Tag: Shut Up Slave

More Surveillance State Coming to the United Kingdom

You know what the United Kingdom (UK) doesn’t have enough of? Orwellian surveillance. Realizing this sever deficiency the governing body of the UK has moved to increase surveillance:

The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon.

Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time.

The Home Office says the move is key to tackling crime and terrorism, but civil liberties groups have criticised it.

When you redefine crime and terrorism to mean any anti-state advocacy this move makes sense. In the UK one can go to prison for merely owning a firearm and protesting is seen as a terrorist activity, so I’m not surprised the government is moving to monitor all individuals instead of those who are suspected of wrongdoing. After all everybody is a potential terrorist because everybody, at some point, criticizes the government.

Bruce Schneier Removed from Invitee List for Congressional Hearing on the TSA

If this doesn’t reek of corruption and demonstrate how false democracy really is nothing will. Congress is holding a hearing on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) naked body scanners. At first they invited security expert, and major critic of the TSA, Bruce Schneier but later told him not to come:

On Friday, at the request of the TSA, I was removed from the witness list. The excuse was that I am involved in a lawsuit against the TSA, trying to get them to suspend their full-body scanner program. But it’s pretty clear that the TSA is afraid of public testimony on the topic, and especially of being challenged in front of Congress. They want to control the story, and it’s easier for them to do that if I’m not sitting next to them pointing out all the holes in their position. Unfortunately, the committee went along with them. (They tried to pull the same thing last year and it failed — video at the 10:50 mark.)

The claim that he was removed for his involvment in an ongoing lawsuit is nothing more than a convenient excuse. In all likelihood he was removed because Congress doesn’t want to hear any criticisms on the body scanners as they’re very useful for our trip down the road to fascism. There is too much money involved in the body scanners for them to ever go away, in fact they only thing we’re likely to see is an expansion of their use at locations beyond airports. Let’s also not forget the fact that the body scanners are worthless.

You Might be a Terrorist

The New Jersey Department of Motherland Homeland Security has released a document that explains the signs of terrorism [PDF]. After reading this document I’ve come to realize that we all may be terrorists without even realizing it. Why? Because some of the signs of being a terrorist are:

Be alert to the indicators regarding actions, individual behaviors, personal interactions and social dynamics, vehicle characteristics and movements. Use your judgment in determining whether or not they are unusual or suspicious in your community or work environment. Be wary of people who depart quickly when seen or attempt to conceal something. Look for signs of nervousness in the people you come in contact with. Signs will become particularly evident in a person’s eyes, face, neck, and body movements. The following is a list of things to look for:

Eyes

  • Glances: directions, duration, timing
  • Wide open “flashbulb eyes”
  • Cold penetrating stare
  • Trance-like gaze

Face and Neck

  • Exaggerated yawning when engaged in conversation
  • Protruding or beating neck arteries
  • Repetitive touching of face, tugging on or covering ears
  • Increased breathing rate, panting
  • Excessive fidgeting, clock watching, head turning

Body

  • Pacing or jumpy
  • Trembling
  • Unusual perspiration
  • Goose bumps
  • Rigid posture with minimal body movements and arms close to sides

Basically everybody who has ever shown signs of nervousness is a potential terrorist. Another way to detect a terrorist is to look for common equipment used by their kind:

Individuals may be observed:

  • Drawing or taking pictures in areas not normally of interest
  • Taking notes or annotating maps
  • Sitting in a parked vehicle

Some of the tools terrorists might use during surveillance include:

  • Cameras- video, still, or panoramic
  • Laptop computers or PDA’s (Personal Data Assistants)
  • Diagrams or maps
  • Binoculars or other vision-enhancing devices
  • GPS (Global Positioning System) devices

Not only is every person who has ever been nervous a potential terrorist but so is every tourist. Russia Today has a list of potential terrorists that you should be on the lookout for.

Just in case this document gets thrown down the memory hole I’ve uploaded a copy here.

United States Government Expands Record Keeping Powers

Being a little jealous of how quickly France is moving towards fascism the United States government has made a move to further expand its own police state:

The U.S. intelligence community will be able to store information about Americans with no ties to terrorism for up to five years under new Obama administration guidelines.

Until now, the National Counterterrorism Center had to destroy immediately information about Americans that already was stored in other government databases when there were no clear ties to terrorism.

Giving the NCTC expanded record-retention authority had been urged by members of Congress, who said the intelligence community did not connect strands of intelligence held by multiple agencies leading up to a failed bombing attempt on a U.S.-bound airliner on Christmas 2009.

The part that really galls me is that Congress is using a failed bombing attempt as justification for this regulatory change. If the bombing attempt failed then everything worked as planned. As Bruce Schneier pointed out the attempted bombing was an example of where airport security actually did its job:

With all the talk about the failure of airport security to detect the PETN that the Christmas bomber sewed into his underwear — and to think I’ve been using the phrase “underwear bomber” as a joke all these years — people forget that airport security played an important role in foiling the plot.

In order to get through airport security, Abdulmutallab — or, more precisely, whoever built the bomb — had to construct a far less reliable bomb than he would have otherwise; he had to resort to a much more ineffective detonation mechanism. And, as we’ve learned, detonating PETN is actually very hard.

Now, almost a year and a half later, Congress is using the failed bombing attempt to justify an expansion of state power and nobody is even raising an eyebrow. You would think somebody would say, “Hey Congress, the attempted bombing on Christmas of 2009 failed. Shouldn’t you use a bombing attempt that succeeded to justify your power grab?”

How to Guarantee a Law Passes

France has either forgotten what it was like under Nazi rule or greatly enjoyed it because they continue down the road to fascism. With the recent gunman who terrorized the people of France gone the state is looking at ways to exploit the situation to further solidify its power and one of those ways is advocating a law that will give jail time to those who visit “extremist” websites. Nicolas Sarkozy, the current dictator under threat of being ousted, has been pushing this law and is pulling out all the stops:

On Thursday, Sarkozy used a televised address to propose a new set of laws that criminalize the use of websites affiliated with terrorist sympathizers and hate groups. “From now on, any person who habitually consults Web sites that advocate terrorism or that call for hatred and violence will be criminally punished,” he said.

The pronouncement came on the heels of the police manhunt for and 32-hour standoff with Mohamed Merah, a 23-year old French citizen accused of murdering three French paratroopers, a rabbi, and three Jewish schoolchildren. “Don’t tell me it’s not possible,” Sarkozy said. “What is possible for pedophiles should be possible for trainee terrorists and their supporters, too.”

Emphasis mine. Sarkozy not only played the terrorism card but also managed to play the pedophile card. Either card in of themselves can guarantee the passage of a law but when you combine the two it has to be a surefire win. What politician is willing to vote down a law that could get them accused of being a terrorist pedophile?

It’s pretty obvious this law is going to be slammed through and that will require even more state monitoring of French denizens’ Internet activities. I’m sure that the law will be expanded in the future to give jail time to denizens who visit sites with other types of unapproved information like pornography and websites providing anti-government news.

Because Discrimination is Fun

I always find it funny when people scream about discrimination in schools. Why? It’s not because I support discrimination but because of the selective nature of anti-discriminatory policies. While they preach about the need to create a safe environment for all children they also try to prevent many students from feeling welcome. For every rule prohibiting the discrimination of homosexuals, African Americans, women, etc. there is another rule that ban talking about firearms. No rules exist to protect libertarians, atheists, or other groups that are often discriminated against, especially in schools. If you want to see a kid get discriminated against immediately just watch for one to make a comment against public unions, the teachers will descend upon him like vulture on carrion. My main point is that schools don’t oppose discrimination, they promote it by being very selective in the groups they protect. When a school protects one group over another they also make a statement, that those protected groups are better than others and therefore other groups are obviously lesser and, therefore, valid targets of discrimination.

Now that I’ve gotten the gears of discrimination moving let’s talk about adult film stars, or more specifically, two adult file stars. This story starts with an 18 year-old male named Mike Stone, a student at the Tartan High School. Mr. Stone decided to send out invitations to 600 adult film actresses to be his date to prom, and one accepted. The one who accepted, Megan Piper, then invited another, Emy Reyes. Obviously Mr. Stone is now the talk of his class, and for good reason (consider his age, consider what he accomplished, then realize he’s going to be the most popular guy with the guys). Needless to say the school administration saw a student having fun and accomplishing one of his goals in life so they had to shut him down:

A Tartan High School student who used Twitter to find an adult film actress to go to prom with him May 12 won’t be allowed to bring the woman to the dance, according to a statement released by the school. The statement says:

“It has been reported in the national news that a Tartan student has invited a porn star to attend prom and she has accepted his invitation, subject to his paying for her airfare to Minnesota. However, this prom date will not be allowed to attend the Tartan prom as her attendance would be prohibited under Tartan’s standard prom procedures and would be inconsistent with two school district policies, E-077 (Visitors to School District Buildings and Sites) and E-084 (School Sponsored Student Publications and Activities).”

Hold the boat here, what? A student is being prohibited from brining his dates to prom? What kind of discriminatory bullshit is that? Are high schools not the bastions of anti-discrimination? Are we not told that all are excepted, and indeed welcomes, in the hands of public schools? What could possibly be in these school policies that would override their supposed prohibitions against discrimination? Let’s take a look. I went diving through the Oakdale school district’s webpage and found the policies mentioned in the statement above. E-077 [PDF] deals with visitors and exists mainly to give the school the option of banning “undesirables” from school grounds:

3) Visitor Limitations

A. An individual or group may be denied permission to visit a school or school property or
such permission may be revoked if the visitor(s) does not comply with the school district
procedures and regulations or if the visit is not in the best interest of students, employees
or the school district.

If that’s not a catch-all statement I don’t know what is. I’m curious who gets to decide whether or not a visitor is “in the best interests of students, employees, or the school district?” Is there some kind of blacklist containing various “undesirables” such as libertarians, gun owners, and adult film starts or is the decision entirely made willy nilly? My guess is the latter. Next we must take a look at E-084 [PDF], which deals with school publications and events:

1) General Statement of Policy

A. The school district may exercise editorial control over the style and content of student
expression in school-sponsored publications and activities.

B. Expression and representations made by students in school publications is not an
expression of official school district policy. Faculty advisors shall supervise student
writers to ensure compliance with the law and school district policies.

C. Students who believe their right to free expression has been unreasonably restricted in an
official student publication or activity may seek review of the decision by the building
principal. The principal shall issue a decision no later than three (3) school days after
review is requested.

1. Students producing official school publications and activities shall be under the
supervision of a faculty advisor and the school principal. Official publications and
activities shall be subject to the guidelines set forth below.

2. Official school publications may be distributed at reasonable times and locations.

[…]

3) Guidelines

A. Expression in an official school publication or school-sponsored activity is prohibited when
the material:

1. is obscene to minors;

2. is libelous or slanderous;

3. advertises or promotes any product or service not permitted for minors by law;

4. encourages students to commit illegal acts or violate school regulations or
substantially disrupts the orderly operation of school or school activities;

5. expresses or advocates sexual, racial, or religious harassment or violence or
prejudice;

6. is distributed or displayed in violation of time, place, and manner regulations

Honestly I’m not sure how E-084 comes into play here. Mrs. Piper and Mrs. Reyes are not material being written about in a publication, nor are they promoting anything listed in the verboten list. At most E-084 would allow the school to prevent Mr. Stone from publishing material for distribution in the school bragging about what he has done, although that prevention wouldn’t be based on any of the listed items on the verboten list.

Either way the school has seen fit to prohibit Mrs. Piper and Mrs. Reyes from entering the school, a decisions that is technically covered under E-077. This raises a question in my opinion: were the two women banned from entering the school because of their choice in careers? Does the mere fact of being an adult file actress put you on the school’s blacklist? If so, what other careers can put you on the blacklist? We know school officials have a zero tolerance policy towards firearm so we must ask if anybody working in the firearms manufacturing field would be prohibited from entering the school. If Mrs. Piper and Mrs. Reyes violate E-084 then police officers must as well under 3-5, “expresses or advocates sexual, racial, or religious harassment or violence or prejudice;” since police officers do express and advocate violence from time to time.

Let’s take this a step further, what if Mrs. Piper or Mrs. Reyes had a kid in the Oakdale school system? Would they be prohibited from attending student teacher conferences? Could they enter the building to pick up the child for a doctor’s appointment? After all if they’re career is what prohibited it them from entering the school then they must never be allowed to enter, right? If it’s not their choice in careers is is because they’re both women? Is it because Mrs. Reyes happens to be black? We do know for certain that discrimination is afoot.

Whether or not one agrees with the school’s decision isn’t of my concern, the fact that the school claims to be a bastion of anti-discrimination while being discriminators themselves is. The hypocrisy is palpable. School officials never waste an opportunity to come out and talk at length about their hard work in making their school a safe place for everybody. They will go so far as to find scapegoats to sacrifice just so they can’t demonstrate how hard they work to fight discrimination. You can be sure that any fight between kids of differing races will be treated as a hate crime, even if the fight was simply over a non-racial statement said by one student to the other.

The bottom line is schools work hard to prohibit discrimination only if you’re part of a group they like. If you’re not a member of a group they like, say gun owners or libertarians, you’ll not receive their protection and will actually be discriminated against by faculty members. Apparently adult film actresses aren’t one of the protected groups and therefore the school is more than happy to discriminate against them.

If You Disobey You Will Be Put in a Cage

Periodically I bring up the state’s obsession with using violence to enforce its decrees. Many people seem to believe fines aren’t examples of state violence but they never stop to think about the reason people pay fines. You pay a fine because of the implicit threat: if you don’t pay the fine you will be kidnapped and held in a cage. Many Americans have been held in cages for incredibly stupid reasons. A stupid reason we can add to the list is not siding a house:

A Burnsville man on his way to work was arrested and thrown in jail without bond, and then subjected to electronic home monitoring.

But it wasn’t for drugs or a DWI or some other major crime.

Burnsville city leaders say Mitch Faber’s dealings with the law all stem from his failure to properly put up siding on his house.

Yep, siding.

Faber says he had every intention of completing the stucco and decorative rock project on his home but he ran into money troubles when the economy soured. Burnsville leaders say they had no choice to enforce the law.

Here’s how a simple code violation spiraled into a criminal case:

Mitch and his wife Jean say it all began back in 2007 when they received a letter from the city of Burnsville saying, in part, “you must complete the siding of your home.”

“We were in the process of finishing,” Mitch insists. “This wasn’t something that we were trying to avoid doing.”

But in 2009 there were two more warning letters, and in 2010 yet another–this time requiring Faber to appear in court. Burnsville leaders provided 5 Eyewitness News with these 2010 photos of the Fabers’ home as proof there was a problem.

“I was expecting maybe a $700 fine,” Faber said. Instead he was given an ultimatum — finish the siding or go to jail.

[…]

After two days locked up, a judge agreed Mitch should be released but required him to submit to electronic home monitoring. In Dakota County, that process requires participants — no matter what their crimes — to blow into a drug and alcohol device every time an alarm goes off.

“They could call me at 2 in the morning and they did,” Faber said.

The state didn’t even get to the part where they threaten to kidnap Mitch unless he paid an extortion fee, they just went straight to the kidnapping part. In essence Mitch is being punished for not having enough money. He began stuccoing his home but didn’t have the money to complete the upgrade. Here’s the thing, it’s Mitch’s home so why the fuck should the state be able to tell him what to do with it? Perhaps he wanted a home that had unfinished stucco siding, then what? Too bad? Finish the siding, do with your home what you do not wish to do, or be held in a cage?

My question is this: where is the victim of this supposed crime and what harm do they claim has been done to them? Without a victim claiming harm there is no ground for punishment in my opinion. In this case the state has demonstrated their willingness to bring violence where no violence previously existed. Nobody was harmed by Mitch’s home not being fully stuccoed yet he was kidnapped.

This is yet another example of the police state we live in.

This is Why I Don’t Call it a Justice System

Calling the system of laws in this country a justice system is entirely erroneous. What was have is a punishment system, a system that punishes you whether or not you’re guilty or innocent. Things have only been going down hill and now the state is so brazen that they have flat out stated being proven innocent is no longer valid ground for release:

Witnesses have testified that another man confessed to Deputy Hill’s murder. But in a January ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Keith Ellison lamented that even though he was concerned Will could be innocent, he had to deny his motion for a new trial.

“The questions raised during post-judgment factual development about Will’s actual innocence create disturbing uncertainties,” he wrote. “Federal law does not recognize actual innocence as a mechanism to overturn an otherwise valid conviction.”

Emphasis mine. Actual innocent isn’t recognized by federal law as a mechanism to have a conviction overturned? What? Isn’t that the entire fucking point of the “justice” system, determine whether or not somebody is actually guilty of a crime? I know the motto is “innocent until proven guilty” but if a person who was previous ruled guilty is later found to be innocent doesn’t that indicate they’re no longer proven guilty? Isn’t the “justice” system only supposed to punish the guilty?

Let’s face it, we’re in a police state and justice was given the boot ages ago.

Strong Bipartisan Support

We often hear a bill has strong bipartisan support as if that’s a good thing. Truthfully strong bipartisan support is a fancy of way of saying legislation that will fuck us in the ass. Remember the bill I mentioned that would effectively make it illegal to protest anywhere people protected by the Secret Service were speaking? It broke the laws of physics when it passed through the legislature faster than the speed of light. It flew threw the Senate on February 5th, made its way through the House on February 28th, and was finally signed by the emperor president on March 7th. All told the bill went from passing its first part of congress to being signed into law in roughly one month.

The statement released by the White House is laughable:

H.R. 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” which makes it a Federal crime to enter or remain knowingly in any restricted area of the White House, the Vice President’s official residence, or their respective grounds without lawful authority.

No justification, no attempt at bullshitting the public about why this bill is needed, just a short statement that might as well read, “Shut up slaves.” The statement also entirely missed the fact that this bill extends well beyond the White House or the Vice President’s residence:

‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area–

‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’.

The bill applies to any location where persons “protected by the Secret Service” are at. Beautiful isn’t it? That means this bill applies to any location the president or vice president are currently stalking about.

It’s Officially Official, I’m a Domestic Terrorist According to the FBI

No longer relegated to the back corner of the bar of state enemies, I’m not officially an official domestic terrorist according to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI):

The FBI considers sovereign-citizen extremists as comprising a domestic terrorist movement, which, scattered across the United States, has existed for decades, with well-known members, such as Terry Nichols, who helped plan the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, bombing. Sovereign citizens do not represent an anarchist group, nor are they a militia, although they sometimes use or buy illegal weapons. Rather, they operate as individuals without established leadership and only come together in loosely affiliated groups to train, help each other with paperwork, or socialize and talk about their ideology.

Holy shit my head hurts after reading that. First I’m going to, again, bring up the fact that sovereign citizen is an oxymoron:

Sovereign citizen is a contradiction of terms. A sovereign is a supreme ruler while a citizen is a subject of a state. You can not be a supreme ruler and a subject at the same time. On the other hand a sovereign individual is a supreme ruler of an individual, him or herself. If you’re going to make us appear as a threat please get the terminology right at the very least.

Beyond that let me focus on the, “Sovereign citizens do not represent an anarchist group… Rather, they operate as individuals without established leadership…” Huh? Sovereign individuals aren’t anarchists but operate as leaderless individuals? I would love to know what the FBI’s definition of anarchist is because there are various forms of individualist anarchist philosophies. If anybody working for the FBI is reading this post (let me use a Department of Homeland Security keyword to ensure you are, drill) please take a few seconds to read my post that explains different schools of anarchism.

A person who considers themselves a sovereign individual very well could be an anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, or a mutualist (which can actually be seen as an individualist or collectivist form of anarchism depending on how you look at it). Unless the FBI is using an extremely narrow definition of anarchist the statement on their own page is contradictory. Furthermore they state Terry Nichols as an example of a sovereign individual but fail to mention any others. Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, and Jeffery Tucker would all consider themselves sovereign individuals but, like myself, advocate strict adherence to the non-aggression principle.

Blatant undefined generalizations are one of the biggest problems with the United States government. They will say all sovereign individuals are violent and thus label anybody who consideres themselves a sovereign a domestic terrorist. What this does is group non-violent individuals such as myself with the rare violent individuals, which makes both groups appear the same in the eyes of law enforcement.

I’m sure those reading the FBI’s article are wondering, “How can I identify a sovereign individual?” Easy, the FBI has a list of identifying factors:

Sovereign citizens often produce documents that contain peculiar or out-of-place language. In some cases, they speak their own language or will write only in certain colors, such as in red crayon. Several indicators can help identify these individuals.

  • References to the Bible, The Constitution of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or treaties with foreign governments
  • Personal names spelled in all capital letters or interspersed with colons (e.g., JOHN SMITH or Smith: John)
  • Signatures followed by the words “under duress,” “Sovereign Living Soul” (SLS), or a copyright symbol (©)
  • Personal seals, stamps, or thumb prints in red ink
  • The words “accepted for value”

They also carry fraudulent drivers’ licenses to indicate their view that law enforcement does not have the authority to stop their vehicle or may write “No Liability Accepted” above their signature on a driver’s license to signify that they do not accept it as a legitimate identification document.

What? Writes in red crayons? I’m not sure where they came up with that one. Oh, referencing “The Constitution of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or treaties with foreign governments” makes one a sovereign individual and thus a terrorist? Damn… that basically covered every lawyer, law professor, and libertarian in the country. I guess I’ve been wondering how long it would take the FBI to label the United States Constitution a terrorist document, now I know.