Monday, 24 June 2013

Racism or Verbal Voodoo




 

Racism or Verbal Voodoo

 

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

 

The word "racist" has become a shibboleth by which to denounce and destroy a person or proposal one dislikes. In former times, such a person or proposal might be called "wicked" or "unjust," and some sort of explanation or discussion would follow.  No more.  Today, politicians and intellectuals typically use the canard "racist" or "racism" to short-circuit public discussion or debate.  Calling an opponent or proposal "racist" frees them from the intellectual discipline required to refute a person's political views on rational grounds.  Thus, when the draft of a constitution for Israel was proposed in 1948, its provision that the president of the State be Jewish was decried by socialist parties as "racism," and that was enough to bury it!

 

 

The fact that democratic politics now substitutes catchwords for criticism testifies to the Marxist mentality that modulates Israel. Marx is very much alive, especially on the campuses of the democratic world, where the minds of countless students are being corrupted by their crypto-Marxist mentors (who also short-circuit the mentality of students who become the mandarins of the media.  

 

 

Marx wrote:  "Criticism is not the passion of the head, but the head of a passion.  It is not a lancet, it is a weapon.  Its object is an enemy it wants not to refute but to destroy.  It is no longer an end in itself, but simply a means.  Its essential pathos is indignation, its essential task denunciation."

 

 

The term "criticism," as used in the nineteenth century, and as used by Marx, signifies philosophic analysis or refutation. With Marxism, philosophy ceased to be a dispassionate quest for truth and became philosophically-armed propaganda—the essence of contemporary democratic discourse.

 

 

Tainting your adversary a "racist" (with its Nazi connotations) is an argumentum ad hominem, a cheap ploy symptomatic of a dishonest mind. Similarly, saying anything negative about Arab culture makes the critic a "bigot" or an "Islamophobe." With a single word you kill your enemy. This is "verbal voodoo." Verbal voodoo has replaced reason on college campuses to demonize Israel as "apartheid."

 

 

The leftists or crypto-Marxists in Israel use verbal voodoo to denigrate as "racists" anyone who would revoke the citizenship of disloyal Israeli Arabs. Rather than apply verbal voodoo, I apply the term "disloyal" to denote the following citizens of Israel:

 

 

1) Arabs who are members of a terrorist organization defined as such by Israeli law.

 

 

2) Arabs who commit acts of violence against the State of Israel, its citizens or property—which acts are taking place today with impunity thanks to a feckless government more concerned about a fraudulent peace process than the protection of Israeli citizens.

 

 

3) Arabs who aid and abet terrorist acts. 

 

 

4) Arabs who support any foreign or domestic entity committed to Israel's destruction.

 

 

5) Arabs who incite other Arabs to kill Jews.  (For example, Arab Knesset Member Talib a-Sana, in an interview on Abu-Dhabi TV, praised a suicide bombing attack in Israel and called for more of the same.  Although a-Sana was indicted by the Attorney General for incitement, the indictment was quashed by Israel's Supreme Court, which poses as the guardian of "democracy." Never mind that Arabs like a-Sana abhor democracy as hostile to the top-down leadership of Islam. Besides, the judges of Israel's Supreme Court went to universities where their minds were conditioned by post-modern liberalism, which knows only of rights, not duties.

 

 

That one has to stress the maxim that rights involve reciprocal duties is testimony of democracy's moral decay. But that liberal judges, guardians of the law, fail to apply this civilized maxim to Arabs is ironic, since it unwittingly attributes to these descendents of Ishmael a low standard of morality. Are said judges "crypto-racists"?

 

 

In this era of post-modern democracy, we need to revive and enforce the principle that those who enjoy the political rights of citizenship in the Jewish State of Israel forfeit those rights when they commit acts of disloyalty such as those enumerated above.  Authority to revoke their citizenship will be found in the 1952 Citizenship Law. Revoking the citizenship of Arabs who commit such acts is simply a matter of justice, and has nothing to do with racism. To implement the law requires not voodoo or verbosity but a Prime Minister with testosterone.☼



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

The End of the World






 

Link to Sultan Knish


The End of the World

Posted: 23 Jun 2013 08:13 AM PDT

Two years ago, the media had a prolonged belly laugh at a group that predicted the end of the world. Now media outlets from The New York Times to The New Republic to The Economist are wrestling with the question of why their own ideology's doomsday predictions are not coming to pass.

"If scientific models can't project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of the next 100?," the New Republic asks. It means that the world isn't going to end.

Even as Obama exploits Global Warming to launch a War on Affordable Energy, the doomsday environmentalists look as foolish as any other group that set a date for the end of the world, only for the world to stubbornly go on existing.

True believers in Gore would say that's the difference between science and eschatology. But when bogus science warns us of an apocalypse if we don't follow the tenets of their ideology, then how much difference is there anyway?

Of course no one expects MSNBC to do sneering reports of global warming activists freezing at a protest or Al Gore being forced to watch a count down of a solidly frozen North Pole. Such mockery is only directed at people who believe in more unpopular forms of apocalypses. At least unpopular at the broadcasting studios of Manhattan.

It's fashionable to mock religious leaders for hypocrisy, but there isn't a peep when the Vice President turned Prophet of Gaia lectures on watching our carbon footprint and then flies on jet fueled carbon wings to another concert on behalf of the planet.

Other aspiring prophets like Prince Charles, who admires poverty, but lives in privilege, are no better. Or Obama who told Americans that they couldn't heat their homes as they pleased, while keeping his thermostat up to Hawaiian standards.

If the invariably prosperous believers in Death by Global Warming really believed in the creed, wouldn't they be selling their homes and cars, and going off to live a simpler life in the Himalayan mountains. But it's easier to believe in something than to practice it.

Like all liberal social engineering projects, environmentalism is meant to change everyone's life. And there's no point in its proponents doing more than paying lip service to it, as they make it the law of the land. If Osama bin Laden could preach Islamic morality while stocking up on X rated tapes, surely Al Gore can foretell the doom of the North Pole and still take a private jet around the world.

If liberals have turned to doomsday predictions, it's because they have discovered that religion and the apocalypse can be a marvelously effective way of controlling human behavior. But their religion is materialistic, concerned with the human presence in the natural world. Even its materialism is consumeristic.

The Reds had no truck with environmentalism. To a Communist, the natural world was a mass of raw resources to be used to build socialism. But to the children of the capitalists, concerned more with what they buy, than with what they do, environmentalism restraints and directs their buying habits. As religions goes, environmentalism is the Consumer Reports of theologies.

For all the talk of apocalypse and melting poles, the environmentalists really only care about your economic activity. Buy or don't buy. But preferably buy, so long as you're buying green, or buying carbon credits along with whatever you're buying.

The sinner fills up on paper towels, but the righteous man buys paper towels with a green stamp on the box. The man of little faith may drive an SUV, and the faithful may also drive an SUV, but the faithful man's SUV has a bumper sticker warning everyone to conserve something or other. Such hypocrisies are constant, pervasive and little commented on.

What began as a movement for the responsible stewardship of the earth has been corrupted from the ethical to the fanatical. Conservationism kept humanity in the picture. Environmentalism rages at humanity. Behind its colorful drawings and its dolphin key chains is the vision of a world in which humanity and its fire sticks are the original sin.

That primal rage has been channeled and diluted into a million businesses, into countless regulations and profitable ventures. The new environmentalists are regulatory robber barons like Al Gore, green rent seeking tycoons looking to use cap and trade, and a thousand mandatory revenue streams to fleece both the faithful and the unfaithful. There is no further way to corrupt environmentalism, its existence is already an abiding corruption. For the false prophets, the lab coated peddlers of junk science and the writers dreaming up ever more fanciful depictions of the day when the oceans rise and man finds himself paddling for safety besides the polar bear, there is nothing left but the lie.

The religious apocalypse is the break between a fallen world and a better world. But in the environmental apocalypse, it is only the end. Materialistic eschatology cannot see any way past the end or any purpose for it. Only a Waterworld in which some of us develop gills and others have to learn to kayak.

The threat of their end of days is meant to badger us into bowing our heads and opening our wallets. Buy Green or the North Pole will end in 5 years. Bicycle to work or a polar bear will chew your ear off. Their end of days lacks imagination and proof. It is constantly imminent, yet never arrives. It is held to be proven so thoroughly that it can never be disproven. And who would want to disprove it, except someone who doesn't already have a grant to prove it.

There's hardly a problem in the world that the media doesn't blame on Global Warming. When it's hot, they point to Global Warming. When it's cold, they also point to Global Warming. Earthquakes,civil wars and the end of WiFi are all laid at the door of one single phenomenon. The difference between religion and science is that one is revealed truth and the other is theory. But when men and women in lab coats start predicting the end of days if the heretics don't repent and cast out their incandescent light bulbs and SUV's, then what you have is theory as revealed truth. An experiment in eschatology.

Science requires objectivity. Combine science with ideology and you get a mandatory belief in absurdity. Everyone who self-righteously insists that global warming is science misses the point. The scientific orthodoxy of every generation has embraced ridiculous and wrongheaded theories. Science is not a pure form of revealed truth, it is the trial and error process by which we crawl toward a better understanding. A less flawed picture of the universe. Turn the scientific orthodoxy of any era into a mandatory ideology and you have killed the science and left only another belief system.

Environmentalists parade around the corpse of science on their shoulders, mount it on their walls and proclaim that science is on their side. Once you completely murder a system of using trial and error experimentation to confirm a theory, then you might as well use it as a banner on a flagpole or a trophy in your living room. But the environmentalist' science has as much relation to a living field, as the head of a dead moose mounted over a bed and breakfast's fireplace does to a living creature.

Ideology has killed science and now claims its intellectual credibility for its own. But purging dissenting scientists, burning books and silencing all critics with jeers is not science, no more than what passed for it in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was science. It is the fanaticism of an ideology, the championing of backwardness, the exploitation of titles and terminology to silence debate and betray the ethical trust of inquiry.

The end of the world? The same people who ridicule religious people waiting for the end, are waiting for their own end of the world without any real faith in it.

Their end of the world is only another consumeristic strategy for convincing people to buy the right brands and donate to the right causes. It is as hollow as everything else

No one will hang around with a count down clock in 2014 and wait for the North Pole to end. Not even if Gore's prediction were better known. Those who believe in Global Warming, paradoxically don't really believe that the world could actually end. They may eat up the cinematic spectacle of oceans rising, cities sinking underwater and whales doing belly flops over the Grand Canyon, but it never really touches them.

To understand why is to understand the purpose of environmentalism. Its harsh criticism of consumerism turns it into a moral activity. The Whole Foods shopper is elevated above the Wal-Mart shopper. The woman who buys sneakers made of recycled tires isn't shopping, she's engaged in an ethical communion with the earth. Environmentalism is the theology of consumerism, uplifting it rather than proscribing it, taking a cut of ordinary economic activities in exchange for its blessing.

Environmentalism is the religion of the comfortable, and the theology of the convenient. It injects a false spirituality into the materialism of the faithless. There is nothing to it but greed. From the false prophets spinning tales of the end, to scientists doing a more elevated version of the same for grant money to scribes envisioning the end for a lucrative book or movie deal. It's not the end of the world they're waiting for, but a commercial break.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

 

Email delivery powered by Google

Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

 



__._,_._





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Duck Duck Go's Post-PRISM Growth Actually Proves No One Cares About "Private" Search





http://searchengineland.com/duck-duck-go-prism-private-search-164333

Duck Duck Go's Post-PRISM Growth Actually Proves No One Cares About "Private" Search

duckduckgo-featured

Look out, Google! Duck Duck Go is on the rise, posting a 50% traffic increase in just eight days. Is this proof people want a "private" search engine, in the wake of allegations the PRISM program allows the US government to read search data with unfettered access? Nope. Google has little to worry about. People don't care about search privacy, and Duck Duck Go's growth demonstrates this.

Don't get me wrong. If you ask people about search privacy, they'll respond that it's a major issue. Big majorities say they don't want to be tracked nor receive personalized results. But if you look at what people actually do, virtually none of them make efforts to have more private search.

Duck Duck Go's growth is an excellent case study to prove this. Despite it growing, it's not grown anywhere near the amount to reflect any substantial or even mildly notable switching by the searching public.

Duck Duck Go's Growth, In Perspective

Duck Duck Go maintains a traffic page where anyone can see how it has grown, and in the last few days, it's been dramatic:

ddg

Using that data, here's Duck Duck Go's traffic versus Google before the PRISM news came out:

ddg v google

That's taking Duck Duck Go's 2 million searches per day that it was at just before the PRISM news broke on June 6. Actually, Duck Duck Go had come close to but never actually reached 2 million searches per day before PRISM. That happened four days after the news came out. But it's close enough for the purposes of this article. Duck Duck Go was at 2 million searches per day, or 60 million searches per month. That compares to 13,317 million searches per month — 13.3 billion — for Google.

I'll explain more about those Google figures in a bit. But next, here's the post-PRISM change, where 11 days after the PRISM news broke, with even more revelations of the US National Security Agency spying, Duck Duck Go cracked the 3 million searches per day mark, putting it on course for a 90 million searches per month. How's all that new growth compare to Google?

Microsoft Excel

In comparison to Google, Duck Duck Go's growth might as well not even count. It's nowhere near close. It's not close to Bing or Yahoo, either. At 90 million searches per month, Duck Duck Go still needs to triple that figure to reach the search traffic of AOL, 266 million per month, according to comScore.

That's also not counting any worldwide traffic AOL has. Similarly, that 13 billion figure that Google handles is only for searches in the United States, whereas Duck Duck Go's data is for worldwide traffic. And while the Google traffic is for May 2013, and so potentially doesn't reflect any post-PRISM loss, it's pretty clear from Duck Duck Go's figures that hundreds of millions of people haven't left Google for it. Tens of millions haven't. Maybe, at best, one million have.

People Don't Actually Seek Out Private Search

Over the past few weeks, I've done several press interviews about Duck Duck Go, where the the issue of whether it can beat Google by being more "private" has come up. My answer has consistently been "no," because that's been the experience of search engines before that have tried this.

I can imagine some on Reddit or Hacker News or elsewhere arguing about how this time, it's different. This time, with all the NSA allegations, privacy is front and center. This is the right time for a private search engine to emerge.

I doubt it. Having covered the search engine space for 17 years now, having seen the privacy flare-ups come-and-go, I'd be very surprised if this time, it's somehow going to cause more change than in the past.

Past Privacy Moves

Here's a good example. Back in 2007, Google decided it would start to anonymize its search data. After 18-to-24 months, Google said it would break connections between what was searched for and particular IP addresses, to increase privacy. It wasn't forced to do this. It wasn't a reaction because some government body sent it a letter. Google itself decided that was a good, voluntary move to help increase privacy.

In response to this, the European Union decided that Google voluntarily cutting its search data retention policy from forever to wo years wasn't enough. Its main privacy body jumped in demanding data be retained for even less time, without even understanding other EU regulations prevented this.

That fracas kicked off an industry competition to be more private. Sensing a weakness where it might win against Google, Microsoft declared it would anonymize data after 18 months. Yahoo said it would cut retention to only 90 days. Ask launched Ask Eraser, promising instant privacy, for those who wanted it.

All this happened in an environment where there was much media focus on search privacy. How'd it work out? None of the Google competitors trying to win with a "private" feature made any impact on Google's share. Yahoo rolled back and starting keeping data up to 18 months. Even Startpage, based out of Europe and with a long-time focus on promising private searching, found its efforts in 2009 didn't pay off. It took until now for Startpage to get to 3 million searches per day.

The Privacy Google Already Provides

That was then, this is now? Microsoft has been spending millions on its "Scroogled" attacks on Google since late last year, viewing privacy as "Google's kryptonite." So far, that kryptonite not has any measurable impact on the Search Engine Of Steel.

Sure, there's always the chance that this time, it's different. That this time, people will decide that search privacy is so important that they do abandon Google, Bing and Yahoo for tiny, virtually unknown search engines that haven't been named in allegations that they somehow provide easy, direct and unfettered access to search data — allegations the major players have all denied.

Maybe Duck Duck Go and Startpage will be seen as somehow "safer" options by the masses, even though that also means people have to trust that the NSA isn't somehow breaking the encryption that Duck Duck Go and Startpage use — something that Google also uses.

Google is protecting privacy? Yes. Since October 2011, Google has moved to encrypt more and more of the searches that happen on its site, even if the searchers themselves haven't thought about this or requested it. Millions more have been protected by this move than have ever used Duck Duck Go or Startpage.

In fact, when Duck Duck Go claims on its Don't Track Us privacy site that when people search on Google that "your search term is usually sent to that site," there's an excellent chance now that this usually not the case at all. Publishers who have seen the rise of "Dark Google" and "not provided" in their analytics knows that Google's encryption has kept much data from flowing out.

Google, of course, does retain the data internally, unless people switch off search history or purge it from time-to-time. That means Google can use it in various ways, including ways that help improve searches. That also means it's available if Google is served with a legal request to deliver it. It also means, if you want to believe the PRISM allegations, that the NSA has a direct line into everything happening at Google. Again, that's something that the company has continued to deny.

As For Duck Duck Go

Don't get me wrong about Duck Duck Go. I love that there's a plucky little competitor out there like it, just like I'm happy to have Blekko out there, which actually does more "heavy lifting" in search by indexing the web rather than relying on the search results from others.

Duck Duck Go, which got funding at the end of last year from Union Square Ventures, has done an outstanding job of punching above-its-weight in attracting press attention. It has also rightfully helped focus attention on privacy issues that people should be aware of, so they can make informed decisions. That type of pressure can help improve the major players, in compelling change.

But being a darling of media stories has only translated into one search engine that I know of becoming a real giant. That was Google. Google got there in large part because of a serious investment in core search infrastructure.

Duck Duck Go is relying on results largely from other search engines, with a smart algorithm to sort through those answers and a privacy pitch, to go up against a company that actually harvests information directly and can literally can have a conversation with you because it understand more than matching word patterns.

AOL Search might be endangered by Duck Duck Go, and that's an impressive achievement. And Duck Duck Go, with limited staff and expenses, might make it as a profitable business. But I just don't see it as a serious threat to Google, even with the current privacy climate. Search pivacy as a selling point hasn't worked before; I'd be surprised if it works now.

Related Articles

Related Topics: Channel: Consumer | DuckDuckGo | Google: Privacy | Legal: Privacy | Top News


About The Author: Danny Sullivan is a Founding Editor of Search Engine Land. He's a widely cited authority on search engines and search marketing issues who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Search Engine Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosures page there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as @dannysullivan. See more articles by Danny Sullivan

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn


SMX - Search Marketing Expo

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

EGYPT: Sunni Muslim savages killing Shia Muslim savages and Obama is planning to send in troops to help?





BareNakedIslam posted: "Help whom? Let them kill each other. Obama has been sending $$billions every year in financial aid and military equipment to the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt, let them help themselves. Ahram (h/t golem bar) Angry mob kills at least 4 Shias in Giza "

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

EGYPT: Sunni Muslim savages killing Shia Muslim savages and Obama is planning to send in troops to help?

by BareNakedIslam

Help whom? Let them kill each other. Obama has been sending $$billions every year in financial aid and military equipment to the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt, let them help themselves. Ahram (h/t golem bar) Angry mob kills at least 4 Shias in Giza village including a leader. Eyewitnesses say that Salafist sheikhs in Giza village led a […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | June 24, 2013 at 7:08 pm | Categories: Religion of Hate | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-V29

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/06/24/egypt-sunni-muslim-savages-killing-shia-muslim-savages-and-obama-is-planning-to-send-in-troops-to-help/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

This really is Big Brother: the leak nobody's noticed




http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/this-really-is-big-brother-leak-nobodys.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

This really is Big Brother: the leak nobody's noticed

 

Saturday, June 22, 2013

 
This really is Big Brother: the leak nobody's noticed

by digby


This McClatchy piece (written by some of the same people who got the Iraq war run-up story so right while everyone else got it wrong) is as chilling to me as anything we've heard over the past few weeks about the NSA spying. In fact, it may be worse:

Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans' phone records, the Obama administration was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer tabs on their co-workers and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.

President Barack Obama's unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture departments. It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of "insider threat" give agencies latitude to pursue and penalize a range of other conduct.

Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized disclosures of any information, not just classified material. They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors must watch for "high-risk persons or behaviors" among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for failing to report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage.

"Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States," says a June 1, 2012, Defense Department strategy for the program that was obtained by McClatchy.


When the free free press, explicitly protected in the bill of rights becomes equivalent to an "enemy of the United States" something very, very bad is happening. 

The administration says it's doing this to protect national security and that it is willing to protect those who blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse. But that is not how the effect of this sort of program is going to be felt. After all, it's being implemented across the federal government, not just in national security:

The program could make it easier for the government to stifle the flow of unclassified and potentially vital information to the public, while creating toxic work environments poisoned by unfounded suspicions and spurious investigations of loyal Americans, according to these current and former officials and experts. Some non-intelligence agencies already are urging employees to watch their co-workers for "indicators" that include stress, divorce and financial problems.

"It was just a matter of time before the Department of Agriculture or the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) started implementing, 'Hey, let's get people to snitch on their friends.' The only thing they haven't done here is reward it," said Kel McClanahan, a Washington lawyer who specializes in national security law. "I'm waiting for the time when you turn in a friend and you get a $50 reward."

The Defense Department anti-leak strategy obtained by McClatchy spells out a zero-tolerance policy. Security managers, it says, "must" reprimand or revoke the security clearances – a career-killing penalty – of workers who commit a single severe infraction or multiple lesser breaches "as an unavoidable negative personnel action."

Employees must turn themselves and others in for failing to report breaches. "Penalize clearly identifiable failures to report security infractions and violations, including any lack of self-reporting," the strategic plan says.

The Obama administration already was pursuing an unprecedented number of leak prosecutions, and some in Congress – long one of the most prolific spillers of secrets – favor tightening restrictions on reporters' access to federal agencies, making many U.S. officials reluctant to even disclose unclassified matters to the public.

The policy, which partly relies on behavior profiles, also could discourage creative thinking and fuel conformist "group think" of the kind that was blamed for the CIA's erroneous assessment that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction, a judgment that underpinned the 2003 U.S. invasion.


I don't know about you, but that does not sound like freedom. In fact, it sounds like something else entirely to me

This government paranoia and informant culture is about as corrosive to the idea of freedom as it gets. The workplace is already rife with petty jealousies, and singular ambition--- it's a human organization after all. Adding in this sort of incentive structure is pretty much setting up a system for intimidation and abuse. 

And, as with all informant systems, especially ones that "profile" for certain behaviors deemed to be a threat to the state, only the most conformist will thrive. It's a recipe for disaster if one is looking for any kind of dynamic, creative thinking. Clearly, that is the last these creepy bureaucrats want.

This is the direct result of a culture of secrecy that seems to be pervading the federal government under president Obama.  He is not the first president to expand the national security state , nor is he responsible for the bipartisan consensus on national security or the ongoing influence of the Military Industrial Complex.This, however, is different. And he should be individually held to account for this policy.:

Administration officials say the program could help ensure that agencies catch a wide array of threats, especially if employees are properly trained in recognizing behavior that identifies potential security risks.

"If this is done correctly, an organization can get to a person who is having personal issues or problems that if not addressed by a variety of social means may lead that individual to violence, theft or espionage before it even gets to that point," said a senior Pentagon official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue publicly.
[...]
"If the folks who are watching within an organization for that insider threat – the lawyers, security officials and psychologists – can figure out that an individual is having money problems or decreased work performance and that person may be starting to come into the window of being an insider threat, superiors can then approach them and try to remove that stress before they become a threat to the organization," the Pentagon official said.

The program, however, gives agencies such wide latitude in crafting their responses to insider threats that someone deemed a risk in one agency could be characterized as harmless in another. Even inside an agency, one manager's disgruntled employee might become another's threat to national security.

Obama in November approved "minimum standards" giving departments and agencies considerable leeway in developing their insider threat programs, leading to a potential hodgepodge of interpretations. He instructed them to not only root out leakers but people who might be prone to "violent acts against the government or the nation" and "potential espionage."

The Pentagon established its own sweeping definition of an insider threat as an employee with a clearance who "wittingly or unwittingly" harms "national security interests" through "unauthorized disclosure, data modification, espionage, terrorism, or kinetic actions resulting in loss or degradation of resources or capabilities."

"An argument can be made that the rape of military personnel represents an insider threat. Nobody has a model of what this insider threat stuff is supposed to look like," said the senior Pentagon official, explaining that inside the Defense Department "there are a lot of chiefs with their own agendas but no leadership."

The Department of Education, meanwhile, informs employees that co-workers going through "certain life experiences . . . might turn a trusted user into an insider threat." Those experiences, the department says in a computer training manual, include "stress, divorce, financial problems" or "frustrations with co-workers or the organization."

An online tutorial titled "Treason 101" teaches Department of Agriculture and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees to recognize the psychological profile of spies.

A Defense Security Service online pamphlet lists a wide range of "reportable" suspicious behaviors, including working outside of normal duty hours. While conceding that not every behavior "represents a spy in our midst," the pamphlet adds that "every situation needs to be examined to determine whether our nation's secrets are at risk."

The Defense Department, traditionally a leading source of media leaks, is still setting up its program, but it has taken numerous steps. They include creating a unit that reviews news reports every day for leaks of classified defense information and implementing new training courses to teach employees how to recognize security risks, including "high-risk" and "disruptive" behaviors among co-workers, according to Defense Department documents reviewed by McClatchy.

"It's about people's profiles, their approach to work, how they interact with management. Are they cheery? Are they looking at Salon.com or The Onion during their lunch break? This is about 'The Stepford Wives,'" said a second senior Pentagon official, referring to online publications and a 1975 movie about robotically docile housewives. The official said he wanted to remain anonymous to avoid being punished for criticizing the program.

The emphasis on certain behaviors reminded Greenstein of her employee orientation with the CIA, when she was told to be suspicious of unhappy co-workers.

"If someone was having a bad day, the message was watch out for them," she said.

Some federal agencies also are using the effort to protect a broader range of information. The Army orders its personnel to report unauthorized disclosures of unclassified information, including details concerning military facilities, activities and personnel.

The Peace Corps, which is in the midst of implementing its program, "takes very seriously the obligation to protect sensitive information," said an email from a Peace Corps official who insisted on anonymity but gave no reason for doing so.

Granting wide discretion is dangerous, some experts and officials warned, when federal agencies are already prone to overreach in their efforts to control information flow.

The Bush administration allegedly tried to silence two former government climate change experts from speaking publicly on the dangers of global warming. More recently, the FDA justified the monitoring of the personal email of its scientists and doctors as a way to detect leaks of unclassified information.


Maybe this is just another way of reducing the federal workforce. Nobody normal should want to work there. 

When the Department of Education is searching for "insider threats" something's gone very wrong.



.



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Democratic Party official confesses to bribing IRS agents






Democratic Party official confesses to bribing IRS agents

     ·         June 23, 2013

·         By: Jim Kouri

In the midst of a far-reaching Internal Revenue Service scandal, a chairman of a local Democratic Party committee and father of an officeholder in New Jersey confessed on Friday that he bribed two IRS officials so that they would erase his federal tax debt, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

Michael Kazmark, a resident of Woodland Park, N.J., who served as the chairman of the Woodland Park Democratic Party Committee in Passaic County, is the father of Woodland Park Mayor Keith Kazmark, also a Democrat.

The 60-year-old Democrat pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Jerome B. Simandle in a federal courtroom in Camden, N.J., to one count of bribing a federal public official in exchange for official action. He admitted making $18,500 in bribery payments to people he believed were IRS agents.

According to documents filed in this case and statements made during Kazmark's guilty plea allocution, Kazmark failed to pay federal income taxes for eight years -- from 1997 through 2005.

In 2010, Kazmark owed the U.S. government $98,046 in unpaid federal income taxes, interest, and penalties. On April 18, 2010, Kazmark submitted an application to the IRS requesting that he pay $48,800 in order to settle his entire federal tax debt.

On Oct. 5, 2010, Kazmark paid a $1,000 bribe to two individuals he thought were IRS officials in exchange for their official assistance in transferring his offer an official who would accept the compromise, according to the prosecutors.

Kazmark admitted that on Nov. 23, 2010 he made an illegal payment of $17,500 to the individuals in exchange for their official assistance in placing his federal tax liability in non-collectible status for two years and agreeing to accept Kazmark's offer in compromise for the amount of the check that he had already paid to the IRS --$9,760 -- if he did not incur any additional federal tax liability for two years.

The single count to which Kazmark pleaded guilty is punishable by a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, twice the aggregate loss to victims or gain to the defendant, or three times the amount of the bribe payments. Sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 28, 2013.

The powerful tax-collecting and enforcement agency, the Internal Revenue Services (IRS), recently conceded that its agents targeted conservative PACs and Tea Party groups for politically-motivated audits during the 2012 election. While GOP lawmakers continue to investigate the case, Democrats are vocally defending the agency and the Obama administration.

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

FBI Wants More Power To Spy On Americans On The Internet





FBI Wants More Power To Spy On Americans On The Internet

June 24, 2013 by Sam Rolley 

PHOTOS.COM

His timing isn't so great, but FBI Director Robert Mueller told lawmakers last week that Federal agencies must be given expanded powers of surveillance with regard to Americans' electronic communications for the government to protect the Nation against possible terror attacks in the future.

Despite lawmaker skepticism of the Constitutionality of the Federal government's surveillance efforts and growing public concern, Mueller contends that the Internet and electronic communications should be subject to increased government scrutiny because criminals can use them to thwart court-ordered wiretaps.

"The rapid pace of advances in mobile and other communication technologies continues to present a significant challenge for conducting court-approved electronic surveillance of criminals and terrorists," Mueller said.

"Because of this gap, law enforcement is increasingly unable to gain timely access to the information to which it is lawfully authorized and that it needs to protect public safety, bring criminals to justice and keep America safe," he added.

Federal agencies were pushing for increased power to spy on Americans' electronic communications before news of the National Security Agency's policy of widespread collection of phone records broke. Last month, FBI general counsel Andrew Weissmann told a gathering of the American Bar Association that government investigators faced a "going dark" problem — asserting that the rise in popularity of online chat services, video communications and cloud-based document services are making it difficult for the government to spy on Americans in real time.

Currently, the government can require Internet providers and Internet companies to install surveillance equipment, pursuant to the 1994 Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). Alleging that criminals are increasingly taking to Skype, Google Voice, Dropbox and even chat functions on popular online games to communicate, the Feds are lobbying for the power to conduct real-time surveillance on those services.

Basically, the Feds want to assign any electronic communications activity the same diminished threshold for expectation of privacy as an audible, private conversation in a busy public square.

At present, CALEA can be used only to make Internet and phone providers build surveillance into their networks. And a separate provision granted in the "Wiretap Act" can be used by authorities to request "technical assistance" in snooping through Americans' emails and chat communications. But it simply isn't enough, according to Fed officials. They contend that government investigators essentially need the ability to compel Internet and electronic communications companies to effectuate wiretaps on customers in the name of government surveillance.

Bottom line: Even as Americans are up in arms over the idea that Federal officials have access to a complete list of private phone records, the Feds continue to double down on efforts to spy on all other forms of electronic communication.

 

 



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Inconvenient Truth: Obama’s Corruption Mushrooms




.Watch honest source videos from Fox News and Gulf1                    
 
Send a comment to Dr. Bates: http://www.gulf1.com/Columns/Mail_input/DMsg_Bates.aspx

Inconvenient  Truth:   Obama's  Corruption  Mushrooms 
From Alan Bates, MD

The Obama Administration and its corrupt subhuman minions including the 'regressive' Democrats of the Senate and the brainwashed zealots of their back pocket lamestreet press are systematically destroying the most prosperous and free nation on Earth.   The rule of law and the Constitution are being systematically  trashed by  Obama, Holder and their political operatives in corrupt federal agencies which include the  IRS,  State Department,  HSA,  NSA,  EPA (and possibly the FBI)  and the list keeps expanding  like a 'jack in the box'.    Many Americans are proverbial frogs in the pot as the heat is gradually turned up to boiling.   The question now is whether America continues to die a slow death or whether American liberty-loving patriots stand  up and go head to head with these criminals who deserve nothing more than jail time  in one of the many collapsing nations this administration has engineered in its vain attempt to install intolerant Islamic despots,  such as Morsi in Egypt---a nation which is now on the  verge of economic and political collapse.  

This week,  Barry Soetoro (alias  'Barack Obama' or 'President of the United States') will attempt to force  his ideologically self-destructive environmental regulations  based on the socialist fairy tale of 'man-made global warming' upon America through his puppet agency, the EPA.   This is part of his plan to crush any chance for American energy independence.  First,  he reduced lease permits on  federal lands for oil drilling and fracking, then subsidized unproved  financially  wasteful  wind and solar companies (which will never power transportation) with taxpayer dollars, and last year blocked the pipeline construction between Canada and the United States.  If the new EPA regulations go unchallenged by Congress and We the People,  expect higher electricity and fuel prices, new taxes and oppressive rules on energy usage as the socialist agenda is further enacted using the scam excuse of decreasing carbon emissions.

America has lost  respect from other nations worldwide as the Obama Administration pursues 'peace through weakness' diplomacy with enemies who do not fear anything but American strength.  Obama's ideological fantasy (with no  historical basis)  is that he alone can command peace and respect amongst all nations of the world by first disarming America.    The nuclear power brokers of the world are laughing at us now.  According to top military experts such action by the Obama administration will put our nation in grave danger and potentially unable to handle future significant conflicts  at a time when Iran and North Korea are near if not already at the point of deployment of nuclear weapons.   Just today we saw  another example of  loss of respect for the  Administration's retreat from 'peace through strength' with Hong Kong's decision not to hold NSA contractor Snowden at the Administration's request,  instead bowing to the wishes of nearby China that he be allowed to escape prosecution for theft of American classified intelligence.  Comically,  Senator Schumer is so out of touch that he seems surprised that Russia would 'poke its fingers in America's eyes'.  Ask yourself what Russia has to lose?

On the domestic front,  the Obama Administration and his demagogues in the U.S. Senate (joined by a few brainwashed 'living in the past' Republicans like Lindsey Graham and John McCain)  have slapped legal immigrants and U.S. citizens in the face by proposing a bill which prioritizes amnesty for millions of  illegals BEFORE  confirmation that our national borders are secure.  No surprise here since the Obama Administration's modus operandi  is achieving POWER through the corruption of our elections,  one element of which is amnesty for illegals, followed by false promises to them so they will vote to keep the current criminal Marxists in power,  while stealing taxpayer money through the Gestapo IRS and redistributing that wealth to the  regressive Democrats'  newly recruited voter pool.   Any time one hears Obama push the Senate's efforts pass a 1200  page bill  (recall Obamacare?) which wraps prior failed promises (to protect our borders) with amnesty,  run the other way!    Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has convinced himself that passing this ridiculous bill will help secure some  Hispanic votes for the GOP----a false assumption based on false logic.   When the GOP passed immigration reform in 1986,  Hispanics still voted predominantly for Democrats.  Moreover, most legal Hispanics oppose this bill without border security first.  Senator Graham's reality check will  occur if  his party passes this bill---many patriots will vote out the GOP old-guard and replace them with conservative patriots like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.  Keep up the good work Senator Graham! 

That the Obama administration is anti-freedom  has been amply  demonstrated by their (mostly failed) attempts to disarm most Americans,  while arming Mexican drug cartels as well as rogue IRS agents with hollow point bullets,  turning that agency into a political weapon against freedom-loving patriots, and then rewarding these thugs with undeserved  bonuses paid for by We the People.   FBI Director Mueller denied knowledge of any new investigation into this corruption when questioned by a Congressional committee despite promises by Obama weeks ago (instead the FBI is more interested in chasing the grave site of Jimmy Hoffa).  Hmm!  The Second Amendment has been infringed  in New York,  Illinois,  Connecticut,  California,  New Jersey,  Maryland, Massachusetts, and Colorado where socialist  Democrats systematically eviscerated the Constitution.   Patriots in these states must rise up  to restore their rights under the U.S. Constitution and remember that  freedom Isn't  free.  Doing  nothing is  consenting  to slavery under this Administration's  Leninist  tactic which  force citizens to turn away from God and individual liberty to support an all-powerful Federal dictatorship which has already set the stage for a bankruptcy of ouhealth carere system through Obamacare and the destruction of the institution of  marriage by allowing the SCOTUS to redefine an institution which long preceded the existence of America.   Are you kidding?!

If I could destroy America,  I would take the path Barry Soetoro  has---to discredit and weaken America both domestically and internationally.   'Obama'  has always and still does despise the qualities which have made America great, free and prosperous.   The ride is about to get rough for him and his criminal friends.    The rule of laws is stacked against them.   It is time for all patriots to pull together behind organizations whose goal it is to remove these criminals  from their thrones and hold them accountable for their crimes against America (see partial list below).   Call and write your  senators, representatives, governor,  and local political leaders until they know who you are and do not accept their  canned email responses---call them, attend their meetings!   Their contact numbers are listed by any search engine.   The ballot box must be secured and election fraud uncovered and prosecuted.  Support organizations whose mission it is to accomplish these and other goals which defend our Constitutional rights and the rule of law (Judicial Watch,  United States Justice Foundation,  Freedom Center,  Freedom Watch,  Liberty Counsel, and the NRA are just a few).   Our last and final option is to exercise our Constitutional right to fight for our liberty.  

**************
Send a comment to Dr. Bates: http://www.gulf1.com/Columns/Mail_input/DMsg_Bates.aspx
 
Get the facts.  Watch the latest video clips about the latest issues on Gulf1
 
If you no longer wish to receive these columns from Dr. Alan Bates, please use: http://www.gulf1.com/remove/remove_bates.aspx
 
For those who have a burning desire to send a writen letter by the United States Post Office or mailing address can be found on this contact page.   http://www.gulf1.com/contact/default.html

Copyright 06/24/2013 by Gulf1



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.