Tag: Shut Up Slave

Peter King Should be Arrested

Peter King, a schmuck from New York who claims to represent some people, recently stated that he believes Glenn Greenwald should be arrested:

“Not only did [Greenwald] disclose this information, he said he has names of CIA agents and assets around the world and threatening to disclose that,” King said when asked by host Megyn Kelly why he wants to prosecute the reporter. “I think [prosecuting reporters] should be very targeted and very selective and a rare exception. In this case, when you have someone who discloses secrets like this and threatens to release more, yes, there has to be legal action taken against him.”

He then asserted: “This is a very unusual case with life-and-death implications for Americans.”

I believe there has to be legal action taken against Mr. King. When Mr. King took his position as a “representative” he, along with his cohorts, took the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.

While I’m not particularly fond of the Constitution I have read it and know that the Fourth Amendment makes the actions of the National Security Agency (NSA) illegal:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Greenwald broke the story on the NSA’s widespread surveillance operation, which was a complete violation of the people’s right to be protected from unreasonable searches. Mr. King, by demanding the prosecution of Mr. Greenwalk, is aiding and abetting a criminal organization and that shit ain’t legal.

No Good Comes from Calling the Police

It’s pretty well known at this point that the police have no legal duty to protect you. In fact, as this country deteriorates more and more into a full blown police state, it’s becoming more apparent that calling the police can only lead to grief. Whether they’re blasting kittens in front of children or forcing a landlord to evict a woman out of his property because her boyfriend beat her too many times — no that wasn’t a typo — the police seem to deliver violence and grief wherever they go:

Last year in Norristown, Pa., Lakisha Briggs’ boyfriend physically assaulted her, and the police arrested him. But in a cruel turn of events, a police officer then told Ms. Briggs, “You are on three strikes. We’re gonna have your landlord evict you.”

Yes, that’s right. The police threatened Ms. Briggs with eviction because she had received their assistance for domestic violence. Under Norristown’s “disorderly behavior ordinance,” the city penalizes landlords and tenants when the police respond to three instances of “disorderly behavior” within a four-month period. The ordinance specifically includes “domestic disturbances” as disorderly behavior that triggers enforcement of the law.

I’m starting to suspect that the police are doing everything in their power to persuade people not to call them. It makes sense, they probably want to eat their doughnuts in peace but keep getting called by the people that they’re supposedly tasked with protecting. The fastest way to put an end to such interruptions is to kill the pets of whoever called them.

One thing is certain, calling the police will end in misery.

The NSA’s Data Prevented Nothing

Now that the American people know that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying on them since, at least, 2007 the state is scrambling to justify their actions in the hopes of quelling the people’s anger. According the the Director of the NSA, the data collected through the agency’s widespread spying operation has thwarted dozens of terror attacks:

Intelligence officials have insisted agents do not listen in on Americans’ telephone conversations. And they maintain the internet communications surveillance programme, reportedly code-named Prism, targeted only non-Americans located outside of the US.

Meanwhile, they have defended the programmes as vital national security tools.

“It’s dozens of terrorist events that these have helped prevent,” Gen Alexander said on Wednesday at a hearing of the US Senate intelligence committee.

Of course this claim is utter bullshit. Why do I say that? Because the state is always quick to brag about the terror plots it has supposedly foiled. Whenever they stop a supposed terrorist they trot him out for the world to see and give the agents involved in stopping the plot metals of accommodations. The state can’t help but jack itself off publicly to every one of its successes. After all, it needs to demonstrated to the American people why they need the government.

If the NSA had foiled any terror plots using their rampant spying operation they would have bragged loudly and proudly about it. The fact that we haven’t heard a peep from the NSA indicates that they haven’t accomplished jack shit. Also, let me emphasize:

Gen Alexander said intelligence officials were “trying to be transparent” about the programmes and would brief the Senate intelligence committee behind closed doors before any other information became public.

Transparency?

A Hero Emerges

When the news of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) widespread surveillance operations broke many people were wondering who leaked the information. As it turns out the person who leaked the information decided to come forward (which means he’ll probably be dead soon):

The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell.

The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. “I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong,” he said.

Some people will call for Mr. Snowden’s head while others, those who actually oppose government snooping, will see him as a hero. Sadly members of the United States government have already begun demanding Snowden be extradited from his hideout in Hong Kong to the United States so he can be disappeared, err, tried:

There was no immediate reaction from the White House but Peter King, the chairman of the House homeland security subcommittee, called for Snowden’s extradition from Hong Kong. Snowden flew there 10 days ago to disclose top-secret documents and to give interviews to the Guardian.

“If Edward Snowden did in fact leak the NSA data as he claims, the United States government must prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law and begin extradition proceedings at the earliest date,” King, a New York Republican, said in a written statement. “The United States must make it clear that no country should be granting this individual asylum. This is a matter of extraordinary consequence to American intelligence.”

You have to love the double standard Mr. King is espousing. The NSA was caught spying on American citizens, an act that Congress was briefed on and approved, and King is after Snowden’s head for committing a heinous act. Apparently Hong Kong has an extradition treaty with the United States but makes an exception for political targets, which means Snowden may be able to fight his extradition for some time.

Mr. Snowden should be treated as a hero for leaking details of the NSA’s spying operations. So long as the state refuses to recognized the people’s privacy the people should refuse to recognized the state’s privacy.

The War on Privacy Explodes

After Wednesday’s reveal that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been indiscriminately spying on all of Verizon’s customers things have exploded. Yesterday morning the White House came out and justifed the NSA’s actions:

A senior administration official said the court order pertains only to data such as a telephone number or the length of a call, and not the subscribers’ identities or the content of the telephone calls.

Such information is “a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States,” the official said, speaking on the condition of not being named.

“It allows counter terrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States,” the official added.

The revelation raises fresh concerns about President Barack Obama’s handling of privacy and free speech issues. His administration is already under fire for searching Associated Press journalists’ calling records and the emails of a Fox television reporter as part of its inquiries into leaked government information.

That justification, to put it frankly, is weak. A subscriber’s phone number is their identity because each phone number is unique and is almost always associated with only one person. Saying that the NSA is only collecting phone numbers but not identifying information is no different than saying the NSA is collecting Social Security numbers but not identifying information. When you’re collecting data that is associated with a specific person you are collecting identifying information.

Even if we assume the statement is true and the NSA has no idea who possess what phone number we’re still left wondering how they can tell whether or not somebody is calling a known terrorist if they don’t know what the known terrorist’s phone number is. If they only know the terrorist’s number then they can easily obtain the identities of the terrorist’s contacts by asking Verizon for the identities of the persons who possess the called numbers. In other words the NSA is collecting identifying information no matter how you look at it.

Furthermore, any terrorist possessing even a minute amount of intelligence isn’t going to use a phone number tied to their person. Instead they will use another person’s phone (either by asking to borrow their phone or by using a cloned SIM card) or buy a disposable phone with cash. Either way the identity of the terrorist won’t be associated with the phone number so it will be almost impossible to identify who the terrorist is calling. At most the NSA will be able to identify extremely stupid terrorists, bust them, and give the remaining terrorists a reason to educate themselves and, in so doing, become far more difficult to capture or, in all likelihood, kill (that’s what the current administration enjoys doing most).

The White House is, as usual, feeding us bullshit. But that’s not the end of the bullshit train. In order to keep up the appearance that strong disagreement exists between the Republicans and Democrats you would think a powerful Republican would come forth and criticize the Obama administration for allowing indiscriminate spying on Americans. Instead one of the more influential Republicans came forward and defended the NSA’s actions:

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Thursday that he is “glad” that the National Security Agency is collecting millions of telephone records — including his own — from one of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies in an attempt to combat terrorism.

Mr. Graham said that he is a Verizon customer and has no problem with the company turning over records to the government if it helps it do its job. The South Carolina Republican said that people who have done nothing wrong have nothing to worry about because the NSA is mining the phone records for people with suspected ties to terrorism.

I’m not surprised to hear a state agent saying he’s OK with the state collecting his information. He is on the safe side of the gun pointed at our heads after all. I’m even less surprised to see Dianne Feinstein is in favor of the NSA’s expansive spying operations:

“As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been in place for the past seven years,” Feinstein asid. “This renewal is carried out by the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] under the business records section of the PATRIOT Act. Therefore, it is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress.

Feinstein said she could not answer whether other phone companies have had their records sifted through as Verizon has.

“I know that people are trying to get to us,” she said. “This is the reason why the FBI now has 10,000 people doing intelligence on counterterrorism. This is the reason for the national counterterrorism center that’s been set up in the time we’ve been active. its to ferret this out before it happens. “It’s called protecting America.”

What makes Feinstein’s comment interesting is her admittance that Congress was briefed on the operation. If any members of congress feign surprise we now know to call them on their bullshit.

Being a nation of laws somebody is obviously going to perform an investigation into this matter, right? Although it sounds like there will be an investigation it doesn’t sound like it will be an investigation into the NSA:

NEW YORK –- The U.S. Department of Justice may try seeking out the source of a bombshell article that revealed National Security Agency surveillance of millions of Americans, according to NBC News Justice correspondent Pete Williams.

[…]

Williams, a well-sourced reporter who just interviewed Attorney General Eric Holder last night about the leak investigations, jumped in with an answer.

“I was told last night: definitely there will be a leak investigation,” he said.

Before the state ascertained the identity of the person who leaked what is now referred to as the Collateral Murder video there was plenty of opportunity to investigate the pilots of the gunship that killed those Iraqi civilians and Reuters reporters. Instead the current administration moved to investigate the source of the leak. The person who leaked the video was Bradley Manning and, once identified, he was arrested, held in solitary confinement, and is now being put on trial for aiding the enemy. If the source that leaked the court order that revealed the NSA’s indiscriminate spying is discovered I’m sure he or she will be arrested, held in solitary confinement, and tried for aiding the enemy as well.

Bitching about this isn’t going to accomplish anything so we must ask what can be learned from this. I think there are several lessons. First, it’s obvious that the current administration is corrupt to the core. While Obama promised the most transparent government in history his administration has been shrouded in secrecy and embroiled in continuous scandals. His administration has also demonstrated that they prioritize hunting down people who leak classified information above hunting down criminals within the government’s employ. Second, we can no longer afford to communicate through unsecured channels. Every piece of data we send to each other must be encrypted and anonymized to prevent the government’s prying eyes from violating our privacy. Third, those crazy conspiracy theorists who have been telling us that the government is spying on our every communication aren’t so crazy. We must now assume that they are correct and that the government is spying on our every communication because, as this most recent leak shows, the government’s spying operations are vast and giving absolutely no regard to due process. Fourth, there is another war being waged by the federal government, a war against our privacy. The only way to defend ourselves in this war is to violate the government’s privacy in turn. Our violations of the government’s privacy will be met with arrests, imprisonments, and possibly executions but will also cause its legitimacy to erode.

The government will continue to use technology to suppress us but that very same technology can be used to suppress the government. We must wield technology more effectively than the government in order to keep our privacy.

Revealing the State’s War on Privacy

Bradley Manning collected a great deal of classified government information and released it to Wikileaks. In so doing he effectively stripped some of the state’s privacy and is now standing trial for his actions (although his trial is almost certainly for show not to determine guilt). As I said, I support Manning’s actions because the state is waging a war against our privacy. As time goes on we’re learning more and more about how extensive this war really is. Yesterday it was revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA), on of the most vicious combatants in this war, has been collecting the phone records of millions of Americans:

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America’s largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an “ongoing, daily basis” to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

Although we’ve known that the NSA has been spying on our phone calls for some time but the release of this court order gives us a better idea of how extensive its spying is. Once again I’ll iterate that a government that doesn’t trust the general population enough to respect their privacy should not be given the privilege of privacy itself. So long as the state continues to violate our privacy it is right to violate its privacy. I will also point out that extensive spying operations such as this are prime examples of why all communications should be encrypted, which is why I started the Encrypt Everything series. Increasing the number of people who use cryptographic tools to prevent prying eyes from seeing their communications will render large scale spying operations, such as those being performed by the state, far less effective.

Why are Gun Control Advocates so Violent

Gun control advocates like to position themselves as peaceful individuals however they have a habit of advocating violence against those who disagree with them. Consider this op-ed written by an advocate of gun control:

Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad. The B.S. needs a serious gut check. We are not a tin pot banana republic where machine gun toting rebel groups storm the palace and depose the dictator.

I’m not sure when the National Rifle Association (NRA) advocated armed rebellion (I must have missed a mailing) but even if they did it’s not worthy of a firing squad. Being an anarchist I find the crime of treason to be bullshit in of itself but even those who recognize the state as a legitimate entity must also acknowledge that advocating armed rebellion, which the NRA hasn’t done as far as I know, is protected by the First Amendment. Unless the NRA was actually involved in an armed rebellion against the state they couldn’t be found guilty of treason.

Beyond advocating violence the author also invalidates his own argument. In the above paragraph he implies that armed rebellion is not the proper way to resolve disagreements with the duly elected government. However, in the previous paragraph he argues that might makes right:

And how does choosing a white, rich old man with an offensive degrading speech about the war of “Northern Aggression” as NRA president forward a sense of reasonableness? History lesson: It was an awful Civil War won decisively some 150 years ago. Over slavery. The Confederacy wanted to keep African-Americans in chains and President Lincoln didn’t.

Sure, there were states’ rights issues, but nullification, secession, and treason were settled at Appomattox Courthouse. Sure, Reconstruction left a bad taste. But, resurrecting these same things, the way South Carolina is as we speak, is to invite a return to the whole concept of a Union.

This man isn’t too bright if he thinks the Civil War was about slavery. If that were the case slavery would have been illegal in the Union but it wasn’t. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation would have only ended slavery in Confederate states that refused to rejoin the Union by January 1863. Slavery was one minor issue amongst a great many. What started the session movement that preceded the Civil War was the United States government’s continuous encroachments on the powers reserved for the individual states. In other words the Confederate states were sick of the federal government and decided to vote with their feet. They left the Union peacefully and formed a confederacy.

The Union wasn’t very happy with such open disobedience. Eventually the war broke out and the Union used violence to coerce the Confederate states to rejoin the Union even though the duly elected government of the Confederate states chose a different option. According to the author armed rebellion against a duly elected government is treason except when it’s not.

The closing of this op-ed is where the real content is. In three short paragraphs the author demonstrates just how much of an authoritarian blood thirsty psychopath he really is:

Normally, I am a peaceable man, but in this case, I am willing to answer the call to defend the country. From them.

To turn the song lyric they so love to quote back on them, “We’ll put a boot in your —, it’s the American way.”

Except it won’t be a boot. It’ll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won’t do them any good.

According to the author he is normally a peaceable man except when people disagrees with his position on gun control. He’s all for murdering those people with guns. In fact he wants to suppress free speech so badly he’s willing to use weapons of war to kill anybody who expresses an opinion different from his own. Think about that for a minute. A man who opposes guns wants tanks, fighter jets, and Hellfire missiles used on people who have, according to his accusation, done nothing more than express an opinion that differs from his own. I’m starting to think that the author has a shrine to Pol Pot somewhere in his domicile.

Also, if the author doesn’t believe people with rifles can stand up to the American war machine he should read The Sling and the Stone by Colonel Thomas X. Hammes. The United States hasn’t fared well against poorly equipped opponents.

Translating Political Speech into Literal English

We all know there is a difference between English and political speak. Political speak is purposely designed to conceal true meaning whereas English is meant to communicate an idea in a manner that others will understand. I thought it would be a spot of fun to translate some political speak into English and I’ve found the perfect quote to start with:

A pair of DFL House members who cast politically risky votes to legalize gay marriage this session won’t have to worry about the repercussions until next year. Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Lori Gildea has ruled that Reps. Joe Radinovich, DFL-Crosby, and John Ward, DFL-Baxter, will not be subject to recall elections, rejecting the efforts of a local Republican activist who had claimed that the legislators should face removal from office.

[…]

“Constituent disagreement with votes taken by their elected representative does not equate to malfeasance by the representative,” Gildea wrote, in language which appears in both of her dismissals. “As the supreme court has recognized, the remedy for constituents who disagree with an elected representative’s positions or voting record is not in the recall procedures.”

The literal translation of Gildea’s statement would be, “We, judges of the state, have decided that the state-sanctioned process allowed to the serfs to remove state representatives from office is not the proper method for the serfs to deal with state representatives that fail to abide by the desires of the serfs.”

In other words if a group of serfs suffers under a “representative” that doesn’t uphold their values their only recourse is to wait for the next election cycle. While many proponents of democracy may believe such chicanery goes against the ideas of representation that democracy supposedly provides the truth is such stopgaps must be put into place because it is impossible for one person to represent more than him or herself. If communities were allowed to remove a “representative” that failed to abide by the desires of that community then every “representative” would get removed immediately because they cannot represent everybody in the community. In other words democracy is a sham. Its proponents claim that democracy is the one form of government that ensures everybody has a voice but, in truth, only the members of the state have a voice. Everybody else goes without say over their own lives.

In this case the state decided that the option is provided to the serfs to deal with unwanted “representatives” was no longer allowed. The serfs have no recourse because they are not members of the state.

Another Battle in the State’s War Against the Homeless

While the hearts of many self-proclaimed progressives are in the right place they tend to go about their stated goal of helping those in need in the wrong way. Asking the state to help those without resources is an exercise in futility because the state is an agent of expropriation and is only interested in providing assistance to individuals who actually have something to steal.

The state’s war against the homeless is pretty overt at this point. It seems that any organization that attempts to provide food, clothing, or shelter to those without means are shutdown by whatever municipality they are operating in. Manchester, New Hampshire is the latest battlefield in this twisted war:

MANCHESTER — City officials have told a church group that it will no longer be allowed use Veterans Park to serve a free hot breakfast to the homeless.

The decision has left Do you know Him? Ministries without an outdoor location in the downtown area to serve the breakfast.

The group had been using Veterans Park each weekend since January 2012 until December when, due to the cold, it took the operation indoors at the Salvation Army.

When it sought to again serve the breakfast at the park, the group was told by the Parks Department that its permit would not be renewed.

Why wasn’t their permit renewed? In most of these cases the state claims health and safety reasons to block organizations from helping those in need but this time the justification was a bit more honest:

“There was some concern from area businesses who didn’t feel like it was the best fit, using park space to feed people,” Chief of Parks Peter Capano said. “We sat down to try and find another location to do the ministry and had a rough time of it.”

Obviously we can’t have a bunch of homeless people reminding patrons that some people have it better than others. If we allowed that some of those people may decide to help and that would mean resources would be going to those without means instead of the state and its cronies. Instead the problem must be swept under the rug.

In the end the lesson is the same: the state cannot be used to help those in need. If you really want to help people who have little or nothing then you’ll have to develop voluntary methods of doing so.

Adam Kokesh Arrested

Adam Kokesh, the man who has won some notoriety in the gun rights community for planning an armed march in Washington DC, has been arrested:

Former marine, radio host and political activist Adam Kokesh was arrested at a marijuana legalization assembly in Philadelphia today, according to video and Facebook posts.

In a video of the Smoke Down Prohibition rally, policemen can be seen entering a crowd of activists, and shortly afterwards emerging with Kokesh in tow.

According to his Facebook page, Kokesh was reportedly hauled away in a white Chevy Suburban, although he “hadn’t even smoked yet,” while “other protesters were actually smoking and released after arrest…”

When I discussed Kokesh’s planned march I mentioned the possibility of his arrest happening before the event. It’s no atypical for the state to begin harassing somebody who is publicly making a mockery of its power so it comes as no surprise that the man who is planning to lead an armed march on Washington DC has not been arrested. At this point the arrest could be pure harassment or it could lead to actual charges, which would make this entire situation far more interesting.