Permanent war is longstanding policy. America deplores peace. Throughout its history, it’s waged war annually at home and/or abroad. Today it does so globally.
Giving peace a chance is loathed. Direct or proxy wars rage in multiple countries.
“Yes we can” reflects Obama’s pro-war, pro-imperial, pro-ravage, plunder and dominate agenda. He prioritizes it. He abhors human rights, equity, justice, and other democratic values. Rogue leaders operate that way.
Rule of law principles are spurned. Constitutional protections no longer apply. Any nation, organization or person designated a state enemy is targeted.
“Change you can believe in” is polar opposite of what most people expected. America’s empire of bases is global. US special forces operate in over 120 countries. Proxy death squads supplement them. CIA agents and assets are everywhere.
Washington’s Blog said America’s waging 74 wars. It’s “fighting or ‘helping’ some force in some proxy struggle that has been deemed beneficial by the nation’s masters of war.”
At the same time, it’s waging “many more covert wars.” It bears repeating, the very notion of peace is abhorrent. Waging war is prioritized.
Paul Craig Roberts calls America a “gangster state.” He does so for good reason. Its domestic and foreign policies reflect it. No nation ever harmed more people in more ways globally. None ever spurned rule of law principles more egregiously.
Waging war on terror’s a ruse. It’s duplicitous subterfuge. America’s had no enemies since Japan surrendered in August 1945. Manufactured ones substitute.
They’re easy to create. Media scoundrels convince people. Repeating Big Lies ad nauseam works. No terror threat whatever exists.
Polls show the power of mind manipulation. In late April, a New York Times/CBS News poll showed an astonishing 90% of Americans believe they’ll “always have to live with the risk of terrorism.”
An equally astonishing 75% believe restricting civil liberties is OK. Over one-fourth said existing policy measures aren’t enough. Another near 50% said they’re about right.
Only 20% said government went too far. Nearly 80% accept mass surveillance. People believe it reduces the threat of terrorism.
No wonder America wages war on humanity easily. It does so at home and abroad. Domestic opposition barely exists. It bodes ill for what’s likely coming.
Most people are mindless of what threatens their security, welfare and futures. They’re comfortable with what’s destroying them in plain sight. They can’t see the forest through the trees.
They’re oblivious to a clear, present and ominous danger. It may end up destroying them. Extrajudicial, unchecked, imperial carte blanche war on the world is policy. There’s no place to hide. No one’s immune. Peace doesn’t stand a chance.
Bashar al-Assad understands. He’s struggling to let Syria survive. The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) published his interview with Argentina’s Clarin newspaper and Telam news agency. His comments were candid and forthright.
He blamed “foreign interference” for Syria’s conflict. Most Syrians “reject all forms of external intervention. For us, it is a matter of safeguarding Syria.”
(O)ur level of force relate to the types of weapons and terrorism techniques we are dealing with as well as our ultimate goal of protecting the lives of civilians and the country as a whole.
Terrorism can never be the instrument to achieve reforms. What interest does an internationally listed terrorist from Chechnya or Afghanistan have with the internal political reform process in Syria?
How is the legitimate demand for reform linked with terrorist activities adopted by radicalized foreign fighters?
Recent credible reports show that there are approximately 29 nationalities of foreign fighters engaged in terrorism activities within Syria’s borders.
He stressed his commitment to political reforms. Many have been implemented, he said.
“The essence of any political solution is the aspirations of the Syrian people, decided by the ballot boxes.” Syrians alone must decide. No outside interference is justified. International law prohibits it.
Asked his view on the US/Russian proposed peace conference, he reiterated support for all ways to end violence diplomatically. A political settlement depends on it, he stressed.
At the same time, he’s justifiably “skeptical of the genuine intentions of certain western administrations towards seeking a realistic political solution.”
This caution is based on their continued support of terrorist groups in Syria. We are dedicated to pursuing a political solution, yet there are powers who are pressing for the failure of such a solution. This is a two-way process; it needs commitment from all sides.
(F)oreign-based opposition elements (are) far from autonomous independent decision makers. Their policies are crafted by the countries that give them leverage.
(They) survive on the aid given to them by their patron states, in essence manipulated by the nations that provide their flow of finance.
They live under the auspice and control of their intelligence agencies and thus submit to what is imposed upon them.
Therefore their decisions are not self-governing; most significantly, they lack a popular base in Syria.
It’s well-documented¦that they have until last week clearly and repeatedly rejected political dialogue.
He stressed his commitment “to a comprehensive national dialogue (with) all who have a genuine desire to participate, with no exclusions.”
He rejects doing so with terrorists. “There is no state that would ever negotiate with terrorists. However, we welcome those who lay down their weapons and engage in constructive political dialogue.”
Peaceful conflict resolution’s impossible when external forces support terrorism, he stressed. “Guns and dialogue are clearly incompatible.”
Our assumption is that these countries would not cease this policy as their main goal is to undermine and thus weaken the Syrian state.
Even when we succeed in reaching a Syrian-led political agreement, certain countries such as Qatar, Turkey and others will continue to work to fuel violence and terrorism in Syria.
Therefore, our main precedence from an international conference is an immediate cessation of finance and weapons that are regularly streamed into Syria, placing emphasis on preventing the terrorists and fighters from being flooded into Syria principally through Turkey, with financial support primarily from Qatar and also from other Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia.
He understands “major international powers” are involved. So is Israel.
Asked if he’d step down, he said “Syrian people will decide whether I remain in office or not.Through the constitution and the presidential elections in 2014, the people will decide.”
He rejects Obama, Kerry or other external figures interfering in Syria’s internal affairs. They have no mandate to speak for Syrians.
To be even more concise and clear, we are an independent state, we are a people who respect ourselves and our right to self-determination.
We do not accept for anyone to dictate to us how to act, whether it is the United States or any other country.
Syria’s in crisis, he stressed. “Any abandonment of my duties now is an attempt to escape from responsibility and I’m not the type of person who runs away from his responsibilities.”
He categorically denied repeated allegations that Syria used chemical weapons. They’re “a clear pretext for military intervention. It is common knowledge that western administrations lie continuously and manufacture stories as a pretext for war.”
Washington and other major powers “delegated Israel to commit its aggression in order to improve the morale of the terrorist groups.”
They did so because Syrian forces “shift(ed) the balance of power on the ground. (They want) to prolong the violence and bloodshed (to) significantly weaken the Syrian state.” He believes “military action” may be forthcoming.
The primary aim of the West is to ensure that they have ‘loyal’ governments at their disposal, similar to those administrations that existed previously in Latin America, which facilitate the exploitation and consumption of a country’s national resources.
A country like Syria is not by any means a satellite state to the West. Syria is an independent state working for the interests of its people, rather than making the Syrian people work for the interests of the West.
It is only normal that they would not want us to play a role, preferring instead a puppet government serving their interests and creating projects that would benefit their peoples and economies.
Syria is strategically placed not just for oil and gas projects, but also to shift the balance of power between the major players.
Previous peace initiatives failed. Another won’t fare better. Washington prioritizes failure. War is longstanding policy.
America’s a worldwide belligerent. Unchallenged global dominance matters most. Independent governments aren’t tolerated.
All means are employed to oust them. Pro-Western satellite regimes are sought. Iran’s America’s principal regional target. War plans were readied years ago.
Replacing Assad’s government makes them easier to implement. So does eliminating Lebanon’s Hezbollah. America’s coalition partners include key NATO allies, Israel, and regional rogue states.
They’re committed to war. They abhor peace. They menace humanity. They may end up destroying it. Their arsenals make it easy. Don’t bet against their use full force.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/
Urban explorers are hobbyists who – you guessed it – explore urban areas to find little-seen or ignored areas of the man-made landscape, some abandoned and some not, often documenting their travels and discoveries and posting images or other information online.
While it might seem somewhat absurd that the NCTC would put out a report (embedded below or available here) telling law enforcement that, “Any suspicious UE activity should be reported to the nearest State and Major Area Fusion Center and to the local FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force,” it really shouldn’t be surprising.
Now the government thinks urban explorers are actually aiding terrorists by posting photos,videos and diagrams online.
This is noteworthy because urban exploration has become a surprisingly popular activity. So popular, in fact, that a 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article noted, “Urban exploration is a worldwide phenomenon with its own fanzines, conventions, culture, ethics, periodicals, books, movies, MTV specials and clubs from Russia to Australia, Canada to Chile. And it’s growing.”
That means all of those people, especially those in the United States, could arguably be seen as “aiding the enemy” by helping terrorists “remotely identify and surveil potential targets.”
“Advanced navigation and mapping technologies, including three dimensional modeling and geo-tagging, could aid terrorists in pinpointing locations in dense urban environments,” according to the report, originally released on November 19, 2012 according to Public Intelligence and marked “For Official Use Only.”
Interestingly, the Chronicle article paints a completely different picture of how urban explorers work.
“Discoveries are no longer openly shared online, but handled like carefully guarded secrets among a small network of trusted cronies,” James Nestor wrote for the Chronicle.
“Company websites often provide information about buildings; social media postings of explorers’ activity often identify access points and security flaws,” the report claims.
Perhaps most interesting of all is that the report tells readers to report suspicious activity to “the nearest State and Major Area Fusion Center and to the local FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.”
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCY.TV from 7 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com
The Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Dean Baker calls poverty America’s “new growth industry.” The state of today’s America is deplorable.
In his latest May 3 analysis, economist John Williams said “April “employment and unemployment data were nonsense: the economy remains in serious trouble.”
About 23% of Americans wanting work can’t find it. Most jobs are temp or part-time low pay/poor or no benefit service ones with no futures. Conditions are getting worse, not better.
Federal, state and local government jobs were lost. Construction shed 6,000 jobs. Zero manufacturing jobs were created. Most good ones are overseas. They’ve been offshored to low-wage countries.
Economist David Rosenberg called April a “potemkin payroll report. Where’s the income hiding,” he asked? Average wage-based income declined 0.4%. It was the biggest drop since last October.
Market analyst Graham Summers discussed “a truly horrible economic reality” beneath April’s headline job numbers. The average workweek declined by 0.2 hours. The average manufacturing workweek was down 0.3%.
Fewer overall hours worked subtracts 15 minutes per week. Applied to private sector employment, it’s “the equivalent of over 21 million work hours lost in one month.”
It’s the biggest decline since April 2009. At that time, the economy was “absolutely imploding. It’s numerical equivalent of firing 718,000+ people.”
It’s how companies begin dealing with downturns. “They don’t start laying people off en masse….they start cutting work hours bit by bit.”
Mass layoffs arrive during “full-blown recessions. The first stage “is already happening.” Clear signs show it.
Markets are euphoric. They’re hitting new highs. Economic contraction is ignored. It happened in 2000 and 2008. Warning signs look ominously like earlier.
Peter B. Edelman co-directs Georgetown University’s Center on Poverty, Inequality, and Public Policy. He calls “low-wage work” in America “pandemic.”
America “descended into poverty,” said Paul Craig Roberts. Growing millions struggle to get by. Many are “one medical problem or lost job away from homelessness.”
Some colleges and universities offer adjunct professorships. They pay “$10,000 per year or less.” Education was once “touted as the way out of poverty.” Increasingly it reflects it. So do military enlistments. They’re a desperate way to find work.
America’s wealth disparity is deplorable. The top 1% owns over half the nation’s wealth. The bottom 90% has a decreasing share. Social inequality defines today’s America. It’s unprecedented or close to it.
It matches or exceeds 19th century harshness. Protracted Depression conditions affect growing millions. Poverty, unemployment, homelessness and hunger approach record levels.
Socially destructive government policies bear full responsibility. Wealth and privilege alone matter. Ordinary households are sacrificed. Popular needs go begging.
Inequality is institutionalized. Around 100 million working age Americans are jobless. Most others are underemployed. Millions struggle to pay rent, service mortgages, cover medical bills, heat homes, and manage other daily expenses.
America’s 1% has more wealth than the bottom 95%. Income inequality is greater than in all other developed countries. Over three-fourths of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck.
Neoliberal harshness is policy. Bipartisan complicity force-feeds it. It’s institutionalized when vital aid is needed. Doing so wages financial war on millions.
Obama exceeds the worst of George Bush. He’s wrecking growing millions of households. He’s doing so to serve monied interests. They own him. Whatever they want they get.
Obama’s thirdworldizing America. He’s ideologically over-the-top. He’s waging war living standards. He’s targeting the nation’s social contract.
He’s dismissive of growing needs. He’s heading America for tyranny and ruin. He’s banana republicanizing it.
It’s already a kleptocracy. It’s run by corporate crooks. Bipartisan complicity lets them have things their way. Profits are privatized. Losses are socialized. Bankers are at the top of the pecking order.
Ordinary people are exploited. A democratic facade masks New World Order harshness. Its holy trinity is eliminating public services, predatory capitalism writ large, and cracking down hard on non-believers.
Freedom’s fast disappearing. Inside the bubble, it’s paradise. Outside it’s dystopian hell. America never was beautiful. It’s worse than ever now in modern times.
Monied interests run things. Electoral politics doesn’t work. Washington is too pernicious, corrupt and dysfunctional to fix. Privilege is institutionalized. Beneficial social change isn’t tolerated. Police state harshness prevents it.
Force-feeding inequality defines immorality. It’s also destructive economics. America’s been declining for years. Private wealth is pitted against popular interests. It’s been winning for decades.
Younger generations are worse off than older ones financially. Wages haven’t kept up in real terms. High-paying jobs disappeared. Low-paying ones replaced them.
Deplorable social inequality exists. A race to the bottom continues. Future prospects look grim. America appears headed for what most of humanity faces.
At least 80% live on less than $10 a day. Over three billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 80% live in countries where income disparity is increasing.
The poorest 40% of world population has 5% of global income. The bottom fifth has $1.5%. The top 20% has 75%.
According to UNICEF, 22,000 impoverished children die daily. They “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”
An estimated 28% of children in developing countries are underweight, malnourished and/or stunted.
Tens of millions of impoverished children aren’t in school. At the start of the new millennium, nearly a billion people were illiterate.
Less than 1% of what’s spent on weapons globally can provide universal primary education.
Preventable infectious diseases claim millions of lives annually. Unsanitary water and lack of basic sanitation affect half the world’s population.
Diarrhea and other water-related illnesses claim at least 1.8 million child deaths annually.
Nearly half the population in developing countries, at any given time, experience water and/or sanitation related health problems.
Around one-third of children in developing countries have inadequate shelter. One in seven have no access to health care. Most with it get too little.
In 2003, 10.6 million children died before age five.
Rural areas account for 75% of people living on less than $1 dollar a day. About half the world’s population live in urban communities. In 2005, about one-third lived in slum conditions.
Around 1.6 billion people have no electricity. Billions lack basic necessities overall. It’s reflected in lower than average life expectancy, as well as high infant and child mortality rates.
America’s future may resemble what most of the world now faces. Its race to the bottom assures it for growing millions.
Force-fed austerity increases their numbers annually. Things keep getting worse, not better.
Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute.
Lawmakers in the State Senate are expected to vote Monday on a bill that, if passed, would compel Internet Service Providers (ISPs) anywhere in the world to fork over private Web records if that information could aid in a criminal investigation.
Federal legislation already in place would likely trump any attempts from Texas prosecutors to pry personal ISP records or other online communications from the likes of social networking sites, but the efforts on behalf of Lone Star lawmakers to get the ball rolling on a new cyber-spy bill are indeed very real. Last week, its companion bill in the State House of Representatives passed unanimously, and similar outcome in the Senate is all now expected any moment. Now should SB 1052 proves victorious in the Senate, an Internet surveillance bill written in Texas but with international implications could be added to the law books later this year.
Ben Sherman of the Burnt Orange Report cautioned in a blog post last week that the bill could be very dangerous to all Americans if passed because it would let local authorities seize electronic records held on servers outside of Texas.
“The bill requires any Internet provider to people in Texas (that is – just about the entire Internet) to respond to search warrants for online communications in 4-30 days. That is an extremely narrow window which makes it difficult for Internet providers to keep users’ other information private,” he wrote.
Following the failed attempts to pass cybersecurity bills on a national level, as seen most recently in the stalled Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), a number of state and local governments have considered bills that would bring the tools asked for in aborted federal acts into the hands of prosecutors in Texas.
Whereas CISPA sought to find a way to ease the sharing of potentially dangerous information between third-party businesses and the federal government, the efforts coming out of Texas would ensure that ISPs and any other businesses that operate over the Web would have to relinquish user data if a police officer argues there is probable cause it is pursuant to an investigation.
“Internet communications companies often hold information and data vital to prosecute an offense under state law, particularly relating to Internet crimes. Although the certain electronic communications may take place within a state, law enforcement officers must apply for a local search warrant in an Internet company’s jurisdiction, often found out of state,” wrote the bill’s author, Sen. John Carona (R-Dallas). “This limitation hampers law enforcement’s efforts to obtain evidence on Internet criminals, who are able to remove or change identifying data much faster than law enforcement can obtain warrants.”
Sherman, however, thinks the law could be used broadly to bring any sort of online evidence under the magnifying glass of prosecutors, causing a widespread fishing exhibition that will allow law enforcement to essentially request any sort of electronic communication of any business that operates online.
“The electronic communications at risk include all online communication – emails, Facebook messages, tweets and messages on private list servers,” wrote Sherman. “Additionally, the bar is set extremely low for police officers to prove that they may find something important in a person’s online communications.”
Indeed, SB 1052 only asks that probable cause “must be supported by the oath or affirmation of the authorized peace officer.”
“That is almost not a standard at all,” insisted Sherman. “With a bar so low and a reach so broad, such legislation will lead to widespread abuse and exposure of private information, and enable politically motivated ‘investigations.’ This is government overreach and Texans of all political ideologies should oppose it. If this bill becomes law, any investigation that can be brought into the Texas jurisdiction would have all the tools of CISPA, in which any private online activity can be easily seized by the government, at its disposal. That is terrible news not only for Texans but for all Americans.”
“The bill,” acknowledged Sen. Carona, “reciprocates the electronic data search warrant process with other states already implementing similar statutes, which would allow Texas to serve data search warrants directly to out of state companies as well.”
Later in the text, the bill is described as extending “the jurisdiction of district judges by granting them privileges to issue data search warrants beyond the physical boundaries of the state for computer data searches only.”
The House version of the bill — nearly identical to Sen. Carona’s version — passed on May 7 with no opposition. Rep. John Frullo (R-Lubbock) co-authored that bill and told lawmakers in the capital that passing the bill would be instrumental in stopping predators who stalk children online.
“Under current law,” Frullo said, “Texas judges’ ability to order a search ends at the state line. In our technology-driven society, this limitation hampers law enforcement’s efforts to go after the evidence needed to prosecute those who commit these horrible crimes and exploit our children.”
“Predators are hurting, exploiting and assaulting our children through the use of the internet. That needs to stop,” he said in a press release earlier this year. After this week’s vote, his colleagues in the Senate will decide if they are willing to join his side — and at what cost to privacy.
A teacher received a huge shock last week after uploading a copy of a book to his website that offers free educational resources for students. The Latvian publisher behind the work, a $4.00 history book, complained to the authorities which resulted in the teacher being raided by the police. During interrogation the teacher learned that his mistake could cost him dearly – two years in jail, forced labor, or a fine.
While the online sharing of music has been widespread for close to a decade and a half, the sharing of books has only gathered real traction in the past few years.
When it came to legal action to prevent sharing the music industry led the way but even now, book publishers – Wiley aside – seem generally unwilling to follow the example. However, there are companies prepared to make uploaders suffer, even those with no malicious or commercial intent.
Pāvels Jurs is a teacher in Latvia who operates a website where children can research history topics, see presentations and find other learning aids. Jurs created the site so that children from poor families can still have access to education. According to Latvian media, Jurs even received recognition from the Ministry of Education for his efforts.
Last Thursday, however, Jurs was leaving home to go to school and found himself confronted by four police officers from the Economic Crime Bureau. They proceeded to search Jurs’ home and confiscate the computer he uses in his teaching job. He was arrested and subjected to two hours of interrogation during which he learned he had committed a serious offense that could result in a two year jail sentence.
Jurs’ crime was to upload a scanned copy of the high school history book “Vēsture Vidusskolai” to his website, an act which drew the ire of publisher Zvaigzne ABC and an official complaint earlier this year.
The publisher currently sells the book for the princely sum of $4.00 and it appears that Jurs had previously held discussions with its author but there was a misunderstandings over what content should have been removed from his site.
Nevertheless, the episode has left Jurs questioning why such heavy handed tactics were needed when a civil action would have sufficed. The police have taken down Jurs’ website and since exams are currently underway, students no longer have access to its resources.
“Is there really such a need for punitive action against these methods of teaching, such as the maintenance of a websites from which I did not receive any benefit, but, on the contrary, cost most of my salary payments for maintenance? I understand that I have violated copyright laws, but is it really necessary to act this way?” Jurs said.
Since the raid a meeting has taken place during which some kind of a settlement was discussed. Further meetings will take place this week but it’s now believed that the publisher will not raise any “substantive claims” against the teacher.
Hidden amongst the reams of reports about the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal is one little gem: in his testimony, the outgoing IRS Commissioner Steve Miller said that America’s tax system is “voluntary.”
Now, whatever you do, don’t take that to mean that it is actually voluntary in the way that the word voluntary is normally used.
While you might think that voluntary means something which is “done without compulsion or obligation” or “done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one’s own accord or by free choice,” when it comes to America’s “voluntary” tax system, it’s quite the opposite.
If you freely choose not to voluntarily participate in the tax system, you will enjoy being raided by armed agents, prosecuted and sent to federal prison. Quite the voluntary system indeed.
Furthermore, there are some practices that are clearly in no way voluntary. When income taxes are withheld from paychecks, for example, there is nothing voluntary about it.
When Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) said during the recent House Ways and Means Committeehearing on the IRS scandal that the U.S. tax system is “a voluntary system,” Stephen Miller said, “Agreed.”
In fact, Becerra said it is “a voluntary system” twice. Becerra said those exact words at one hour, twenty nine minutes and eight seconds and again at one hour, thirty minutes and thirty five seconds, according to the C-SPAN transcript.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the same thing in an interview with Jan Helfeld in 2008.
In the interview embedded below, Helfeld asked, “If the government is in the business of forcefully taking money from some people in order to provide welfare benefits to others, how will the people whose money is being taken feel about the government?”
“Well, I don’t accept your phraseology. I don’t think we force people,” Reid answered.
“Quite the contrary. Our system of government is a voluntary tax system,” Reid said.
“If you don’t want to pay your taxes, you don’t have to?” Helfeld asked, to which Reid said, “Of course you have to pay your taxes.”
Intuit, the makers of TurboTax, wrote an article (note: it heavily promotes TurboTax) about what “voluntary compliance” really means. It has nothing to do with the payment of the taxes. That is not voluntary. Instead, it speaks to “the manner in which people submit their own taxes.”
The voluntary part only speaks to the fact that you “are responsible as an individual taxpayer tocalculate what you owe. You’re expected to voluntarily comply with the tax code by reporting what you owe to the government and paying the entire amount that you owe under the law.”
“Although the U.S. tax system is voluntary, failure to comply carries stiff penalties,” they note. “The IRS also has the power to levy your bank accounts, garnish your wages and place a lien on your property if you don’t voluntarily pay what you owe. In serious cases, you may even face criminal charges.”
Lysander Spooner, in “No Treason” written from 1967-1870, writes of the notion of voluntary taxation, “this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: ‘Your money, or your life.’ And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.”
Calling taxation voluntary in the United States is like calling a prison sentence voluntary: you can voluntarily go to prison, or you can be hunted down like a dog and physically forced to go to prison.
If that’s what you consider a voluntary system, I have several beautiful bridges to sell you.
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCY.TV from 7 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com
“The secret in propaganda is that when you demonize, you dehumanize,” says James Forsher, a film historian. “When you dehumanize, it allows you to kill your enemy and no longer feel guilty about it.”
Apparently illegal immigrants have been sufficiently dehumanized to force them into biometric tracking. There’s no way the government would use biometrics to track the superior law-abiding natives, right? More on this later.
Illegal immigration is a hot-button issue that genuinely affects many communities and the motivation to do something about it is understandable. However, anti-immigration supporters may be playing right into Big Brother’s hands by being tricked into supporting the hi-tech enslavement of themselves.
Some have referred to the sweeping immigration reform bill in Congress as a “Trojan Horse for Biometrics.” These systems are a clear indication that illegal immigration is being used to put the final touches on the full spectrum surveillance grid in America.
And, shockingly, politicians are making the immigration reform bill more stringent instead of less, apparently fueled by anti-immigration zealots.
According to NBC News, the senate hopes to finalize a bill for a vote by the end of the week. The Senate Judiciary Committee has been debating many biometric identification mandates and have now approved a more stringent biometric “test system” for U.S. airports.
“Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an amendment sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a Republican considered to be a swing vote on the 18 member committee. That amendment, a less stringent version of a biometric proposal that failed last week, would require the Department of Homeland Security to establish a fingerprinting system at the 10 U.S. airports with the highest international traffic within two years. After six years, that system would have to be in place at the nation’s 30 biggest airports.
One of the key authors of the legislation, Marco Rubio (R-FL), said ”The amendment adopted today is a good start and I will continue to fight to make the tracking of entries and exits include biometrics.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called it “a start” as well.
This legislation is becoming more stringent, not less, in its implementation of biometic systems and it’s just a “good start” for these lawmakers who ultimately want a “more complete biometric system”.
NBC reports; “Proponents of the Hatch measure said it would provide an important step towards implementing a more complete biometric system, which senators on both sides of the aisle agreed would provide the most failsafe method for tracking visa overstays as well as individuals who pose national security threats.”
This particular amendment is only to track the movements of foreigners in and out of America. However, we’ve learned from Wired that a biometric database for all Americans is already hidden in the legislation.
David Kravets of Wired reported:
The immigration reform measure the Senate began debating yesterday would create a national biometric database of virtually every adult in the U.S., in what privacy groups fear could be the first step to a ubiquitous national identification system. Buried in the more than 800 pages of the bipartisan legislation (.pdf) is language mandating the creation of the innocuously-named “photo tool,” a massive federal database administered by the Department of Homeland Security and containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license or other state-issued photo ID.
“The most worrying aspect is that this creates a principle of permission basically to do certain activities and it can be used to restrict activities,” said ACLU’s Chris Calabrese. ”It’s like a national ID system without the card.”
And this is just the “start” of it.
How soon will Americans submit to full biometric IDs especially if it gets them out of the naked body scanners and invasive patdowns at airports? Or if they need it to legally work in their state?
Oh, sure, you can opt out, but not if you want to work or travel in society.
The good news is, journalists and protesters are allowed to come closer than expected to the hotel; the bad news is, they will be subjected to pat downs by a private security firm.
A spokesman for the Hertfordshire police, responsible for managing the protests from June 6-9 outside the Grove Hotel, has stated that reporters and protesters will be allowed inside the outer gates of the Grove Hotel, giving them a fairly good view of all incoming- and outgoing Bilderberg participants. The downside is, that the people who are allowed in must first undergo a pat down by a private security firm named G4S.
Hertfordshire police liaison officer, Steve Lee, told Neil Foster from Sovereign Independent UK that the pat downs are a requirement of the Grove Hotel itself. Foster was also told that “ it will not be as intrusive as currently being used at airports”. Foster writes:
“Steve Lee and other police officers will be present at all times to ensure compliance of G4S within the agreed limits of their pat downs.”
None other than Barack Obama has given praise to G4S “for its successful commitment to hiring returning military veterans”- which leads us to pray we will receive more gentle treatment from the G4S security personnel than the people from the country’s they’ve just returned from.
The good news from the Hertfordshire constabulary is that media and protesters alike will be allowed inside the front entrance of the Grove Hotel. Foster reports:
“(…) the area suggested for the media is inside the front entrance of The Grove Hotel and the adjacent field to directly facing the front entrance, with a good view of all incoming and exiting vehicles as well as areas on the inside of the main entrance behind the small boxhedges to accommodate the large numbers of media wishing to cover the event.”
The bad news is that those who choose not to subject themselves to the groping hands of these private security guards are not allowed into the Grove premises.
“It has (…) been proposed that the area just outside the gates will be cordoned off with barriers to allow those who don’t wish to be searched the opportunity to protest in safety. It is a very busy road with large volumes of traffic and this is an understandable precaution to avoid any accidents.”
Despite Watford’s mayor Thornhill’s feelings about the expected protesters, it appears the police follows through on its promise to facilitate the protesters. Hertfordshire police liaison officer Lee told Foster that there will be toilets available as well as plenty of parking space:
“(…) parking for media and private vehicles may be made available on Hempstead Road which although having the same name as the main road passing the front entrance is actually directly opposite the main entrance and runs parallel to the main Hempstead Road accessible via Courtland’s Drive which is first left after the main entrance coming from the M25.”
In any case the choice is simple: either you avoid a pat down (which by the way, Mr. policeman, is by definition intrusive) but satisfy yourself with a back-seat position- or you endure a TSA-style procedure by Afghanistan vets and get front row tickets to the most secretive of international gatherings. Your choice. In any case, it’s good to know the constabulary will be on its utmost best behavior, facilitating those planning to make their way to Watford with the best possible fields on which to graze.
Two disturbing developments have occurred in the last couple of days that have gone relatively unnoticed compared to the recent IRS, AP, and Benghazi scandals.
First, the senate is debating an expansion of the already broad powers of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) so the U.S. can essentially engage any area in the world in the war on terror, including America. Which brings us to the second development: the Pentagon has recently granted itself police powers on American soil.
Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Sheehan told Congress yesterday that the AUMF authorized the US military to operate on a worldwide battlefield from Boston to Pakistan. Sheehan emphasized that the Administration is authorized to put boots on the ground wherever the enemy chooses to base themselves, essentially ignoring the declaration of war clause in the US Constitution.
Senator Angus King said this interpretation of the AUMF is a “nullity” to the Constitution because it ignores Congress’ role to declare war. King called it the “most astoundingly disturbing hearing” he’s been to in the Senate.
Even ultra-hawk John McCain agreed that the AUMF has gone way beyond its authority.
“This authority … has grown way out of proportion and is no longer applicable to the conditions that prevailed, that motivated the United States Congress to pass the authorization for the use of military force that we did in 2001,” McCain said.
Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent piece describing how this hearing reveals the not-so-secret plan to make the war on terror a permanent fixture in Western society.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that this war has no purpose other than its own eternal perpetuation. This war is not a means to any end but rather is the end in itself. Not only is it the end itself, but it is also its own fuel: it is precisely this endless war – justified in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism – that is the single greatest cause of that threat.
A self-perpetuating permanent war against a shadowy undefinable enemy appears to be the future of American foreign policy. How convenient for the war machine and tyrants who claim surveillance is safety.
But perhaps most disturbing of all of this is the military’s authority to police American streets as if it was in civil war. For all those still in denial that America is a militarized police state, this should be the ultimate cure to your delusion.
By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule: “Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.”
A law from 1878 called the Posse Comitatus Act was put in place to prevent the Department of Defense from interfering with local law enforcement. But now, the DoD claims they’ve had this authority for over 100 years.
“The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy,” said an unnamed defense official who also emphasized that all soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies “foreign and domestic” indicating that citizens are a threat to the Constitution.
Yet, the Constitution is a document that polices the government, not the people. In other words, the only people who can be “enemies” of the Constitution are those who took an oath to defend it. Therefore, only government officials can be an enemy the Constitution.
This follows a recent West Point study that sought to define the American people as “domestic enemies” in order to justify soldiers breaking their oath to corral pesky citizens.
The West Point Terrorism Center wrote that “conspiracy theorists” who worry that local law enforcement will be steadily replaced by federally-controlled law enforcement could potentially be a domestic enemy:
Some groups are driven by a strong conviction that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order,” (NWO) in which the United States will be embedded in the UN or another version of global government. The NWO will be advanced, they believe, via steady transition of powers from local to federal law-enforcement agencies, i.e., the transformation of local police and law-enforcement agencies into a federally controlled “National Police” agency that will in turn merge with a “Multi-National Peace Keeping Force.” The latter deployment on US soil will be justified via a domestic campaign implemented by interested parties that will emphasize American society’s deficiencies and US government incompetency.
So, as the US military claims to have the authority to be a “National Police” force, researchers who claim there is an agenda to do just that are now labeled as domestic terrorists?
Does this make any sense? Will oath takers see through these ridiculous interpretations and engage the real domestic enemy to the Constitution? Or will they just follow orders when the time comes to crack down on Americans?
We must break the stranglehold of truth from establishment media and we must take back our country.
We must become a nation of ‘by and for the people’ and not of ‘by and for the special interests’ and led around by the nose like a bunch of weak cattle.
As the Obama administration is hit by scandal after scandal, it was revealed that Verizon wireless handed over private data belonging to journalists with the Associated Press last year without any hesitation or questions asked.
Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that at least two AP reporters’ personal cellphone records “were provided to the government by Verizon Wireless without any attempt to obtain permission to tell them so the reporters could ask a court to quash the subpoena,” citing an AP employee.
This was no small probe. Indeed, it involved the seizure of over 20 separate phone lines assigned to AP staff in April and May of last year, according to the AP.
Ryan Gallagher of Future Tense points out that one of the most controversial aspects of this situation is that “the AP was not given advance notice of the seizure, which is considered the usual protocol when the government is seeking to obtain journalists’ records.”
While some companies like Dropbox and Twitter tell their users whenever possible that the government seeks access to their data.
Twitter even challenged a court order last year that required them to hand over data on one of their users.
“But Verizon—like AT&T, Facebook, and Comcast—has been criticized in the past for its lack of willingness to stand up for users’ privacy rights, which suggests its decision to hand over AP reporters’ records is true to form,” Gallagher writes.
In 2013, Verizon continued to get a horrible rating from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), receiving zero stars for helping protect user data from the government. Verizon also got zero stars in 2011 and 2012.
Unsurprisingly, Verizon Wireless would not comment on specific cases, including this one. Spokesman Debra Lewis said she was “not going to speculate on what may or may not happen in the future,” speaking of a possible change to the company’s policy on responding to government requests.
It is interesting to see how radically different the AP sees this probe compared to the White House and the Justice Department.
While the AP maintains that they only published the story after the government assured them that “The national security concerns had passed,” Eric Holder claimed, “It put the American people at risk, and that is not hyperbole.”
“And trying to determine who was responsible for that, I think, required very aggressive action,” Holder said, apparently in reference to a May 7, 2012 article that claimed the CIA thwarted a bomb plot organized by a group related to al Qaeda in Yemen.
Of course, one of the most interesting aspects of that original story – one which is often left out when it is referred to now – is that the individual chosen by the terrorist group to carry out the bombing was actually an asset of the CIA and Saudi intelligence the entire time.
How the story actually put anyone in danger, even if the AP is lying about getting the story cleared by the government, is unclear.
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCY.TV from 7 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com
You will be hearing a lot about the upcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. TPP’s negotiations are being held in secret with details kept secret even from our Congress. But giant corporations are in the loop.
TPP is a “trade” agreement between several Pacific-rim countries that is actually about much more than just trade. It will be sold as a trade agreement (because everyone knows that “trade” is good) but much of it appears to be (from what we know) a corporateend-run around things We the People want to do to reign in the giant corporations — like Wall Street regulation, environmental regulation and corporate taxation.
One-Sided Process
The TPP process appears to be set up to push corporate interests over other interests. The TPP is being negotiated in secret, so what we know about it comes from leaked documents. Even our Congress is being kept out of the loop. But 600 corporaterepresentatives are in the loop while representatives of groups that protect working people, human, political and civil rights and our environment are largely not in the loop.
This one-sided participation unfortunately indicates that the interests of giantcorporations are likely to override the interests of working people and those who want to protect non-corporate interests. Otherwise there would be more representation by representatives of organizations representing these concerns, and greater transparency into the process.
TPP Is A Very, Very Big Deal
The coming TPP is a very, very big deal. If it is agreed to by the Senate and signed by the President it will override American laws in many areas. We won’t be allowed to enforce laws and regulations that impede the “rights” granted to big corporations under this agreement, and it will be very hard to rescind the agreement once signed, no matter how much damage might result. Just look at how NAFTA, China’s entry into the WTO and other agreements are causing huge trade deficits and sending jobs, factories and industries out of the country while dramatically increasing income and wealth inequality.
Making the TPP work for We, the People should be up there on our “litmus test” of things we require of our elected officials — right along with pledging no cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
TPP Not Just Trade
It looks like TPP will go way beyond what most of us would consider to be in a normal “trade” agreement. TPP — negotiated by giant corporate interests — appears set to give giant corporations a veto over a country’s ability to set many laws and regulations that are designed to reign in those corporations. Quelle surprise!
Leaked documents appear to show that negotiators are writing provisions that will set rules that are binding on Congress and our state legislatures tell us what laws and regulations our own country can pass or enforce in areas like:
intellectual property rights like patents and copyrights,
government procurement like Buy American which would be banned,
investment and land use,
service-sector regulation,
food and product safety,
corporate competition,
labor,
even environmental standards.
Leaks show that TPP even limits government regulation of financial services!
Dean Baker explains that non-trade items like patents in an agreement like TPP can have a huge effect on us by dramatically increasing prices of items like pharmaceuticals, in Political Corruption and the “Free Trade” Racket,
Tariffs and quotas might raise the price of various items by 20 or 30 percent. By contrast, patent and copyright protection is likely to raise theprice of protected items 2,000 percent or even 20,000 percent above the free market price. Drugs that would sell for a few dollars per prescription in a free market would sell for hundreds or even thousands of dollars when the government gives a drug company a patent monopoly.
Again: There are over 600 corporate representatives participating in the TPP process, but few if any representatives of human rights, environmental, civil rights or worker rights organizations. And the resulting agreement will be binding on governments! Thecorporate powers apparently granted in the TPP can override domestic laws on environmental health and safety, and labor and citizens’ rights. If this agreement becomes law multinationals can claim that those domestic laws and regulations hamper free trade and can sue for millions of dollars in “damages.”
Bad History Of Trade Agreements Harming Economy, Democracy
Our one-sided, corporate-negotiated trade agreements have dramatically enriched Wall Street and a few CEOs. But the devastation that is apparent in many regions of our country along with the hollowing out of our middle class tells the real story of what these agreements can do to an economy. For example, we all know what has happened since China was allowed to enter the WTO. In the 2000s we lost 50,000+ factories and at least 6 million jobs just to China. Because of the massive cost of building a manufacturing infrastructure it will be very difficult to restore even key industries. But the 1% who pushed this made out extremely well.
Even the just-signed Korea Free Trade agreement is already hurting our economy. It has increased the trade deficit, increased imports and decreased exports! A recently-released fact sheet from Public Citizen looks at the damage our economy is already experiencing from the Korea, Panama and Columbia agreements. The section on Korea tells the story: exports to Korea down 10%, trade deficit up 37%:
“One year into the Korea FTA, U.S. goods exports to Korea have declined by 10 percent (a $4.2billion decrease) in comparison to the year before FTA implementation. U.S. meat producers lost a combined $206 million in beef, pork and poultry exports in the first year of the Korea FTA relative to the year before FTA implementation, while the U.S. auto and auto parts industries suffered a 16 percent increase in the U.S. auto trade deficit with Korea. Overall, the U.S. trade deficit with Korea has swelled 37 percent under the FTA.”
Just one of many examples in the fact sheet:
Imports of cars and auto parts from Korea have soared 15 percent (more than $2.5 billion) under the FTA, driving a 16 percent increase in the U.S. trade deficit with Korea in autos and auto parts relative to the year before FTA implementation.
Also from the fact sheet — loss of 12,000 jobs:
“The combined U.S. trade deficit with Korea, Colombia and Panama under the FTAs has jumped 11percent above pre-FTA levels for the same months as exports to Korea have declined and imports from Korea and Panama have risen substantially. Using the same ratio employed by the Obama administration, this $2.3 billion combined trade deficit expansion implies the net loss of more than 12,000 U.S. jobs in just the first several months of the new FTAs.”
And that’s just the recent Korea agreement, and in just a few months since it went into effect.
Trade Can Be Good Or Bad, Depending…
No question about it, a good trade deal can boost exports, boost the economy, boost employment … And of course this promise is how these trade deals are sold to us.
But the bad trade deals we have gotten ourselves into have instead boosted the tradedeficit, boosted unemployment, boosted income and wealth inequality, boosted the loss of factories and industries, boosted the hollowing-out of our middle class and boosted the domination of our politics by the large corporate interests.
All trade deals have winners and losers. NAFTA and letting China into the WTO were obviously big winners for Wall Street, the 1%ers, and their giant multinationalcorporations. But these and similar trade deals helped break the back of the unions, the middle class and our economy — especially manufacturing and its supply chains. The result of these changes has been that all of the gains from our economy as productivity increases have increasingly gone to fewer and fewer people who are higher and higher up the food chain.
We need an open, democratic process that ensures that We, the People are the winners from our trade deals.
Needed Fixes
The TPP negotiations should not just be negotiated to serve the interests of giant multinational corporations. The process should be opened up to the public and democracy, so people and groups with a huge stake in the outcome — like labor unions, environmental organizations, human rights groups and consumer organizations — can participate. With only corporate participation, only corporate interests will be served. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
The process of democracy should not be subverted by a “fast track” rule that keeps our Congress from fully considering the implications and effects of such an agreement. “Fast track” just extends the lack of citizen involvement in negotiations into a lack of citizen involvement in the finalization!
Last June 130 members of the Congress wrote a letter to the US Trade Representative asking for transparency in the TPP negotiations and consultation with members of Congress. In addition,more than 400 organizations have asked Congress to replace the “Fast Track” system that limits Congress’ (democracy’s) ability to get involved in the process, and to call for a new direction for TPP as well as other trade agreements.
We also need strong tests and irrevocable language about withdrawing from the agreement if it is harming our economy, environment, smaller businesses, tax base and/or our working people.
TPP and all future trade deals must include clear and enforceable rules covering currency manipulation and other ways that countries game the system.
Elizabeth Warren Drives It Home
Watch Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) asking about trends in trading patterns with Korea since the new “free trade” treaty went into effect, and about how TPP looks like an end run around Wall Street regulation.
Get Involved
The next round of TPP talks will be held May 15-24 in Lima, Peru. It is time to start making sure that your voice is heard in D.C. Trade deals can lift people on both sides of trade borders. But only if a true open and democratic process is used to reach agreement. Otherwise these agreements will continue to be gamed to enrich the few at the expense of the many.
The Electronic Freedom Foundation has a TPP page, explaining their concerns about the sections involving Intellectual Property (IP) as well as the general lack of transparency and openness.
Public Knowledge has a TPP landing page expressing similar concerns.
“Although not all the news coming from APEC was good, it is too early to tell if the TPP will live up to its promise to create great opportunities for America’s working families. Now is the time to speak up. If you have concerns about some of these announcements, too, now is the time to speak up–the TPP is still being negotiated.”
From the Trenches World Report is intent on uncovering more documented facts to bring to light that which the common man or woman is not meant to see. We are in a war for nothing less than our right to individual thought. We will be reporting on that war From the Trenches.
Human cloning has taken a huge step forward with the revelation that the process has been used to successfully create an early human embryo called a blastocyst.
The cloned embryos were used as a source of stem cells, the cells that can be used to make any other kind of body tissue, such as heart muscle or bone.
The study, published in the journal Cell used the same methods used by British scientists to create the first fully cloned animal, a sheep named Dolly in 1996.
Doctors regard stem cells as the greatest hope currently available in medicine. The stem cells can be turned into any body tissue giving rise to the possibility of regenerating a severed spine, repairing heart attack damage and even possibly restoring sight.
Although trials are taking place using stem cells from donated embryos those cells do not match the patient and are ultimately rejected by the body, just as a transplanted liver would be. Cloning the cells prevents this rejection and the need to take drugs to prevent it.
Opponents to the study and use of stem cells site the research as unethical, stating that every embryo has the possibility of developing into a full human and therefore should not be used in experimentation.
Regarding the leap forward Dr Shoukhrat Mitalipov said of the research by the team from the Oregon Health and Science University:
“A thorough examination of the stem cells derived through this technique demonstrated their ability to convert just like normal embryonic stem cells, into several different cell types, including nerve cells, liver cells and heart cells.
While there is much work to be done in developing safe and effective stem cell treatments, we believe this is a significant step forward in developing the cells that could be used in regenerative medicine.”
Dr David King, from the campaign group Human Genetics Alert viewed the matter quite differently, he warned:
“Scientists have finally delivered the baby that would-be human cloners have been waiting for: a method for reliably creating cloned human embryos. This makes it imperative that we create an international legal ban on human cloning before any more research like this takes place. It is irresponsible in the extreme to have published this research.”
Although producing a 150 cell blastocyst is a long way from a woman giving birth to a fully cloned baby it seems that the possibility of that happening has moved much closer.
Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
Remember SOPA? Remember how when we the people finally defeated SOPA everyone got so stoked that confetti poured out of their eyeballs and its opponents downloaded films and albums and pirated video games in celebration? Well, shortly after SOPA there was CISPA—the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act—a bill that is both scarier than Zombies and much less well known than SOPA .
On April 18, three days after the Boston Marathon bombing, CISPA passed in the House of Representatives. Obama’s White House has expressed “fundamental concerns” about CISPA. They are justifiably a bit turned off by how CISPA doesn’t specify precisely how it intends to spy on the internet—and when it is ok to spy on internet users—and that is a terrifying prospect.
As a Canadian, these American “fuck up the internet” bills have always been disconcerting. While Canadian sovereignty would ideally save anyone who lives in this country and errs on the wrong side of a SOPA or a CISPA—with so much internet traffic filtering through American-owned web servers—it is not out of the question that American jurisdiction could be called against an international cyber-offender. The state of Virginia, for example, claimed jurisdiction against the Hong Kong-owned Megaupload who was hosting their website in that state.
But now it appears that it’s going to be even easier for international copyright offenders to be tried in court by the interests–and lobbying power–of Hollywood. Starting today, 11 countries—Canada, America, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Vietnam, Singapore, Japan, Brunei, Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand—are having a secret (no members of the public and no press) meeting in Lima, Peru to figure out what can be done about copyright offenders who transmit Hollywood’s precious content over the interweb’s tubes without paying for it.
The meeting is held under the banner of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. They’re looking to sign an international treaty that will create world government-esque laws to handle anyone who downloads an early leak of Iron Man 3 illegally.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is calling this the “biggest global threat to the internet since ACTA.” If you remember, ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) is an international, internet-policing treaty that was shut down by the European Parliament with a 92 percent nay vote. Luckily for Europeans, no EU country is anywhere near the TPP negotiations in Peru right now—and European politicians are now quick to distance themselves from the policies that ACTA is trying to ram down the world’s throat.
But in North America, the ACTA movement is still very much alive. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government passed a bill in March that makes Canada more ACTA-friendly by allowing customs officers to destroy counterfeit goods and ratcheting up the criminal penalties against copyright offenders. And the United States has seized hip-hop blog domains without warning or trial, because they were alleged to host pirated material.
A leaked chapter outlining some preliminary discussion to re-examine intellectual property has revealed that TPP wants to add further checks and balances to restrict fair use. Those behind TPP want to make sure that if a teacher is trying to show some copyrighted material in their class for the purpose of education, or if a humorist using copyrighted material in an article for the purpose of satire, they’re doing so under what TPP calls a “good faith activity.”
The language in this leaked TPP chapter is incredibly dense and dates back to February 2011—so not only is it a confusing bit of writing, but it will also likely be revised over and over during this meeting in Peru. As it stands, the EFF is worried that “the United States is trying to export the worst parts of its intellectual property law without bringing any of the [fair use] protections.” And just like SOPA or CISPA, many people are concerned that the broad language in new legal terms like “good faith activity” will potentially lead to unjust prosecutions.
It may take a while before the results of this TPP meeting in Peru filter out to the press, but it’s crystal clear that even though SOPA died, the Hollywood lobby is more than willing to generate new legislation and international partnerships to protect its interests. SOPA, for a combination of reasons, incited the ire of the public. We saw SOPA blackouts where websites like Reddit and Wikipedia went offline for a day, celebrities spoke out against it on Twitter; there was a bona fide cultural movement.
But now, the language behind international efforts like ACTA or TPP is getting more and more obscure, the reporting on such efforts less and less frequent, and the meetings being held to define these treaties are being held behind closed doors. The wheels of government are moving quickly to restrict international copyright online as much as possible—with the lobby of Hollywood thrusting it forward—in order to preserve the profits of content gatekeepers like the RIAA and MPAA.
Home
RSS Feed
Newsletter
Bookmark Us
Facebook
Twitter
