So, a federal judge has given the NSA his thumbs-up. I'd say that he's a no-good rat, but for some reason, a voice in the back of my head is telling me that to remain ethical, I need to remain objective ( as if the establishment plays by the same rules).
He gave some half-assed, over-warmed excuse in which he used the trigger phrases "9/11" and "war on terror" ... and so, no one can resisting exclaiming, "WOOOOO HOOOO!!! Gimme SECURITY, NOT that lame-ass ol' (pffft!) 'freedom'!!!" (...umm, I guess. Does anyone actually buy even that crap anymore? Does the general public even understand words anymore?)
Hmm...are Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz protesting, "Huh, huh, wuh, HUHHHNNHH??!! Obama killed Bin Laden way back when (praise the salvation he has bestowed upon us!) he was first in office! So al-Qaeda isn't an issue anymore! What's the NSA on about?! How dare they operate as if he-who-sends-tingles-down-our-legs hasn't stopped everything bad, for all time, forever?!" Yeah, I know -- they're probably not saying that. They're probably just saying that poor besieged Obama isn't in the position to undo a holdover from the evilness that was the Bush era. And, in the sense that the sneakiness which the NSA is up to has some pretty damn firm roots in the Bush era (ALL the way back in it, as we'll see below), they're not wrong. But, the thing is, the next time there's a president wearing the "Republican" sash, they'll act like all that stuff just started and be all worked up about what an evil new thing this is evil new Republican president is doing. Meanwhile, Republicans will be pro-war and pro-police state again. (You'd think people who are adults would stop playing this silly game, get over their "team" allegiances, admit that Bush and Obama should be spending the rest of their days as cellmates, and urge their fellow Americans to seek a president who'll put an end to all drone strikes, the use by the CIA of al-Qaeda as a proxy, the NSA surveillance grid, and repeal the last few NDAA's, as well as the Patriot Act. But that's just me.)
Anyway, time to address Judge Pauley phoning in the ol' "Afer 9/11, it's a WHOLE [BRAVE] NEW WORLD!" trope. (Pre-2008, any liberal pundit or blogger would've said, "ol' neocon trope". I certainly once would've, too. By every right, it still applies -- with people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly having uttered many variations of that line, it's what what makes neocons statists and not libertarians. But at this point in time, if I use it, the die-hard left will just think, "Yeahhhh, that's that RIGHTWING stuff that Obama doesn't do any of!" But then, by not using it, it's not as though I'm causing them to wake up. So, I'll just leave it at that on the eve of 2014, it's an irrelevant term.)
The thing is, your honor(?), according to this documented, dated December 2000, the NSA was already committed to and geared up for implementing a mass surveillance grid.
Here's some choice excerpts:
"NSA must respond quickly and comprehensively to the deployment of new information technology into global networks."
"This vulnerability extends beyond classified and national security networks to the the private sector infrastructure on which all depend. At the same time, because of the communications environment described above, availability of critical foreign intelligence information will mean gaining access in new places and in new ways."
At other points in the document, there are cryptic references to the NSA's "customers" and to the NSA finding "new lines of business". And don't even get me started on the outlined "strategies" that explicitly call for fostering cozy, "We'll scratch your backs..." relationships with Congress and the news media.
"News media representatives were invited inside NSA along with the families of employees during last September's NSA Faily Day."
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a disingenuous, dishonest, deceitful, malicious organization. Ostensibly, it's a watchdog group that "monitors" and profiles racists and hate groups. (I thought profiling was reviled as the prerogative of racists...) In reality, their purpose is to drag through the mud and tarnish the name of every remotely well-known libertarian that they can. The SPLC are, at heart, authoritarian social engineers. Peaceful, civil liberties-advocating groups like the Oath Keepers and We Are Change are classified by them as "hate groups" because they are genuine humanitarians. Such group steadfastly stand in opposition to oppression and human beings being subjected to brutality and murder at the hands of the establishment, whether it be illegal, unwarranted molestation and/or beatings at the hands of the police or the TSA, or children being the victim of drone strikes in unjust, aggressive acts of war. You would think that a supposed liberal group would join the Liberty Movement in opposing such ugly acts of hate and oppression, but in truth, the SPLC doesn't care. They're communists preoccupied with denigrating, vilifying in the minds of the public, discrediting, and marginalizing libertarians. Not because they're racist or part of any group, as that is in no way the case, but because the SPLC disagrees with them politically and economically. And rather than fighting them with intellectual honesty and integrity, they fight as dirtily and dishonestly as possible. When you see Mark Potok pop up toward the end of a History Channel documentary on the Ku Klux Klan to assert with no proof that contemporary citizen militias are the Klan in a new, disguised form, you know that there's no low to which snakes like him and his cohorts won't sink to (and probably have). In summation, the SPLC doesn't care about civil rights. They want the public to believe that libertarians are racist and that libertarian organizations are "hate groups". They don't care that they're wrong, and if they destroy the names of innocents. That, I know, is hate.
...the question is, how long before the shooter's actual identity have fallen into an Orwellian memory hole, and MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the establishment media will be pushing the "fact" that he was/is "a right-wing extremist"?
During last Wednesday night's Ground Zero, subsequently titled "History Deletes Itself"groundzeromedia.org, host Clyde Lewis justifiably and accurately censured MSNBC's Rachel Maddow for feigning moral outrage at the prospect of the Sandy Hook 911 calls being played on national TV. They were actually already accessible on the Internet, but establishment "news" outfits still like to pretend that they're relevant.
Lewis focused on one of the 911 callers frantically relaying to the operator that he had just seen "two shadows". He postulated that Maddow has a vested interest keeping the audio of that call under wraps, because it would suggest that the establishment media that she represents got the story wrong. The caller may well have been mistaken, but still, Maddow should ask questions and do an investigative report on the discrepancies? Maybe track down and interview the caller (and other witnesses), hmm? Wouldn't that resemble journalism?
Despite such negligence and her lack of integrity, Lewis asserted that there are reasons for which he "still likes" Rachel Maddow. What reasons? Beas me. I lack even a sub-shadow of a sub-shadow of a doubt that the most disgusting, unethical, dishonest, disingenuous contemporary television "news" anchor is Rachel Maddow. More style than substance, she plays to the hilt her facade of "skeptical", "independent", "witty", "scrupulous", "idealistic", glasses-sporting hipster-nerd dynamo fighting for truth, justice, and sticking it to "The Man". This has earned her the admiration and allegiance of vapid, myopic, psuedo-intellectual trendies ... you know, trust fund brats who pretend to be vagabond hippies, and the like.
(Most of her audience, with their limited understanding of the world -- which Maddow has only exacerbated -- believe that the there is no more a totalitarian force on Earth, and no greater a threat to civil liberties, than Christianity. Thus, if their precious government were to suddenly vanish out of thin air -- depriving the world of not just roads, but of swaggering, swell-headed, fat-assed TSA agents raping and beating up innocent men, women, and children -- then their imaginary army of swamp-dwelling, "redneck", Bible-thumping, abortion clinic-bombing, bloodthirsty oppressors would immediately storm the marginalized outposts of reason and knowledge that are New England and California, savagely placing unwanted babies in good homes and assuring gay couples that now that the government's gone, they won't need it to legitimize their relationships with a piece of paper, and they're free to live their life as they see fit .)
Remember the charade of several weeks ago that was the "government shutdown"? You know, the pointless farce of a "impasse" that voices in establishment media kept wailing as "all the Republicans' fault!"? As in, the joke of an "emergency" that Obama administration tried to substantiate by declaring select national parks and monuments "closed", as if they can nullify, or outright "shut off", the autonomy of U.S. citizens and veterans to go for a stroll and stop and look at things?
Let us not parse words: war memorials in Washington, D.C. were declared "closed". The pussyfooting of the mass media -- and the outright duplicity of the likes of Rachel Maddow -- resulted in the simple facts of this scenario, let alone the gravity of it, not really registering with the American public. Take into account: On my eighth grade field trip to D.C., my friend Sean's father, Mr. Weaver, was one of our chaperones. Mr. Weaver was a veteran of the Vietnam War. During our visit to the National Mall and its outlying sites, our stop at the Vietnam Wall did not facilitate nearly enough time for Mr. Weaver to comb over the nearly 60,000 names for that of his brother who had died in the Vietnam War. So, that evening, while we were given a formal tour of the other monuments along the Potomac, Mr. Weaver and his son verged away from the group at large and made their way back to the Vietnam Wall. And there they stayed, until locating Mr. Weaver's brother's name. When they rejoined us, I couldn't have been happier for them ... in fact, I couldn't have been more proud of them; something in my gut and heart told me that I'd just witnessed someone doing the right thing, without any compromise.
So, at the age of 13, I learned: no one fucks with war veterans ... least of all some pencil-necked statist tour guide.
Ever dependable, during the October 13th, 2013 broadcast of The Alex Jones Show, the D.C. veterans' protest was covered and documented in real time. Starting at 0:13 in the video below, you can see someone in some sort of police uniform (whatever the case, who does he think he is?) for some reason using his baton to push a man wearing a baseball cap, provoking him to push back. In other words, a policeman is using physical force against a protesting veteran:
If I were a journalist of any stripe, I would report on this story by, of course citing my sources and to every possible extent, identifying both parties and the reasons for their actions: what is the man in the baseball cap protesting? Who is the man in the police uniform with the baton? Who does he work for?
But if I were Rachel Maddow, I would equate World War II veterans with the Tea Party, omit the part of the video where the man in the police uniform with the baton does the pushing, and claim that he and his fellow policemen were "due to the shutdown, working without pay". I would feign disgust at the barbarism of the protesters who I'm claiming that, without qualification, attacked the police officers and affect exasperated moral indignation at what I'm implying is the "fact" that these police folk -- whoever they are and whatever their affiliation is -- are "working without pay". And I would go on with my life not caring that there is no official record of any police outfit having been denied pay -- let alone consenting to work without pay -- as a result of the "shutdown" circus I continuously harp was caused by Republicans.
But I'm Rachel Maddow, so I just spew whatever shit I think works, so long as it characterizes Democrats as good and Republicans as bad:
Of course, if you live in the cute little world that Rachel Maddow wants you to, you know not take Alex Jones seriously. After all, he's said stuff, and she's able to quote him as saying that stuff in a mocking, incredulous tone of voice. Like she does in the clip at @06:28-06:55 below:
Maddow's "expose", or whatever it can be called, of Jones was created of sheer cynicism and arrogance, and completely devoid of journalistic integrity or intellectual honesty. All she's doing is, in her energetic, quirky, leering way, signaling that she finds amusing in how its worthy of the contempt of her cartoonish cocked eye and exaggerated, disbelieving "Okayyyyyyyyy"-type facial expression. She doesn't actually have to address anything that anyone she's out to get says. She just has to, with as much feigned incredulity and whimsy as she can muster, exclaim, "THIS is The. Person. who actually thinks that when you turn on your sink, WATER(!!!), of ALL things, actually COMES OUT OF IT!!! Bwa-HA!!!"
And so, her smug, vapid, worldly, naive viewers are cued that the random premise of there being "wasps living under the Pentagon" should be equated with knowing, wondering, and asking about:
The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, regarding which Maddow frivolously snorts out that Alex Jones "thinks didn't happen". First of all, Jones has never said anything of the sort. Furthermore, if Maddow were an actual journalist, like James Lane and his peers at Free Mind Films who culled together the documentary A Noble Lie, she'd interview witnesses and survivors like Glennn Wilburn and Jane Graham.
9/11 "never happening". It happened, and Alex Jones thinks it happened, too, and ... oh, blatherin' blatherskites, I'm waiting with bated breath for Maddow to bring all of, at once, the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If anything, though, she'll just have on those snickering rats from Popular Mechanics, as being assigned by their bosses to ignore a bulk of evidence and data and make up some bullshit placeholder explanation makes them credible experts.
Oh, and then we have Maddow raving about how "Alex Jones believes that Obama sent the tornado". It doesn't matter to her that in the apparently damning (they're not) clips of him making such a claim (he doesn't), he's responding off the cuff to a caller, citing DARPA research and speculating as to ways in which the then-contemporarytornado could have been manipulated. No, all she has to due is crow that he's talking about "made up" stuff.
Geez, you'd think a Rhodes Scholar would be less ignorant of the military-industrial complex than that.
Here at the CMvEM monitoring station, a new video upload from one of our favorite activist citizen journalists (and a completely self-made author, social media powerhouse, and New World Order expert), Mark Dice, never fails to deliver. His "man on the street" confrontations are inevitably hilarious, telling, and disturbing.
Ever since the "Black Friday" phenomena has infested American culture, I've made it a point to stay at home for the duration of the day after Thanksgiving. Last year, Dice made a futile but admirable attempt to snap some sense into the hordes of Black Friday acolytes. "FINALLY, someone said it!" encapsulates my reaction to these two videos from a year ago:
This year, Dice has outdone himself: once again, he mockingly drive-by bullhorns the tacky, materialistic, mind-numbed droves subjecting themselves to spending their Thanksgiving night in a tedious, uncomfortable, grueling way ... but with a new twist: Dice is wearing a Santa Claus costume.
Next year, Dice should do this again ... and I should do it, too! And so should you! In fact, it should become an annual tradition ... until "Black Friday" finally goes away.
Yesterday ("Black Friday" itself), InfoWars had plastered its home page with reports expounding on how empty the hype building up to the day has become, with the flouted markdowns made in the aftermath of deliberate price gouging.
And, an InfoWars round table on any subject would be incomplete without Alex Jones' take:
____________
Now, you would think that retailers would dread and do everything in their power to squelch this type of behavior ... rather than facilitate it. Apparently, at Walmart, mob violence is par the course, while filming said violence is an intolerable crime, against which immediate action must be taken.
InfoWars has posted more videos of yesterday's ugly incident, taken from other cameras and higher-def streams.
Below, starting at the 13:04 mark, (appropriately, justifiably, and correctly) enraged after fellow demonstrators had just informed him that they'd seen some of the alleged deputies attempt to or do push a little girl off of her father's shoulders, a fierce, righteous (and rightful) Jones asserts to the bullies in question, "I guarantee you got this job so you could pick on people. you think you're tough -- absolutely disgusting. [...] I'm telling you right now, these cops want to physically attack us." I watched this happen live via the Internet, and I assure you, continuously streaming live video doesn't lie. I made those very same observations about the dispatched ostensible sheriff's deputies before Jones voiced them. The overeager, imperious demeanor shared by every last one of these (at least so far as they're uniformed) cops broadcasts their base malice and sadism. (The Dallas police captured in the InfoWars stream covering the day and a half prior to this incident did NOT share these revolting traits.)
... I bet tonight they'll be saying that today, Alex Jones and a violent gang of libertarians disrupted the JFK memorial and attacked police officers without provocation.
In actuality -- and there's plenty of video evidence, and I witnessed it live, unfiltered -- today, a team of Dallas Sheriff's deputies, whom evidence suggests were operating under DHS orders, brought the hammer down on the demonstrators protesting the mayor's' decreed ban on public free speech, coinciding with today's (hoity-toity, invitation-only) JFK "memorial". At close to 2:00 P.M. CST, when the event was already OVER and the peaceful protesters, led by independent broadcaster and Constitutional activist Alex Jones, exercising their God-given rights (and rightfully so) -- led by independent broadcaster and Constitutionalism advocate Alex Jones -- were just hanging around, mere pedestrians, the leering, preying "officers" beset themselves upon their quarry. The surly "police" forced the polite, civilized (but soon agitated, and with good reason) crowd back from ... where they happened to be standing to a point further down the street, for no apparent or stated reason.
Witnesses claim that one of the assailants nearly pushed a little girl off of her father's shoulders.
Here's an excerpt from one of InfoWars' live streams. It's chaotic, but it's clear who's doing the provoking and who's, while (understandably and inevitably) getting upset, standing up to the bullies and saying, "Hey, why are you doing this?"
A Washington Times article supportive of the activist citizen media at the event and their fellow demonstrators:
