John Sez: It seems that hackers have broke into the e-mail system of the University of East Anglia (the most prominent center for research into the supposed theory of ‘global warming’) and what they found and later released are thousands of correspondences that seem to indicate that the most prominent people in the movement have fudged scientific data, manipulated research to suit their agenda, concealed evidence that went against their theory, made a concerted effort to publicly demonize anyone who argued with their agenda, and even suppressed doubt from scientists in their own community about the theory of global warming itself.

One could say that the data recovered by the hackers is a fake perpetrated by those who oppose the theory…after all, the debate (where it is allowed to happen) is hot and heavy. But representatives of The University of East Anglia have admitted to the press that these are indeed their e-mails.

In other words, everything that we have been told by proponents of the global warming theory is a potential fraud.

Science, no matter the discipline, is always plagued by a certain amount of politics and internal pressure. But the outright lies which have built up the case for global warming have caused a great deal of global damage.

The entire ‘climate bill’ passed by Congress a few months ago (which basically sets up a frame work for  a new economic stock market of sorts centered around carbon emissions as well as an excuse for the government to spy on your home with carbon emission monitors) and similar laws passed in numerous countries around the world, the amount of money that has gone to organizations who are supposedly on the ‘right side’ of the debate and into the pockets of the already super-wealthy (like Al Gore), and the hundreds of billions  of tax dollars which have been sunk into projects to combat something which may not even exist, are now shown in a new light – a light that tears down the wall put up by the cronies of the corporations and politicians who have been fronting this special interest group, and replaces it with a large, open field of debate which will hopefully destroy this fraudulent movement once and for all.

Now don’t get me wrong – I know full well that the amount of pollution on our planet can only prove disastrous to everything that lives upon it. We can only rape the planet for so long, before ‘mother’ decides to scold her children.

But imagine if all the energy, money and political power were going towards stopping the real reasons our planet is falling apart (in my opinion the massive dumping of waste by corporations, the suppression of real alternative energy by the powers that be, the amount of junk floating around in our orbit, and the wanton destruction of the last remaining bits of untamed land are great places to focus these resources) instead of backing a fraudulent neo-religion, which does nothing more than allow for a destruction of civil liberties and moves massive amounts of wealth into the same pockets of those who have screwed up our planet in the first place.

What a wonderful world.

For the full story read here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

And here is video break down of the story and what it could mean from film maker and radio host, Alex Jones:

 
 
John Sez: It’s bad enough that our mainstream media are (very obviously, in my opinion) bought and sold by the powers that be. But now the executive branch is is using movie-mafia tactics to put the muscle on independent journalism…then telling them that they can’t tell anyone that it was done.

This is yet another bad sign that the government is actively working to stamp out dissent and to stop the migration of people from the ‘approved’ news mouthpieces to the largely uncontrolled net-based news sources.

As an aside, kudos to CBS. Although they are part of the big media machine, someone at the company is allowing for some hard hitting news reports to get out on the air lately. Pats on the back to the responsible party or parties.

Story from CBS:

Justice Dept. Asked For News Site's Visitor Lists
Posted by Declan McCullagh

In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site "not to disclose the existence of this request" unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

READ MORE
 
 
John Sez: A couple of months ago I posted about a French law that was up for vote which contained a similar measure. Now, it seems, that France isn’t the only place that is trying to institute such draconian measures…it’s now the world – or at least some cockamamie group of unelected officials who are trying to impose their ‘order’ on the rest of us.

According to the leaked report, it works like this: if you are accused (note: not convicted, not brought before the courts, not arrested, simply ACCUSED) of illegally downloading material from the internet three times, you will lose your access to the internet. Even on its face, such a law or treaty obligation is complete and utter rubbish, and rife with the possibility of massive abuse by whatever ‘council’ is in charge of filing and enforcing on these accusations.

What if a teenager is DL’ing in his home and hits the three strikes and you’re out rule? Will the rest of his family be forced to suffer the penalty of the loss of the internet?

What about erroneous accusations? I have personally heard of many stories of people being accused of illegal uploads of THEIR OWN music, which they owned all rights and copyrights on. Will people loose thier access due to a faulty charge?

How about people who leech bandwidth, or net cafes and libraries with WIFI access? Will they lose their internet service due to criminal activities beyond their control?

I would also think that it would be all too easy for governments to target political opponents or dissidents in their country and force a loss of internet access, thus promoting censorship and a loss if individual rights and liberties.

Also noted in the report is that ISP’s need to proactively police copyright violations. Considering the cost to carry out such a mandate in man hours and legal costs this will, in effect, mean the end of Youtube, playlist.com, online file storage companies, and millions of personal web sites.

The way that a great many governments have been clamping down on freedom of expression of their citizens (notable are  the US, France, China, Iran, and England) I wonder if this is not so much a play to protect copyright owners (of which I am one and I HEARTILY DISSAGREE with this proposal) and more of an outright attempt to wrest control of the internet from the hands of the people and have it regulated, seized and sterilized by the governments involved in the treaty.

Story from Raw Story:

Global treaty could throw file-sharers off Internet after ‘three strikes’

File-sharers could be jailed under proposed ACTA provisions

Leaked details of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated in secret by most of the world's largest economies suggest Internet file-sharers could be blocked from accessing the Internet if they are repeatedly accused of sharing copyrighted material, say media and digital-rights watchdogs.

And the worst-case scenario could see popular Web sites like YouTube and Flickr shut down because of a provision in the treaty that would force them to monitor everything uploaded to the site for copyright violations.

Internet law professor Michael Geist published details of "leaked" portions of the discussions on ACTA on his blog Tuesday, as a new round of ACTA negotiations began in Seoul, South Korea. The US, along with all the countries of the European Union as well as Japan, Canada, Australia and a handful of other countries, are involved in the negotiations.

"The provisions would pave the way for a globalized three-strikes and you're out system," Geist blogged Wednesday, referring to a proposal from copyright holders to have Internet service providers cut off service to anyone accused at least three times of illegally sharing copyrighted material.

READ MORE

 
 
John Sez: According to a recent dispatch from the FBI, tattoo artists are being asked to report ‘suspicious’ behavior displayed by their patrons. Some of what can be considered ‘suspicious’, and possibly ‘terrorist behavior’, are:

The patron wanting identity privacy

The use of cash over debit or charge cards

Having missing fingers or hands

Making racists comments

Making religious comments

Making anti US remarks (I assume that would be any comments against the government)

Groups of customers who want the same or similar tattoo

Placing a tattoo on one’s body which could make it concealed

Although this is wrapped up in a package which would seem to indicate that the FBI is simply trying to work towards your protection, this is nothing more than some sort of ‘fishing’ expedition proposed, it would seem, to have tattoo artists spy on their customers and to instill in them some sort of fear that every day, ordinary behavior is a possible cover-up for terrorist activity.

Think about how this applies to an ordinary (non-terrorist) person: if you are concerned about your personal privacy, use cash, happen to be missing a finger or limb (my father lost a foot to diabetes, does that make him a terrorist?), talk about religion, mention disagreements you have with the government, or make a racist comment (which is something I think is ignorant, but protected by the 1st amendment), you may be a terrorist. My tattoos, like so many others, are placed so that they can be concealed by work approved clothing – does that make me a terrorist?

Or does that make a US citizen the terrorized?

Story from Prison Planet:

Using Cash Sign Of Terrorist, According To FBI
Feds demand tattoo shops rat on customers

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com

Are you in the market for a patriotic tattoo, maybe the Gadsden flag? Forget about it. Unless you want the local tattoo artist to inform on you.

The FBI, in league with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (part of the Department of Justice), has launched a program that harks back to East Germany’s Stasi.

In Philadelphia, the FBI has instructed tattoo shops to rat out their customers if they demand privacy, insist on paying with cash, engage in “suspicious behavior,” make “anti-US” comments, or request tattoos that are “extremist symbols.”

READ MORE (the article also contains the FBI document)

 
 
John sez: The lead researcher for Gardasil and Cevarix, Dr. Dianne Harper, has publicly come out swinging against the hype over those vaccines – and what she has to say is a bombshell of biblical proportions.

While speaking at an engagement which was supposed to promote the drugs, she claimed that the vaccines will not reduce the cervical cancer rates, that they have not been tested properly (especially for children under 15), and that she doesn’t understand why there is a need to vaccinate for HPV at all.

She added that she had been trying to get this information to the media, but that no one was willing (until now) to run with the story (gee, I wonder why).

When asked why she had decided to speak out against a marketed drug that she was largely responsible for creating, Dr. Harper replied, “I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night”.

I greatly applaud the bravery of Dr. Harper; it takes a lot of guts to not only face down Merck (the maker of Gardasil), but the vaccine industry as a whole.

Additionally, this begs a whole new series of questions about exactly what the big pharma companies are trying to push on us, and why our government seems to rubber-stamp mandates disguised as laws (remember folks, there is no LAW anywhere in the US which says you or your children must take a vaccine for any reason) in order for us to be injected (or nasal sprayed) with vaccines which are not only probably ineffective but potentially life threatening.

Story from the Bulletin:

Gardasil Researcher Drops A Bombshell

Harper: Controversal Drug Will Do Little To Reduce Cervical Cancer Rates

By Susan Brinkmann

Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15.

Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4. Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.

“I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn’t help but question why we need the vaccine at all,” said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.

READ MORE
 
 
John Sez: No, the title above is not a simple eye-grabber to get you to read further. The proposed bill (S773) is being floated by Senator Rockefeller, and will authorize the President to take control of the internet (even to shut it down completely) if he feels that there is an internet ‘threat’ to the country or in any state of ‘cyber emergency’. Go check the tally, and you’ll find out that the US has been in a continual state of emergency since 9/11, reauthorized over and over again by congress. So, in effect, the president may use any powers defined under the Emergency Powers Act – or those defined in this pending bill, for that matter – at any time, for any reason, simply because he says it’s an ‘emergency’.

There is also a section which creates a federal license for ‘cyber security’ specialists, which also refers to mandatory oversight of certain computers and systems in the private sector; in other words federal oversight of private computers and systems run and owned by US citizens.

Let’s see…possible war with Iran/Russia/China/North Korea/Somalia/Venezuela/ Sudan, an act of ‘homegrown terrorism’, massive demonstrations and rallies against the government, the swine flu scare…all seeming justified reasons for declaring a state of cyber emergency, and all are possibilities on the horizon. Then, instead of the free-flow of news and ideas, we will be constrained by the ‘approved’ message by the ‘approved’ media, which have already proved themselves bought and sold by the powers that be.

Story from CNET:

Bill would give president emergency control of the Internet

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

READ MORE


 
 
John Sez: Ahhh, very interesting.  Considering that this was a bad idea to begin with, as well as unconstitutional and illegal, closing it down was probably a good idea. So, will anyone be taken to task for this? My guess is: nope.

I wonder if you still turn over your rights when you use CARS.gov. Lemme check…yep

Story from Politico:

White House disables e-tip box
By: Mike Allen
Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box — flag@whitehouse.gov — that was set up to receive information on “fishy” claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan.

E-mails to that address now bounce back with the message: “The e-mail address you just sent a message to is no longer in service. We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck.”

The “flag” service was introduced Aug. 4, with a White House blog post saying: “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at a briefing shortly after the service launched: “We're not collecting names from those e-mails. … All we're asking people to do is if they're confused about what health care reform is going to mean to them, we're happy to help clear that up for you. Nobody is keeping anybody's names.”

READ MORE
 
 
Lately there have been quite a lot of news reports and Youtube videos which show American citizens loudly disrupting congress-critter’s town hall meetings in various districts across the country. Lately, as I keep CNN on in the background while I do other things, the so-called news media has done what they can to marginalize these voices and turn the cries of outrage into partisan politics, a republican conspiracy, or a movement based on racism.

Let me reiterate that I am not a republican (or a democrat, for that matter), so I take no sides in partisan silliness and finger pointing…it’s childish and simply distracts from the real issues that we should all be paying attention to. But some of the commentary that has come out, both from members of the government as well as the TV news media, lead me to believe that either they are totally out of touch (both with what’s going on with the ‘man on the street’ and with exactly what their job is supposed to be) with the pulse of America or that there is a concerted effort to marginalize exactly what is going on below the surface of these town hall meetings.

There has been a lot of noise coming from Democrat office holders as to what they think these loud protests are all about. Harry Reid proclaimed that these protestors were trying to sabotage the democratic process (I thought voicing one’s opinion to one’s supposed representative WAS part of the democratic process).  Brian Baird claims that these people showing up at his town hall meetings are extremists and are using Nazi tactics to get their point across (really, Mr. Baird? Voicing one’s opinion is Nazi tactics, but the President putting out an open call to report to the government any who have contrary views on his heath care bill isn’t? Shame on you, you corrupt, misguided sub-man.).

The most egregious comment came from Nancy Pelosi, who claimed that the protestors were carrying swastikas. I haven’t seen one shred of evidence to support that claim (and neither has she), and even if there WAS someone stupid enough to do that, does that mean that he had anything to do with anyone else at the protest? This type of simple-minded comment is usually heard from the likes of partisan hacks (like Limbaugh, Coulter, et al); to hear this sort of clap-trap coming from the mouth of an elected official makes me wonder just how bright some of these folks are…or if they are simply using back-handed generalizations and smear tactics in order to get their way, much like a 3rd grader in a school yard uses name calling. Either way, it’s pathetic.

Let’s not forget that the rallying cry of the Bush administration post 9/11 was, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”. I don’t see how the garbage spewed forth from the mouths of politicos from the blue side of the aisle is any different…or any less dangerous to our republic.

One would think that the TV news media would do a little bit of investigative journalism to bring us a better view of what’s going on(perhaps they weren’t able to do so…after all, didn’t Twitter go off-line for a few hours during the protests?). But all I hear is blind adherence to the partisan stance to marginalize the protestors. I would have been easy to interview a protestor or ten, find out why they were angry, and perhaps find out their political affiliation. Instead, they followed the parameters of the false left-right paradigm which draws the line between issues along party lines (the worst that I saw was Rick Sanchez on CNN, who spent hours making clear that the protests were nothing more that out-of-control-right-wingers, that the movement was directed by republican operatives and not a grass roots movement, and that he was clearly against the protestors. Personal aside to Mr. Sanchez: you are a simple man who looks good in front of a camera; don’t try to be a journalist or a commentator – you have neither the wit nor mind to be either.)

There were major protests during the Bush administration, and now there are more during the Obama administration. But now, instead of thousands of people showing up someplace to be crowded into ‘free speech zones’ and the beaten by police and arrested, citizens have taken it upon themselves to confront directly the representatives who have been ignoring them for years.  People are fed up and angry that the things that they have been promised by the politicos are never accomplished, and that their voice is pushed more and more to the back of the room. People are RIGHTFULLY angry, and are using this issue to let the politicians know that we have all been pushed a little too far by their corruption, power grabs, and whittling away of our constitutional rights.

 Perhaps those in office need to listen to these voices instead of demonizing them; after all they are supposed to be our representatives NOT our deciders.
 
 
John Sez: The title above doesn’t really give due recognition to the seriousness of this particular situation, but I couldn’t seem to find words strong enough.

First, there was a story of the Drudge Report with the Title of: “How His Healthcare Plan Will Eliminate Private Insurance”, which linked to a video where Obama said he wanted a single payer health care plan in a speech in 2003 (side note, single payer health care wasn’t even on the table, nor part of the negotiation process).

Then in response, according to CNN, there was a White House video posted of Linda Douglass (head of communications for the health care bill) where she stated the following:

          “…one of [her] jobs is to keep track of all the     disinformation that's out there about health insurance reform. And there are a lot of very deceiving headlines out there right now, such as this one — take a look at this one," she says, pointing to the Drudge headline.

"Well, nothing can be farther from the truth. You know the people who always try to scare people whenever you try to bring them health insurance reform are at it again, and they're taking sentences and phrases out of context and they're cobbling them together to leave a very false impression."

Because Obama has spoken so much about health care reform, she says, "there are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time, and they take a phrase here and there, they simply cherry pick and put it together and make it sound like he's saying something that he didn't really say."

 On the surface, there is nothing wrong with the White House having a, er, health care communications czar. Even though she is promoting a lie to cover what Obama said (why I HATE politics and polititions),they have as much right to spew as anyone else.  But, according to a later Infowars story, there is a post on the White House website which reads the following:

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

 Oh. OK. The President want American citizens to tell the government if they get an e-mail or see something on the web about the health bill that is contrary to the White House stance.

Waitaminute...

What?

That Can’t be right, can it? Holy crap…it IS right.

Folks, Bush was bad. No, strike that, downright awful. He did a great deal of damage to our Constitution and to our civil liberties as a whole. But Obama, after promising to fix all of that , has taken the ball from Bush and is running with it as fast as he can in the same direction of Mussolini and Stalin. Is the current administration heading America down the cess-pool of a tolatarian tyranny, or am I way, way off base?

Story from Infowars:

(Video is the Obama clip mentioned at the beginning of this post.)
White House Calls for Citizens to Inform on Opponents of Obamacare

The Obama White House is calling for informer-citizens to denounce opponents of the president’s health care plan. A post on the White House website posted today reads:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

The post by Macon Phillips, the White House Director of New Media, does not indicate what the Obama White House will do with the information.

READ MORE
 
 
Apparently, the Obama administration, working in conjunction with other European nations, is beginning the process of rolling out the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) which will make searching your computer for illegally downloaded content fall under the banner of national security.

As a musician, I fully understand an artists need to protect what belongs to them (although I am in total disagreement with how the matter has been handled by the RIAA and other associated organizations), but why is this now becoming a reason for national security as opposed to it being a civil matter? I can clearly see such cases brought to the court as a suit tantamount to theft, but I don’t understand how downloading a song or movie is a threat to national security.

Since the Bush administration, there has been a push to make criminal activities equate to terrorism (in the Patriot Act it claims that even a misdemeanor can trigger anti-terrorism law, and you can be hauled away and imprisoned indefinitely in a military prison with no lawyer, phone call, or legal recourse whatsoever), and the Obama administration is building on that structure not only to criminalize everything they can,  but to bring  as many activities (illicit or not) under the banner of the Federal government as opposed to local law enforcement or the courts.

So how will these new policies be enforced effectively? Just thinking about my own laptop, I have mp3 music on there, a smattering of video material, a video game or two, pdf’s of books and various documents, and photographs- all are legal. How can a cursory check of my computer show if any of that material is illegally download or not? Would I have to produce receipts that I legally purchased the products? What about material that is copyrighted to me; would I have to carry around copies of the copyright paperwork to prove that? What about items that are legally copied (like backing up my cd collection to a digital drive, downloading free books from Project Gutenberg, music given freely by other musicians that I am acquainted with, and so on), what would I have to do to prove all that?

Obviously, the logistics involved make such a law un-enforceable. Or, more to the point, makes such a law selectively enforceable (like the terrorism watch list, which has well over a million names of American citizens on it – do you really think there are a million terrorists in the country right now?) or simply gives the government the legal go-ahead to survail it’s citizenry at will, with no warrant or probable cause. The former of these points has already been proven (go take a flight somewhere, you’ll see what I mean), but the latter seems very likely as well.

A recent report on the Glen Beck Show (note: personally, I despise Mr. Beck; he is a very, very simple man surrounded by a complex world he doesn’t seem to readily grasp. BUT this is the only mainstream news show that I found which reported on this) profiled the website CARS.GOV (the governmental web-site tie-in for the cash for clunkers policy of the Obama administration) which, when you log on to the system states the following: “This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is property of the U.S. government. Any or all uses on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign”.

So, in effect, when you log onto the CARS system you not only give up any property rights that you might have concerning your computer, but you are also authorizing the federal government to search your computer, make a record of the search, and if any of the contents of your hard drive gets ‘red flagged’ the government will turn that information over to the law enforcement authorities, not only of this country but of any country of it’s choosing. All this without probable cause or a warrant. This type of behavior is CLEARLY unconstitutional, and is seemingly nothing more than a governmental invasion of privacy which was strengthened in the last administration and is clearly being continued (with GUSTO, I might add) by the current administration.

The first video is about the ACTA, credited to RT

The second is the clip from Glen Beck