judicial authority — referring directly to Obama’s latest comments about the Supreme Court case.
The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.
“Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?” Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.
Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang answered “yes” to that question.
A source inside the courtroom, speaking to Fox News afterward, described the questioning by Smith as pointed.
Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was “referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect … that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress.”
“That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority,” Smith said. “And that’s not a small matter.”
Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of “no less than three pages, single spaced” by noon on Thursday.
All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.
The Justice Department had no comment when asked about the exchange.
“Of course we believe that the Supreme Court has, and the courts have, as their duty and responsibility the ability of striking down laws as unconstitutional,” Carney said Tuesday.
However, he said the president was specifically referring to “the precedent under the Commerce Clause” regarding a legislature’s ability to address “challenges to our national economy.”
The most significant Supreme Court case hinges on the question of whether the individual mandate to buy health insurance violates the Commerce Clause. The administration argues it does not.
Though Carney said the president did not misspeak when he discussed the case on Monday, Obama was not quite so specific.
“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said on Monday. “And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
Obama reiterated his stance on Tuesday, saying the court has traditionally shown “deference” to Congress and that “the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.”
Carney said that Obama was expressing the point that on national economic challenges, “there should be due deference paid as a matter of precedent to our democratically elected officials.”
(FEDERALJACK) Leon Panetta Says Obama Admin Will Seek “International Permission” To Attack Syria, not Congressional permission. And they will “inform” Congress what their plans are.