ISIS Vows to Attack ‘Draw the Prophet’ Contest in Phoenix
Contest planned for this weekend
TiLTNews Network: Earth Watch - Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it ~ Dr. Ron Paul
Friday, May 29, 2015
ISIS Vows to Attack ‘Draw the Prophet’ Contest in Phoenix
Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
A ‘Draw Muhammad’ contest will be held in Phoenix, Ariz., this weekend, which ISIS vows to attack.
Julian Assange On TPP: Only 5 Of 29 Sections Are About "Traditional Trade," Covers "Essentially Every Aspect Of A Modern Economy"
Julian Assange On TPP: Only 5 Of 29 Sections Are About "Traditional" Trade,
"Essentially Every Aspect Of A Modern Economy" | Video |
RealClearPolitics
"Essentially Every Aspect Of A Modern Economy" | Video |
RealClearPolitics
Julian Assange On TPP: Only 5 Of 29 Sections Are About "Traditional Trade," Covers "Essentially Every Aspect Of A Modern Economy"
Speaking from his 'prison' in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange explains the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty, which would link his home country of Australia with the U.S. economically. "It is mostly not about trade," Assange says. "Only 5 of the 29 Chapters are about traditional trade."
JULIAN ASSANGE, WIKILEAKS: First of
all, it is the largest ever international economic treaty that has ever
been negotiated, very considerably larger than NAFTA. It is mostly not
about trade, only 5 of the 29 Chapters are about traditional trade.
The others are about regulating the internet, and what information internet service providers have to collect, they have to hand it over to companies under certain circumstances, the regulation of labor
conditions, regulating the way you can favor local industry, regulating the hospital, health care system, privatization of hospitals, so essentially every aspect of a modern economy, even banking services are in the TPP.
The others are about regulating the internet, and what information internet service providers have to collect, they have to hand it over to companies under certain circumstances, the regulation of labor
conditions, regulating the way you can favor local industry, regulating the hospital, health care system, privatization of hospitals, so essentially every aspect of a modern economy, even banking services are in the TPP.
So that is erecting and embedding new
ultramodern neoliberal structure over U.S. law and the laws of other
countries. And putting it in treaty form.
By putting it in a treaty form, there are 14 countries involved, that means it is very hard to overturn, so if there is a desire, a democratic desire to do it on a different path. For example, to introduce more public transport. Then you can't easily change the TPP treaty, because you have to go back to the other nations involved.
Now looking at that example, what if the government or a state government decides it wants to build a hospital somewhere, and there is a private hospital has been erected nearby.
Well the TPP gives the constructor of the private hospital the right to sue the government over the expect loss, the loss in expected future profits. This is an expected future loss, this is not an actual loss that has been sustained, this is a claim about the future.
We know from similar instruments where governments can be sued over free trade treaties, that that is used to construct a chilling effect on environmental and health regulation laws. For example, Togo, Australia, Uruguay are all being sued by tobacco company Phillip Morris to prevent them from introducing health warnings on cigarette packaging...
It is not even an even playing field, lets say you were going to let companies, make it easier for companies to sue governments, maybe that is right, maybe the government is too powerful and companies should have the right to sue them in certain circumstances.
But it is only multinationals that get this right. U.S. companies that operate in the U.S. in relation to investments that happen in the U.S. will not have this right.
Julian Assange's Wikileaks website is the only place where you can read one of the 29 secret chapters of this treaty. Current TPP negotiation member states are the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei. The TPP is the largest economic treaty in history, including countries that represent more than 40 per cent of the world´s GDP.
Related Videos:
Richard Trumka: TPP "Designed To Be Infinitely Expandable," May Be "The Last Trade Agreement"
Obama Takes Shot At MSNBC Over Trade Deal: Opposition "Full Of Misinformation"
MSNBC's Ed Schultz Blows Up On Obama Over Trade Deal: "If You Want To Go Face To Face With Me, President Obama, I'm Ready"
Earnest: Failure To Fast-Track Trade Deal A "Procedural Snafu"
Warren: Trade Deal "Secret Because If Details Were Made Public Now, The Public Would Oppose It"
Noam Chomsky: Every Word In The Phrase "Free Trade Agreement" Is False
Kim Dotcom: Julian Assange Will Be "Hillary's Worst Nightmare" In 2016
Related Topics: Trade Promotion Authority, Free Trade, Trade, Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership, Wikileaks, Julian Assange
By putting it in a treaty form, there are 14 countries involved, that means it is very hard to overturn, so if there is a desire, a democratic desire to do it on a different path. For example, to introduce more public transport. Then you can't easily change the TPP treaty, because you have to go back to the other nations involved.
Now looking at that example, what if the government or a state government decides it wants to build a hospital somewhere, and there is a private hospital has been erected nearby.
Well the TPP gives the constructor of the private hospital the right to sue the government over the expect loss, the loss in expected future profits. This is an expected future loss, this is not an actual loss that has been sustained, this is a claim about the future.
We know from similar instruments where governments can be sued over free trade treaties, that that is used to construct a chilling effect on environmental and health regulation laws. For example, Togo, Australia, Uruguay are all being sued by tobacco company Phillip Morris to prevent them from introducing health warnings on cigarette packaging...
It is not even an even playing field, lets say you were going to let companies, make it easier for companies to sue governments, maybe that is right, maybe the government is too powerful and companies should have the right to sue them in certain circumstances.
But it is only multinationals that get this right. U.S. companies that operate in the U.S. in relation to investments that happen in the U.S. will not have this right.
Julian Assange's Wikileaks website is the only place where you can read one of the 29 secret chapters of this treaty. Current TPP negotiation member states are the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei. The TPP is the largest economic treaty in history, including countries that represent more than 40 per cent of the world´s GDP.
Related Videos:
Richard Trumka: TPP "Designed To Be Infinitely Expandable," May Be "The Last Trade Agreement"
Obama Takes Shot At MSNBC Over Trade Deal: Opposition "Full Of Misinformation"
MSNBC's Ed Schultz Blows Up On Obama Over Trade Deal: "If You Want To Go Face To Face With Me, President Obama, I'm Ready"
Earnest: Failure To Fast-Track Trade Deal A "Procedural Snafu"
Warren: Trade Deal "Secret Because If Details Were Made Public Now, The Public Would Oppose It"
Noam Chomsky: Every Word In The Phrase "Free Trade Agreement" Is False
Kim Dotcom: Julian Assange Will Be "Hillary's Worst Nightmare" In 2016
Related Topics: Trade Promotion Authority, Free Trade, Trade, Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership, Wikileaks, Julian Assange
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Why the Elite Wants to Create More Social Disorder
Authoritarianism needs to be re-branded in the minds of the public
Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet.com
May 28, 2015
96 per cent of Americans believe that the U.S. will witness more Baltimore-style riots this summer.
The elite know these riots are coming, because to a large extent, their policies have created the environment for them.
Wealth inequality, which is proven to cause social unrest, is at its worst since before World War II.
But wealth inequality isn’t caused by a failure of capitalism, it’s caused by catastrophic Keynesian central bank policies that have instituted endless money printing and worldwide inflation.
But by blaming capitalism, leftists who warn about wealth inequality are playing right into the elite’s hands – because their solution is going to be more power in the hands of the state and central banks, the very same policies which caused the problem in the first place.
Wealth inequality is being exacerbated by a drop in real wages. As real wages fall, it will become increasingly harder to pacify younger generations via consumer culture. With religion, family and social mobility all declining in influence, lifestyles built around the acquisition of products will become harder to maintain as the economic environment worsens – prompting further disenfranchisement amongst young people.
This effect is amplified by the global political awakening acknowledged by elitists like Zbigniew Brzezinski, a political renaissance that has been driven by the increasingly widespread availability of information thanks to the Internet.
This awakening has in turn led to more distrust in government and leadership in the United States and other western countries – another precondition for civil unrest.
The toxic cocktail of increased corruption, social alienation, and lack of community (all contributory factors to the 2011 London riots), will heighten the risk of domestic disorder.
In an effort to derail this organic global political awakening, elitists like George Soros, who predicted class war and riots over three years ago, are bankrolling what on the surface appear to be grass roots uprisings in an effort to steer and divert their impact.
This is why #BlackLivesMatter – funded to the tune of $33 million dollars by Soros – has increasingly become about toxic racial division instead of addressing the true causes of police brutality.
An uprising that could have been centered on reducing state power has instead been hijacked from below by criminal opportunists and from above by the elite itself.
Now that this uprising has been subverted, the elite will use the fallout – violent riots and looting in major cities across America – to enlist support from average Americans for an increase in state power and, in the aftermath of the next financial collapse, economic totalitarianism, government controlled bank accounts, and a move towards banning cash altogether.
It’s the age old problem-reaction-solution method at play once again. They’re getting ready to re-brand authoritarianism as a populist policy and the majority of Americans will lap it up once they see more cities burning.
As Brandon Smith explains, “The international banking cult has NO INTEREST whatsoever in saving the current system, despite the assumptions of many market analysts. Their only goal has been to stave off the visible effects of the crisis until a new system is ready (psychologically justified in the public consciousness) to be put into place.”
This new system will be characterized by more authoritarianism, a bigger police state and less economic freedom.
We know that the elite are expecting this crisis because they’ve made preparations to deal with the fallout.
The New York Times reported that the wealthy are installing expensive bulletproof safe rooms in their luxury apartments and homes to protect against increased criminality, looting, and physical threats to their safety.
Economist Robert Johnson also revealed that elitists at the Davos Economic Forum told him they were buying remote hideaways in places like New Zealand to escape potential Ferguson-style uprisings on a bigger scale.
When asked, realtors selling this property said their wealthy clients were making these purchases because they were “paranoid” about “what is happening around them.”
Urban unrest experts like Dr. Max Herman say that the United States is on the cusp of a new cycle of civil unrest. Economist Martin Armstrong predicts that “a serious political uprising will erupt by 2016″ in the United States.
I wouldn’t go that far, but it’s virtually guaranteed that we will see more widespread domestic disorder over the next two years if we continue to follow these disastrous Keynesian economic policies and allow populist social justice movements to be hijacked and subverted by the powers that be.
What’s most striking about this is that the vast majority of people simply do not care and are willing to sit idly by – distracted by the bread and circuses even as Rome collapses around them.
The elite are busy making preparations for the outcome of this next phase of the crisis….are you?
If you think this message is important, please share the video below.
https://youtu.be/6z2Sah4PlmY
Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.
This article was posted: Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 11:48 am
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Another lie from the Surveillance State Defenders - Campaign for Liberty
Another lie from the Surveillance State Defenders - Campaign for Liberty.
NATIONAL BLOG
Another lie from the Surveillance State Defenders
POSTED BY Norm Singleton May 27, 2015
Defenders of the Sec. 215 "bulk data" collection program claim that there is "not a single documented case where the program has been used to violate an individual's rights or otherwise been abused." March Wheeler, at Empty Wheel, examines this claim and finds out that there is not one documents of abuse of the Section 215 program...there are many.
Read the whole post here, with excerpts below.
Campaign for Liberty is continuing our efforts to roll-back the Surveillance State. Please support our efforts by signing your I OBJECT Citizen's Petition to Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and please contribute to our Stop the Surveillance State Round Two Money Bomb.
Statutory abuses
1) As DOJ’s IG confirmed yesterday, for most of the life of the phone dragnet (September 2006 through November 2013), the FBI flouted a mandate imposed by Congress in 2006 to adopt Section 215-specific minimization procedures that would give Americans additional protections under the provision (note–this affects all Section 215 programs, not just the phone dragnet). While, after a few years, FISC started imposing its own minimization procedures and reporting requirements (and rejected proposed minimization procedures in 2010), it nevertheless kept approving Section 215 orders.
In other words, in addition to being illegal (per the 2nd Circuit), the program also violated this part of the law for 7 years.
2) Along with all the violations of minimization procedures imposed by FISC discovered in 2009, the NSA admitted that it had been tracking roughly 3,000 presumed US persons against data collected under Section 215 without first certifying that they weren’t targeted on the basis of First Amendment protected activities, as required by the statute.
Between 24 May 2006 and 2 February 2009, NSA Homeland Mission Coordinators (HMCs) or their predecessors concluded that approximately 3,000 domestic telephone identifiers reported to Intelligence Community agencies satisfied the RAS standard and could be used as seed identifiers. However, at the time these domestic telephone identifiers were designated as RAS-approved, NSA’s OGC had not reviewed and approved their use as “seeds” as required by the Court’s Orders. NSA remedied this compliance incident by re-designating all such telephone identifiers as non RAS-approved for use as seed identifiers in early February 2009. NSA verified that although some of the 3,000 domestic identifiers generated alerts as a result of the Telephony Activity Detection Process discussed above, none of those alerts resulted in reports to Intelligence Community agencies.
NSA did not fix this problem by reviewing the basis for their targeting; instead, it simply moved these US person identifiers back onto the EO 12333 only list.
While we don’t have the background explanation, in the last year, FISC reiterated that the government must give First Amendment review before targeting people under Emergency Provisions. If so, that would reflect the second time where close FISC review led the government to admit it wasn’t doing proper First Amendment reviews, which may reflect a more systematic problem. That would not be surprising, since the government has already been chipping away at that First Amendment review via specific orders.
Minimization procedure abuses
1) The best known abuses of minimization procedures imposed by the FISC were disclosed to the FISC in 2009. The main item disclosed involved the fact that NSA had been abusing the term “archive” to create a pre-archive search against identifiers not approved for search. While NSA claimed this problem arose because no one person knew what the requirements were, in point of fact, NSA’s Inspector General warned that this alert function should be disclosed to FISC, and it was a function from the Stellar Wind program that NSA simply did not turn off when FISC set new requirements when it rubber-stamped the program.
But there were a slew of other violations of FISC-imposed minimization procedures disclosed at that time, almost all arising because NSA treated 215 data just like it treats EO 12333, in spite of FISC’s clear requirements that such data be treated with additional protections. That includes making query results available to CIA and FBI, the use of automatic search functions, and including querying on any “correlated” identifiers. These violations, in sum, are very instructive for the USA F-ReDux debate because NSA has never managed to turn these automated processes back on since, and one thing they presumably hope to gain out of moving data to the providers is to better automate the process.
2) A potentially far more egregious abuse of minimization procedures was discovered (and disclosed) in 2012, when NSA discovered that raw data NSA’s techs were using over 3,000 files of phone dragnet data on their technical server past the destruction date.
As of 16 February 2012, NSA determined that approximately 3,032 files containing call detail records potentially collected pursuant to prior BR Orders were retained on a server and been collected more than five years ago in violation of the 5-year retention period established for BR collection. Specifically, these files were retained on a server used by technical personnel working with the Business Records metadata to maintain documentation of provider feed data formats and performed background analysis to document why certain contact chaining rules were created. In addition to the BR work, this server also contains information related to the STELLARWIND program and files which do not appear to be related to either of these programs. NSA bases its determination that these files may be in violation of BR 11-191 because of the type of information contained in the files (i.e., call detail records), the access to the server by technical personnel who worked with the BR metadata, and the listed “creation date” for the files. It is possible that these files contain STELLARWIND data, despite the creation date. The STELLARWIND data could have been copied to this server, and that process could have changed the creation date to a timeframe that appears to indicate that they may contain BR metadata.
But rather than investigate this violation — rather than clarify how much data this entailed, whether it had been mingled with Stellar Wind data, whether any other violations had occurred — NSA destroyed the data.
In one incident, NSA technical personnel discovered a technical server with nearly 3,000 files containing call detail records that were more than five years old, but that had not been destroyed in accordance with the applicable retention rules. These files were among those used in connection with a migration of call detail records to a new system. Because a single file may contain more than one call detail record, and because the files were promptly destroyed by agency technical personnel, the NSA could not provide an estimate regarding the volume of calling records that were retained beyond the five-year limit. The technical server in question was not available to intelligence analysts.
From everything we’ve seen the tech and research functions are not audited, not even when they’re playing with raw data (which is, I guess, why SysAdmin Edward Snowden could walk away with so many records). So not only does this violation show that tech access to raw data falls outside of the compliance mechanisms laid out in minimization procedures (in part, with explicit permission), but that NSA doesn’t try very h
Overall sloppiness
Finally, while sloppiness on applications is not a legal violation, it does raise concerns about production under the statute. The IG Report reviewed just six case files which used Section 215 orders. Although the section is heavily redacted, there are reasons to be significantly concerned about four of those.
An application made using expedited approval that made a material misstatement about where FBI obtained a tip about the content of a phone call. The FBI agent involved “is no longer with the FBI.” The target was prosecuted for unlawful disclosure of nuke information, but the Section 215 evidence was not introduced into trial and therefore he did not have an opportunity to challenge any illegal investigative methods.
A 2009 application involving significant minimization concerns and for which FBI rolled out a “investigative value” exception for access limits on Section 215 databases. This also may involve FBI’s secret definition of US person, which I suspect pertains to treating IP addresses as non-US persons until they know it is a US person (this is akin to what they do under 702 MPs). DOJ’s minimization report to FISC included inaccuracies not fixed until June 13, 2013.
A 2009 application for a preliminary investigation that obtained medical and education records from the target’s employer. FBI ultimately determined the target “had no nexus to terrorism,” though it appears FBI kept all information on the target (meaning he will have records at FBI for 30 years). The FBI’s minimization report included an error not fixed until June 13, 2013, after the IG pointed it out.
A cyber-investigation for which the case agent could not locate the original production, which he claims was never placed in the case file.
And that’s just what can be discerned from the unredacted bits.
Remember, too: the inaccuracies (as opposed to the material misstatement) were on minimization procedures. Which suggests FBI was either deceitful — or inattentive — to how it was complying with FISC-mandated minimization procedures designed to protect innocent Americans’ privacy.
NATIONAL BLOG
Another lie from the Surveillance State Defenders
POSTED BY Norm Singleton May 27, 2015
Defenders of the Sec. 215 "bulk data" collection program claim that there is "not a single documented case where the program has been used to violate an individual's rights or otherwise been abused." March Wheeler, at Empty Wheel, examines this claim and finds out that there is not one documents of abuse of the Section 215 program...there are many.
Read the whole post here, with excerpts below.
Campaign for Liberty is continuing our efforts to roll-back the Surveillance State. Please support our efforts by signing your I OBJECT Citizen's Petition to Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and please contribute to our Stop the Surveillance State Round Two Money Bomb.
Statutory abuses
1) As DOJ’s IG confirmed yesterday, for most of the life of the phone dragnet (September 2006 through November 2013), the FBI flouted a mandate imposed by Congress in 2006 to adopt Section 215-specific minimization procedures that would give Americans additional protections under the provision (note–this affects all Section 215 programs, not just the phone dragnet). While, after a few years, FISC started imposing its own minimization procedures and reporting requirements (and rejected proposed minimization procedures in 2010), it nevertheless kept approving Section 215 orders.
In other words, in addition to being illegal (per the 2nd Circuit), the program also violated this part of the law for 7 years.
2) Along with all the violations of minimization procedures imposed by FISC discovered in 2009, the NSA admitted that it had been tracking roughly 3,000 presumed US persons against data collected under Section 215 without first certifying that they weren’t targeted on the basis of First Amendment protected activities, as required by the statute.
Between 24 May 2006 and 2 February 2009, NSA Homeland Mission Coordinators (HMCs) or their predecessors concluded that approximately 3,000 domestic telephone identifiers reported to Intelligence Community agencies satisfied the RAS standard and could be used as seed identifiers. However, at the time these domestic telephone identifiers were designated as RAS-approved, NSA’s OGC had not reviewed and approved their use as “seeds” as required by the Court’s Orders. NSA remedied this compliance incident by re-designating all such telephone identifiers as non RAS-approved for use as seed identifiers in early February 2009. NSA verified that although some of the 3,000 domestic identifiers generated alerts as a result of the Telephony Activity Detection Process discussed above, none of those alerts resulted in reports to Intelligence Community agencies.
NSA did not fix this problem by reviewing the basis for their targeting; instead, it simply moved these US person identifiers back onto the EO 12333 only list.
While we don’t have the background explanation, in the last year, FISC reiterated that the government must give First Amendment review before targeting people under Emergency Provisions. If so, that would reflect the second time where close FISC review led the government to admit it wasn’t doing proper First Amendment reviews, which may reflect a more systematic problem. That would not be surprising, since the government has already been chipping away at that First Amendment review via specific orders.
Minimization procedure abuses
1) The best known abuses of minimization procedures imposed by the FISC were disclosed to the FISC in 2009. The main item disclosed involved the fact that NSA had been abusing the term “archive” to create a pre-archive search against identifiers not approved for search. While NSA claimed this problem arose because no one person knew what the requirements were, in point of fact, NSA’s Inspector General warned that this alert function should be disclosed to FISC, and it was a function from the Stellar Wind program that NSA simply did not turn off when FISC set new requirements when it rubber-stamped the program.
But there were a slew of other violations of FISC-imposed minimization procedures disclosed at that time, almost all arising because NSA treated 215 data just like it treats EO 12333, in spite of FISC’s clear requirements that such data be treated with additional protections. That includes making query results available to CIA and FBI, the use of automatic search functions, and including querying on any “correlated” identifiers. These violations, in sum, are very instructive for the USA F-ReDux debate because NSA has never managed to turn these automated processes back on since, and one thing they presumably hope to gain out of moving data to the providers is to better automate the process.
2) A potentially far more egregious abuse of minimization procedures was discovered (and disclosed) in 2012, when NSA discovered that raw data NSA’s techs were using over 3,000 files of phone dragnet data on their technical server past the destruction date.
As of 16 February 2012, NSA determined that approximately 3,032 files containing call detail records potentially collected pursuant to prior BR Orders were retained on a server and been collected more than five years ago in violation of the 5-year retention period established for BR collection. Specifically, these files were retained on a server used by technical personnel working with the Business Records metadata to maintain documentation of provider feed data formats and performed background analysis to document why certain contact chaining rules were created. In addition to the BR work, this server also contains information related to the STELLARWIND program and files which do not appear to be related to either of these programs. NSA bases its determination that these files may be in violation of BR 11-191 because of the type of information contained in the files (i.e., call detail records), the access to the server by technical personnel who worked with the BR metadata, and the listed “creation date” for the files. It is possible that these files contain STELLARWIND data, despite the creation date. The STELLARWIND data could have been copied to this server, and that process could have changed the creation date to a timeframe that appears to indicate that they may contain BR metadata.
But rather than investigate this violation — rather than clarify how much data this entailed, whether it had been mingled with Stellar Wind data, whether any other violations had occurred — NSA destroyed the data.
In one incident, NSA technical personnel discovered a technical server with nearly 3,000 files containing call detail records that were more than five years old, but that had not been destroyed in accordance with the applicable retention rules. These files were among those used in connection with a migration of call detail records to a new system. Because a single file may contain more than one call detail record, and because the files were promptly destroyed by agency technical personnel, the NSA could not provide an estimate regarding the volume of calling records that were retained beyond the five-year limit. The technical server in question was not available to intelligence analysts.
From everything we’ve seen the tech and research functions are not audited, not even when they’re playing with raw data (which is, I guess, why SysAdmin Edward Snowden could walk away with so many records). So not only does this violation show that tech access to raw data falls outside of the compliance mechanisms laid out in minimization procedures (in part, with explicit permission), but that NSA doesn’t try very h
Overall sloppiness
Finally, while sloppiness on applications is not a legal violation, it does raise concerns about production under the statute. The IG Report reviewed just six case files which used Section 215 orders. Although the section is heavily redacted, there are reasons to be significantly concerned about four of those.
An application made using expedited approval that made a material misstatement about where FBI obtained a tip about the content of a phone call. The FBI agent involved “is no longer with the FBI.” The target was prosecuted for unlawful disclosure of nuke information, but the Section 215 evidence was not introduced into trial and therefore he did not have an opportunity to challenge any illegal investigative methods.
A 2009 application involving significant minimization concerns and for which FBI rolled out a “investigative value” exception for access limits on Section 215 databases. This also may involve FBI’s secret definition of US person, which I suspect pertains to treating IP addresses as non-US persons until they know it is a US person (this is akin to what they do under 702 MPs). DOJ’s minimization report to FISC included inaccuracies not fixed until June 13, 2013.
A 2009 application for a preliminary investigation that obtained medical and education records from the target’s employer. FBI ultimately determined the target “had no nexus to terrorism,” though it appears FBI kept all information on the target (meaning he will have records at FBI for 30 years). The FBI’s minimization report included an error not fixed until June 13, 2013, after the IG pointed it out.
A cyber-investigation for which the case agent could not locate the original production, which he claims was never placed in the case file.
And that’s just what can be discerned from the unredacted bits.
Remember, too: the inaccuracies (as opposed to the material misstatement) were on minimization procedures. Which suggests FBI was either deceitful — or inattentive — to how it was complying with FISC-mandated minimization procedures designed to protect innocent Americans’ privacy.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Slaps Down Obama’s Amnesty!!! – Red Statements
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Slaps Down Obama’s Amnesty!!! – Red Statements
May 26, 2015 by Steven Ahle
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Obama’s amnesty plan that would give legal status to 4.7 million illegal aliens. The Obama administration had sought an expedited lifting of Judge Hanen’s injunction against the program, which the Fifth Circuit has refused to do. It appears that they have no intention of allowing Obama’s illegal amnesty program to begin before it goes to the Supreme Court for final ruling, that at this point could not happen before June of 2016.
As it stands now, Judge Hanen has yet to rule on the constitutionality of Obamnesty and it looks like the Fifth Circuit would not be inclined to overrule him. The Obama administration still can appeal the injunction and they will, but that case would be heard by the Fifth Circuit Court and would be a necessary step before they could send the case to the Supreme Court, assuming they would hear the case. Justice Roberts could refuse to hear the case with or without comment, in which case the decision of the Fifth Circuit would stand, meaning that Obamnesty would be illegal.
The Obama administration floated a compromise in which no amnesty and work permits would be issued in Texas but would be in the other 25 states involved in the suit. It took the state’s lawyers fifteen minutes to refuse the deal. It should have taken only fifteen seconds but I’m assuming that Obama’s lawyers were as incoherent as usual and it took that long to figure out what they were saying.
One federal judge in Pennsylvania has already ruled that Obama’s executive order amnesty is unconstitutional on the grounds that it gives illegal aliens benefits. While no one denies that Obama has the power over enforcement, or in this case non-enforcement, the states insist that Obama cannot bestow the rights that come with citizenship to illegal aliens.
I love it when the courts bitch slap Obama.Before Obama, the average success rate in courts for the first 44 presidents was 70%. Obama is now under 30% with a record twenty 9-0 Supreme Court decisions going against him.
Filed Under: amnesty, courtsTagged With: 5th Circuit Court, injunction, Obamnesty, upheld
May 26, 2015 by Steven Ahle
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Obama’s amnesty plan that would give legal status to 4.7 million illegal aliens. The Obama administration had sought an expedited lifting of Judge Hanen’s injunction against the program, which the Fifth Circuit has refused to do. It appears that they have no intention of allowing Obama’s illegal amnesty program to begin before it goes to the Supreme Court for final ruling, that at this point could not happen before June of 2016.
As it stands now, Judge Hanen has yet to rule on the constitutionality of Obamnesty and it looks like the Fifth Circuit would not be inclined to overrule him. The Obama administration still can appeal the injunction and they will, but that case would be heard by the Fifth Circuit Court and would be a necessary step before they could send the case to the Supreme Court, assuming they would hear the case. Justice Roberts could refuse to hear the case with or without comment, in which case the decision of the Fifth Circuit would stand, meaning that Obamnesty would be illegal.
The Obama administration floated a compromise in which no amnesty and work permits would be issued in Texas but would be in the other 25 states involved in the suit. It took the state’s lawyers fifteen minutes to refuse the deal. It should have taken only fifteen seconds but I’m assuming that Obama’s lawyers were as incoherent as usual and it took that long to figure out what they were saying.
One federal judge in Pennsylvania has already ruled that Obama’s executive order amnesty is unconstitutional on the grounds that it gives illegal aliens benefits. While no one denies that Obama has the power over enforcement, or in this case non-enforcement, the states insist that Obama cannot bestow the rights that come with citizenship to illegal aliens.
I love it when the courts bitch slap Obama.Before Obama, the average success rate in courts for the first 44 presidents was 70%. Obama is now under 30% with a record twenty 9-0 Supreme Court decisions going against him.
Filed Under: amnesty, courtsTagged With: 5th Circuit Court, injunction, Obamnesty, upheld
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Popular Radio Host and Guest Censored by Radio Station over Vaccines
By Heather Callaghan
Gary Null has been a popular, longtime radio host with the longest running health talk show which airs on Progressive Radio Network. He has authored and directed dozens upon dozens of books and documentaries.
A few weeks ago, he was asked as an honored guest on Bonnie Faulkner’s show, Guns and Butter which talks about the politics of economics and airs on Pacifica KPFA public radio stations. In the spirit of truth, Bonnie wanted listeners to hear the other side of the vaccine talk, not the “case closed” version. What you’re not being told about vaccines. And specifically SB277, the California bill to mandate vaccines for virtually all Californian school children. Who better to ask than Null, an alternative health expert, medical activist, and Pacifica veteran?
When it came time to air, however, they were told they weren’t allowed – or rather, they were outright censored and the show was cut – the first time for Guns and Butter in over 11 years. But Bonnie could not let this breach of truth rest…
Bonnie went on the Gary Null Show and they did a “reverse interview.” Bonnie then interviewed Gary and they both shared the Sound Cloud file to their listeners. Listen to the banned talk with updated information on SB277 and the censorship here, while you read what happened next…
https://soundcloud.com/guns-and-butter-1/vaccines-what-youre-not-being-told-part-one-gary-null-320
An excerpt from KPFA’s mission:
Over the years we’ve advanced the discussions and told the truth about historical moments of political impasse, racial tensions and economic inequality.
But not if it’s politically incorrect or goes against what’s popular, eh? Not very public radio-y of them…Listeners did not donate to have hard-hitting info yanked from their ears.
To make matters worse, KPFA Program Director, Laura Prives, publicly declared [bottom of page] her reasons for the cut and aired her ignorance as a result. It is clear that she must have done a lazy Google search as she is quoting directly from propagandist website Quackwatch run by anti-alternative therapy psychiatrist Stephen Barrett – always somehow #1 on Google. Or maybe she found Null’s Wikipedia entry which is only a harsh, heavily skewed rehash of…Quackwatch. Without knowing anything about Null’s work, she declares he has no credentials, has unsound theories and his work is only a vehicle to hawk products.
She says the station has a “serious responsibility to provide its listeners with accurate, science-based information on public health, most especially on issues that could potentially cause harm to people.” She says it’s not censorship but “protecting the airwaves from mis-information and from people who stand to profit by offering dubious remedies to sick and vulnerable listeners.” !!! Because pharmaceutical companies who have the media on a short leash never do that…
A sharp, lengthy response from Null includes assertions such as:
Lewis Hill [founder] would have been appalled at the blatant censorship imposed upon Bonnie Faulkner and myself, especially in light of the California senate’s recent passage of a bill that destroys Californians’ freedom of health choices for their children. Had I been allowed the opportunity to present the independent science opposing Big Pharma’s spurious claims for vaccine efficacy and safety, there might have been enough support from KPFA listeners to have delayed or thwarted the bill’s sponsors from passing it.
In the spirit of uncensored info-sharing, Guns and Butter blog also shared the following resource links:
- Vaccines: What You Are Not Being Told – Part One
- Gary’s response to Laura Prives, Program Director at KPFA
- Pacifica’s KPFA Bans Gary Null Interview on Vaccines posted by James Tracy at Memory Hole Blog
- Gary Null’s Website
- Progressive Radio Network
- The Forgotten History of Vaccinations You Need to Be Aware Of by Dr. Mercola
- Has California Sold Out to Big Pharma to Lead the Nation in Medical Tyranny from Health Impact News
- Voting Information on SB277 by Legiscan
- Sponsors of SB277 by Legiscan
- How are vaccines evaluated for safety? by Inside Vaccines
- Vaccine Package Inserts by Institute by Vaccine Safety
- Required K-12 vaccines for California
Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at NaturalBlaze.com and ActivistPost.com.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by Activist Post of Activist Post.
ECONOMIST: GOVERNMENT PREPARING TO SEIZE 401(K) PENSIONS
Supreme Court ruling sets the stage for “economic totalitarianism”
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
May 25, 2015
Economist Martin Armstrong warns that a Supreme Court ruling last week has set the stage for the federal government to begin seizing private pension funds.
According to Armstrong, the outcome of Tibble v. Edison, which found that employers have a duty to protect their workers’ 401(k) plans from mutual funds that perform poorly, will grease the skids for the feds to seize private funds and prosecute companies who manage mutual funds badly.
“Between the court ruling and the Obama administration’s push for stronger fiduciary rules,” the developments send a, “strong message that government can much easier seize the pension fund management industry of course to “protect the consumer,” writes Armstrong, warning that the ruling, “sets the stage to JUSTIFY government seizure of private pension funds to protect pensioners,” when the economy gets “messy”.
“This fits perfectly just in time for the Obama administration’s next assault as they prepare a landmark change of its own by issuing rules requiring that financial advisers put the interest of customers ahead of their own,” writes Armstrong. “This creates a very gray area wide enough to justify public seizure of pension funds under management.”
Following the 2008 financial collapse, reports emerged that the federal government was planning to seize the private 401(k) pensions of millions of Americans while enforcing an additional 5 per cent payroll tax as part of a new bailout program that would empower the Social Security Administration to redistribute pension funds “fairly” amongst citizens.
Armstrong warns that the development is part of a wider move towards “economic totalitarianism,” which is also characterized by efforts to eliminate physical cash altogether in the name of giving central banks more power.
Numerous prominent individuals have called for hard currency to be banned in recent months, including former Bank of England economist Jim Leaviss, who wrote a piece for the Telegraph which argued that, “Forcing everyone to spend only by electronic means from an account held at a government-run bank would give the authorities far better tools to deal with recessions and economic booms.”
Earlier this month, German Council Of Economic expert Peter Bofinger also said that imposing a cashless society would make it easier for central banks to enforce their economic policy.
As we have covered at length, commercial banks are beginning to impose more draconian controls on the withdrawal and depositing of cash, with the practice being treated as a suspicious activity even for relatively modest sums.
Armstrong, who correctly predicted the 1987 Black Monday crash as well as the 1998 Russian financial collapse, also warned last year that a coming financial collapse will cause widespread riots to erupt in America by 2016.
Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet
*********************
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)