Conversations About The Fed On Facebook, Twitter, Forums And Blogs
The Federal Reserve wants to know what you are saying about it. In fact, the Federal Reserve has announced plans to identify “key bloggers” and to monitor “billions of conversations” about the Fed on Facebook, Twitter, forums and blogs. This is yet another sign that the alternative media is having a dramatic impact. As first reported on Zero Hedge, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has issued a “Request for Proposal” to suppliers who may be interested in participating in the development of a “Sentiment Analysis And Social Media Monitoring Solution”. In other words, the Federal Reserve wants to develop a highly sophisticated system that will gather everything that you and I say about the Federal Reserve on the Internet and that will analyze what our feelings about the Fed are. Obviously, any “positive” feelings about the Fed would not be a problem. What they really want to do is to gather information on everyone that views the Federal Reserve negatively. It is unclear how they plan to use this information once they have it, but considering how many alternative media sources have been shut down lately, this is obviously a very troubling sign.
You can read this “Request for Proposal” right here. Posted below are some of the key quotes from the document (in bold) with some of my own commentary in between the quotes….
“The intent is to establish a fair and equitable partnership with a market leader who will who gather data from various social media outlets and news sources and provide applicable reporting to FRBNY. This Request for Proposal (“RFP”) was created in an effort to support FRBNY’s Social Media Listening Platforms initiative.”
Mysteries of the universe and the world Chupacabra Even though some sightings date back to the 1970s, El Chupacabra – “the goat sucker” – is primarily a phenomenon of the 1990s, and its fame has largely been spread by the Internet. The sightings started in earnest in 1995 with reports coming out of Puerto Rico of a strange creature that was killing farmers’ livestock – chickens, ducks, turkeys, rabbits and, of course, goats – sometimes hundreds of animals in one evening. The farmers, who were familiar with the killing practices of wild dogs and other predators, claimed that the methods of this unknown beast were different.
It didn’t try to eat the animals it killed, for example; nor did it drag them away to be devoured elsewhere. Instead, the creature killed by draining its victims of blood, usually through small incisions. Then came the bizarre eyewitness descriptions: about the size of a chimpanzee hops about like a kangaroo large glowing red eyes grayish skin and hairy arms long snake-like tongue sharp fangs quills running along its spine that seem to open and close like a fan some believe it may even have wings Toward the end of the ’90s, the sightings of Chupacabra began to spread.
The creature was blamed for animal killings in Mexico, southern Texas and several South American countries. In May and June of 2000, a rash of incidents took place in Chile, according to certain newspapers there. In fact, some of the most incredible claims yet came out of those sightings: that at least one of the creatures was caught alive by local authorities, then handed over to official agencies of the US government.
What is it? Theories abound, including: an unknown but natural species of predator; misidentified known predators; the result of genetic experimentation; an alien. Most serious researchers consider Chupacabra merely folklore, perpetuated by over-enthusiastic locals immersed in superstition or a penchant for telling tall, exaggerated tales. Yet you can be sure that we haven’t seen or heard the last of Chupacabra.
The Sour Sop or the fruit from the graviola tree is a miraculous natural cancer cell killer 10,000 times stronger than Chemo.
Why are we not aware of this?
Its because some big corporation want to make back their money spent on years of research by trying to make a synthetic version of it for sale.
So, since you know it now you can help a friend in need by letting him know or just drink some sour sop juice yourself as prevention from time to time. The taste is not bad after all. It’s completely natural and definitely has no side effects. If you have the space, plant one in your garden.
The other parts of the tree are also useful.
The next time you have a fruit juice, ask for a sour sop.
How many people died in vain while this billion-dollar drug maker concealed the secret of the miraculous Graviola tree?
This tree is low and is called graviola ! in Brazi l, guanabana in Spanish and has the uninspiring name “soursop” in English. The fruit is very large and the subacid sweet white pulp is eaten out of hand or, more commonly, used to make fruit drinks, sherbets and such.
The principal interest in this plant is because of its strong anti-cancer effects. Although it is effective for a number of medical conditions, it is its anti tumor effect that is of most interest. This plant is a proven cancer remedy for cancers of all types.
Besides being a cancer remedy, graviola is a broad spectrum antimicrobial agent for both bacterial and fungal infections, is effective against internal parasites and worms, lowers high blood pressure and is used for depression, stress and nervous disorders.
If there ever was a single example that makes it dramatically clear why the existence of Health Sciences Institute is so vital to Americans like you, it’s the incredible story behind the Graviola tree..
The truth is stunningly simple: Deep within the Amazon Rainforest grows a tree that could literally revolutionize what you, your doctor, and the rest of the world thinks about cancer treatment and chances of survival. The future has never looked more promising.
Research shows that with extracts from this miraculous tree it now may be possible to:
* Attack cancer safely and effectively with an all-natural therapy that does not cause extreme nausea, weight loss and hair loss
* Protect your immune system and avoid deadly infections
* Feel stronger and healthier throughout the course of the treatment
* Boost your energy and improve your outlook on life
The source of this information is just as stunning: It comes from one of America ‘s largest drug manufacturers, th! e fruit of over 20 laboratory tests conducted since the 1970’s! What those tests revealed was nothing short of mind numbing… Extracts from the tree were shown to:
* Effectively target and kill malignant cells in 12 types of cancer, including colon, breast, prostate, lung and pancreatic cancer..
* The tree compounds proved to be up to 10,000 times stronger in slowing the growth of cancer cells than Adriamycin, a commonly used chemotherapeutic drug!
* What’s more, unlike chemotherapy, the compound extracted from the Graviola tree selectivelyhunts
down and kills only cancer cells.. It does not harm healthy cells!
The amazing anti-cancer properties of the Graviola tree have been extensively researched–so why haven’t you heard anything about it? If Graviola extract is
One of America ‘s biggest billion-dollar drug makers began a search for a cancer cure and their research centered on Graviola, a legendary healing tree from the Amazon Rainforest.
Various parts of the Graviola tree–including the bark, leaves, roots, fruit and fruit-seeds–have been used for centuries by medicine men and native Indi! ans in S outh America to treat heart disease, asthma, liver problems and arthritis. Going on very little documented scientific evidence, the company poured money and resources into testing the tree’s anti-cancerous properties–and were shocked by the results. Graviola proved itself to be a cancer-killing dynamo.
But that’s where the Graviola story nearly ended.
The company had one huge problem with the Graviola tree–it’s completely natural, and so, under federal law, not patentable. There’s no way to make serious profits from it.
It turns out the drug company invested nearly seven years trying to synthesize two of the Graviola tree’s most powerful anti-cancer ingredients. If they could isolate and produce man-made clones of what makes the Graviola so potent, they’d be able to patent it and make their money back. Alas, they hit a brick wall. The original simply could not be replicated. There was no way the company could protect its profits–or even make back the millions it poured into research.
As the dream of huge profits evaporated, their testing on Graviola came to a screeching halt. Even worse, the company shelved the entire project and chose not to publish the findings of its research!
Luckily, however, there was one scientist from the Graviola research team whose conscience wouldn’t let him see such atrocity committed. Risking his career, he contacted a company that’s dedicated to harvesting medical plants from the Amazon Rainforest and blew the whistle.
Miracle unleashed
When researchers at the Health Sciences Institute were alerted to the news of Graviola,! they be gan tracking the research done on the cancer-killing tree. Evidence of the astounding effectiveness of Graviola–and its shocking cover-up–came in fast and furious….
….The National Cancer Institute performed the first scientific research in 1976. The results showed that Graviola’s “leaves and stems were found effective in attacking and destroying malignant cells.” Inexplicably, the results were published in an internal report and never released to the public…
….Since 1976, Graviola has proven to be an immensely potent cancer killer in 20 independent laboratory tests, yet no double-blind clinical trials–the typical benchmark mainstream doctors and journals use to judge a treatment’s value–were ever initiated….
….A study published in the Journal of Natural Products, following a recent study conducted at Catholic University of South Korea stated that one chemical in Graviola was found to selectively kill colon cancer cells at “10,000 times the potency of (the commonly used chemotherapy drug) Adriamycin…”
….The most significant part of the Catholic University of South Korea report is that Graviola was shown to selectively target the cancer cells, leaving healthy cells untouched. Unlike chemotherapy, which indiscriminately targets all actively reproducing cells (such as stomach and hair cells), causing the often devastating side effects of nausea and hair loss in cancer patients.
…A study at Purdue University recently found that leaves from the Graviola tree killed cancer cells among six human cell lines and were especially effective against prostate, pancreatic and lung cancers Seven years of silence broken.
Share this information
Save Someone’s Life.
Share this as much as you can.♥
Bad news sugar lovers: a diet high in fructose won’t just make you fat, it may also make you stupid, according to research out of California.
A steady high-fructose diet disrupts the brain’s cognitive abilities, leading to poor learning and memory retention, says a study by Fernando Gomez-Pinilla, a neurosurgery professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and Rahul Agrawal, a visiting UCLA postdoctoral fellow from India.
“This type of diet. . . (affects) the transmission of information across cells. . . learning and memory and practically any type of brain function depends very much on how transmission is transported across cells,” Gomez-Pinilla said in an interview with the Star.
Health concerns
Their study, published in the May 15 edition of the Journal of Physiology, looked at high sugar consumption, focusing less on naturally occurring fructose in fruits and more on the fructose in high-fructose corn syrup.
Research has already proven a high-fructose diet leads to a slew of health concerns, including obesity, diabetes and fatty liver.
The U.S. is the world’s largest consumer of sweeteners.
High-fructose corn syrup, which acts as a preservative and sweetener, is found in a variety of processed foods, from soft drinks and baby food to salad dressings and condiments.
The average American consumes approximately 21 kilograms of cane sugar and 16 kilograms of high-fructose corn syrup annually, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Role of fatty acids
Gomez-Pinilla and Agrawal studied two groups of rats, both of which drank a fructose solution in their drinking water for six weeks. One of the groups also consumed omega-3 fatty acids, from flaxseed oil and a DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) capsule. Omega-3 fatty acids have been found to guard against heat disease, high cholesterol and mental conditions such as bipolar disorder and depression, according to the University of Maryland Medical Center.
Both rat groups were trained on a maze for five days before starting their new diet. After six weeks, Gomez-Pinilla and Agrawal retested the rats on the maze to monitor brain function and memory retention, noting the rats that consumed the fructose solution without the omega-3 fatty acids had problems with how they were able to think and recall routes in the maze.
Those rats also showed a resistance to insulin, a hormone that regulates sugar levels in the body.
“Rats fed on a (omega-3 fatty acids) deficient diet showed memory deficits in a Barnes maze, which were further exacerbated by fructose take,” the authors write.
They found that a rich diet of omega-3 fatty acids counteracted the negative affects of fructose.
Implications for humans
In terms of humans, Gomez-Pinilla predicts such changes in the brain to happen within six months to a year.
“The implication(s) here (are) the high consumption and the chronic consumption for man,” Gomez-Pinilla said, adding research needs to be done on the specific affects on humans.
“We don’t know yet how long (the damage) can last.”
The war on unhealthy food choices is a growing. In September, New York City announced it would ban sugar-filled drinks larger than 16-ounces from concession and fast-food stands, restaurants and movie theatres.
In Canada, a push on healthy eating is on the rise as the country grapples with the fact that 31.5 per cent of Canadian children aged 5 to 17 are either overweight or obese, according to a Statistics Canada report released in September.
“Diabetes is very prevalent in western society. It’s known already there is an (epidemic) of diabetes, which is highly related to a consumption of foods high in sugar,” Gomez-Pinilla said.
Gomez-Pinilla advocates a nutrient-rich diet that includes omega-3 fatty acids and a proper mix of healthy choices to offset the dangers of fructose.
Foods that are rich in omega-3 fatty acids include flax-seed oil, some types of fish, such as salmon, and nuts.
SUGAR – THE BITTER TRUTH
NEW series with Dr. Lustig “The Skinny on Obesity” http://www.uctv.tv/skinny-on-obesity. Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717]
Documentary about Big Sugar, from it’s early days with ties to slavery to modern times with it’s detrimental effects on the everglades and political ties. This is both part 1 and part 2. Written & Directed by: Brian McKenna. Produced by: Galafilm in 2005.
As good as this is, it barely touches on the negative effects it has on Florida residents, poisoning the water supply, endangering animals and plant species etc…
Stoners aren’t known for their memory prowess but a new review suggests that drugs similar to marijuana’s active ingredients may hold promise for preventing— or even reversing— brain aging and possibly Alzheimer‘s and other degenerative brain diseases.
Since the mid 2000′s researchers have been building an appreciation for the power of marijuana-like substances that make up the brain’s cannabinoid systems. In animal experiments, for example, synthetic compounds similar to THC—marijuana’s main psychoactive component—have shown promise in preserving brain functions. A 2008 study even demonstrated that a THC-like substance reduced brain inflammation and improved memory in older rats.
The latest review, published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, suggests that activating the brain’s cannabinoid system may trigger a sort of anti-oxidant cleanse, removing damaged cells and improving the efficiency of the mitochrondria, the energy source that powers cells, ultimately leading to a more robustly functioning brain.
Previous studies have linked cannabinoids to increased amounts of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a substance that protects brain cells and promotes the growth of new ones. Since new cell growth slows or stops during aging, increasing BDNF could potentially slow the decline in cognitive functions.
Activation of cannabinoid receptors can also reduce brain inflammation in several different ways, which may in turn suppress some of the disease processes responsible for degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
Andras Bilkei-Gorzo of the Institute of Molecular Psychiatry at the University of Bonn in Germany and an author of the study, is encouraged by the expanding knowledge of the brain’s cannabinoid system and its potential for leading to new understanding of aging in the brain. “[C]annabinoid system activity is neuroprotective,” he wrote, and increasing it “could be a promising strategy for slowing down the progression of brain aging and for alleviating the symptoms of neurodegenerative disorders.”
Still, Gary Wenk, professor of neuroscience, immunology and medical genetics at Ohio State University, who conducted some of the research Bilkei-Gorzo included in the review, is aware of the delicate nature of cannabinoid research, given the controversial nature of medical marijuana issues. “The literature is a mess and he’s done a nice job organizing it,” he says. “He was positive about developing cannabinoid drugs without going overboard.”
Other studies covered in the review showed that mice bred to lack the cannabinoid receptors have better memories early in life but have more rapid cognitive decline as they age, including inflammation in the hippocampus, a key region for memory. “This finding suggests that, at some point during aging, cannabinoid activity helps maintain normal cognitive functions in mice,” says Daniele Piomelli, professor of neurobiology, anatomy and biological chemistry at the University of California – Irvine, who was not associated with the study.
Piomelli cautions that the review doesn’t support the idea of using marijuana to improve brain aging among the elderly, not least because of its psychoactive effects. “This is definitely an important area of investigation but we are still far from a consensus,” he says.
Moreover, some of the research covered in the review had conflicting results. Although three clinical trials studied cannabinoids for the treatment of Parkinson’s Disease, these studies “did not provide a clear answer whether cannabinoids modify the progression or the outcome of the disease,” wrote Bilkei-Gorzo. He found similar results for Huntington’s Disease, which, like Parkinson’s, is a progressive, degenerative brain disorder. And for the most common form of dementia, “Despite the promising preclinical results, the detailed clinical evaluation of cannabinoids in [Alzheimer’s] patients is missing,” he said in the paper.
The social and political challenges to conducting such research, however, mean that it may be a while before we see such scientific gaps filled. Scientists have yet to conduct, for example, a solid study in which they follow marijuana smokers to see if they are more or less likely to develop Alzheimer’s— or to compare the cognitive decline of marijuana smokers to those who do not smoke. Doing so is too controversial to attract funding.
“In my experience, working in this area is like touching the third rail,” says Wenk, “I get hate and love mails that are bizarre and phone messages from people too high to talk. Some of my colleagues have left the area after seeing their names in the National Enquirer… I do not blame a war on marijuana but rather the public’s prejudice and extreme bias. I’ve now discontinued my research on this system.”
He and others in the field are not completely pessimistic, however. He says, “I’ve been trying to find a drug that will reduce brain inflammation and restore cognitive function in rats for over 25 years; cannabinoids are the first and only class of drugs that have ever been effective. I think that the perception about this drug is changing and in the future people will be less fearful.”
Given that Alzheimer’s already affects one in eight people over 65— and nearly half of those over 85—and there have been few successes at treating or preventing it so far, that would certainly be a welcome change.
It is known that for at least two years Monsanto, the company that specialises in genetically modified organisms, contracted Blackwater (later renamed Xe, then Academi) to spy upon anti-GM protesters (see below for details), though what Monsanto do not like is when the tables are turned and they are spied upon (by citizens at large). So, as a first step in this process, thanks to an anonymous leaker, Darker Net can provide names and email addresses of 300 key Monsanto staff should you like to offer your thoughts on their products (and espionage strategies).
Note: the window of names and email addresses is scrollable..
Summary of Monsanto/Blackwater deal
Internal communications from Total Intelligence (later renamed OODA) showed Monsanto first hired Blackwater operatives in 2008. Here are the events that led to that.
1. In January, 2008, Total Intelligence chair, Cofer Black, travelled to Switzerland to meet Kevin Wilson, Monsanto’s global security manager. Afterwards, Black emailed other Blackwater executives, saying that Wilson “understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name…. Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for.” Black also wrote that payments to TI would be paid out of Monsanto’s “generous protection budget” and estimated the potential payments at between $100,000 and $500,000. According to documents exposed by journalist, Jeremy Scahill, Monsanto paid TI $127,000 in 2008 and $105,000 in 2009.
2. In a later email to The Nation , Wilson confirmed that Monsanto hired Total Intelligence until early 2010, but claimed that Total Intelligence only provided Monsanto “with reports about the activities of groups or individuals that could pose a risk to company personnel or operations around the world which were developed by monitoring local media reports and other publicly available information”.
3. Wilson asserted that Black told him that Total Intelligence was “a completely separate entity from Blackwater.” However, we should note the following… Academi (the current name for Blackwater) was founded by Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL and Cofer Black was its vice-chairman from 2006 to 2008 (he was formerly the director of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center at the time of the September 11 attacks in 2001). Before joining Academi, Black was the Chair of Total Intelligence Solutions as well as vice-chair of Blackwater. Also, Robert Richer was vice-president of intelligence at Academi until January 2007, when he then formed Total Intelligence (he was formerly the head of the CIA’s Near East Division).
4. In summary, Black and Richer are the key players that link Blackwater with Total Solutions and both with Monsanto and their contract to spy on anti-GM groups and organisations worldwide as well as retail disinformation via the Internet using proxy identities. Click here for a map of Xe (Blackwater’s new name before becoming Academi) front companies and here for map of company relationships.
Roughly 85,000 fewer people living in North America will be forced to drink and bathe in fluoridated water, thanks to four recent community victories preventing or overturning water fluoridation mandates. The towns of O’Fallon, Missouri; Rosetown, Saskatchewan; Lake View, Iowa; and Cassadaga, New York are all now officially fluoride-free, proving that individuals really do have the power to step up and protect themselves against one of the most ridiculous folklores of the past century to be thrust on the people in the name of public health.
As reported by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which has tabulated more than 70 community victories against fluoride across North America since 2010, a single citizen activist concerned about the safety of fluoride was able to persuade the City Administrator of O’Fallon, MO, population 80,000, to discontinue the town’s water fluoridation program. The town’s 2012 budget report states that the change will save the town $18,000 annually, and reduce the hazard for water operators who will no longer “have to handle the dangerous chemical on a regular basis.”
In Rosetown, SK, the failure of a fluoride feed pump was enough to scrap the outdated practice of water fluoridation, while water fluoridation’s high cost with lack of economic and societal benefit convinced the city council of Lake View, IA, to discontinue the pointless practice. And in Cassadaga, NY, local citizens rejected a proposal to fluoridate by an 87 percent margin, even after the town had already built a special shed to begin housing and pumping fluoride chemicals into the water supply.
Portland voters soon to vote on water fluoridation
In Portland, Oregon, where rogue city council members and Mayor Sam Adams recently forced through a fluoridation mandate against the will of the people, more than 43,000 local citizens signed a petition to force the issue to a public vote. As of this writing, these signatures are still being counted — but since only 19,858 were required to get the issue on the ballot, the issue will almost surely be put up for a public vote.
And in New York City, where councilman Petter Vallone, Jr. has been working feverishly to end water fluoridation in America’s largest city, a resolution has been introduced to require that a warning about fluoride’s dangers for infants be printed on individual water bills. Both Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the entire state of New Hampshire recently passed similar requirements for infant warning labels on water bills.
Two Florida communities reconsider water fluoridation
Lastly, both the Greater Pine Island Water Association, which serves the area of St. James City near Fort Myers, Florida, and the Ormond Beach City Commission, also in Florida, are also reconsidering their existing fluoridation mandates. The former group will have its members vote on the issue, while the latter group has already approved a referendum that will allow voters to decide the issue in an upcoming election.
While the TSA can’t explain why invasive patdowns without probable cause are legal, that isn’t stopping TSA from future plans to track all your daily travels, anywhere you go, from work, to stores, or even when you go out to play.
Meanwhile at airports, the TSA is rolling out “less-invasive gingerbread man” body scanners to a tune of $2.7 million for 240 machines. At this point, I don’t think skinnier versions of the Pillsbury Doughboy via kinder and gentler naked body scans are going to placate people who are secretly murmuring that America is truly becoming a police state. Spending countless billions of dollars on all this ‘security theater’ makes it look like the TSA is “doing their best to ensure that if there’s a terrorist attack the public doesn’t blame the TSA for missing it.”
According to TSA Blogger Bob, in the 10 years after 9/11, there have been vast improvements and new technology as well as a “professionalized workforce” of Transportation Security Officers. Professional as in claiming no more enhanced groping of children under 12, only to break that promise and seemingly molest this little boy dressed as Spiderman?
The Los Angeles Times reported on TSA launching a behavior-detection program at Boston’s Logan International Airport. These TSA officers received a whopping two weeks of training and are supposed to ask each passenger a “few” questions “in an effort to detect suspicious behavior.” Doesn’t this seem like yet another strike at your privacy? Some people are stressed or even nervous when they are traveling. What if you don’t feel like talking or being questioned? Is this too going to become yet another TSA-mandated “you will answer if you want the privilege of flying?”
A MSNBC travel article warned that when it comes to airport security, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.” Some security analysts suggest Big Brother will employ an even Bigger Brother in the form of “chip-embedded passports that someday tell the federal transportation watchdogs all about your daily commutes to work, the mall — even to parties.”
Other security analysts suggest it will all be about “gathering intelligence technologically” or that increased biometrics is the security answer. The Known Traveler Program will launch this fall so previously known and trusted travelers will “have bar codes stamped on their boarding passes, authorizing TSA screeners to allow those passengers to skip shoe and laptop removals.” TSA Administrator John Pistole said, “Enhancing identity-based screening is another common sense step in the right direction as we continue to strengthen overall security and improve the passenger experience whenever possible.”
So even though the TSA is building up its ranks with bomb-sniffing dogs, there will be dramatic changes in store for travelers within the next 30 years. There will be biometric fingerprinting as well as other biometric and personal info stored in government databases.
Senior policy analyst at the Center for Health and Homeland Security Vernon R. Herron told MSNBC that your official travel document “will not only have information as to who you are and where you have traveled, but it will also … allow government officials to track your travel not only in the air, but your daily travels to work, grocery stores and social events.” In the future the “government will detain passengers who have traveled to places that are suspicious in nature” once they enter an airport, Herron added. “All these measures seem extreme. However, after we declared a war on terror, we must be more proactive than reactive when it comes to airport security.”
Ah, again with the “suspicious” lists even if it’s places to which you traveled this time. Regarding the dreaded list after list of supposed suspicious activity, are they meant to keep the public in a state of paranoia and fear so they just roll over and watch it happen? Digg commenter leodin said, “Strange… The actual threat of terrorism hasn’t increased, and the odds of actually dying in a terrorist attack make the lottery look like a sound investment, and yet the government seems insistent upon taking more and more measures to protect us from these imaginary threats.”
Just over two weeks ago, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 terror suspects had a pre-trial hearing before the Guantanamo Bay commission. The judge presiding over the commission is Army Colonel James L. Pohl. Key issues argued were whether a forty-second daly between the press and courtroom was constitutional and whether the suspects could testify about being tortured by CIA interrogators or not.
John Knefel for The Nation traveled to Guantanamo Bay to cover the hearing. His dispatch on the proceedings he witnessed has been posted and it is worth reading.
As he reports, the court heard argument on ”whether the five co-defendants can be barred from testifying about their own experiences on the grounds that their thoughts, emotions and memories are classified information. The prosecution, on behalf of the government, has argued that all utterances by the accused should be “presumptively classified”—that is, every possible statement by should be treated as secret government information—but this request has since been weakened.”
He adds, “The prosecution’s argument is that the five defendants are in a “particularly credible position to confirm or deny” elements of the CIA’s rendition, detention and interrogation program. Having been tortured, they are in possession to describe it, and the government has clear incentives to keep them from doing so.”
The American Civil Liberties Union has opposed the effort to censor torture testimony. Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, declares, “The government’s claim that it can keep from the public the defendants’ testimony about their ‘thoughts and experiences’ of torture is legally untenable and morally abhorrent.”
I was covering the latest hearing in the court martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, when this was all unfolding weeks ago. I did not get a chance to highlight some of the government’s argument, but I think this is an appropriate opportunity to share some more of what the government’s argument is on classifying the memories of terror suspects. It nicely complements the totalitarian arguments proffered by government attorneys in support of the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which essentially legalized warrantless wiretapping that had been occurring under the administration of President George W. Bush.
Justice Department lawyer and deputy trial counsel for the prosecution Theresa Baltes stated in court on October 16 that an executive order issued by President Barack Obama was in force that authorized classification of “orally conveyed information that falls within the subsection of foreign or intelligence sources and methods.” Baltes was alluding to observations and memories of torture or, to use Vice President Dick Cheney’s phrase, “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The “intelligence sources” are the agents who tortured them. The “methods” are how they were tortured and that is not something the government thinks the press or American public should ever find out about.
Baltes said to Judge Pohl later in the proceedings on October 16 the government had originally proposed an order that required defense attorneys to treat everything their client said as classified, including details on what their client had for lunch a day or two ago. The order was narrowed to protect statements on what occurred while in CIA custody.
“The prosecution is proposing that they only treat as classified and handle as classified statements that they know to be classified based on their security clearance,” Baltes told the commission. “And that would specifically include — or believe to be classified, and specifically include information about the CIA RDI program and their prior custody, detention, interrogation.” (RDI being the CIA’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program.)
Navy Lieutenant Commander Kevin Bogucki, who represents former CIA captive and former translator for Osama bin Laden, Muhammad Rahim, tried to outline the draconian and preposterous nature of the government’s position. He argued, “When the government voluntarily exposes someone outside their control to information, they are voluntarily relinquishing control over that information.” For example:
..[L]et’s say we are just imagining, for the sake of argument, that there is a classified CIA assassination program and one of the agents in this program goes and attempts to take out a target but fails, wounds the target but doesn’t kill him. That victim is now unable to describe the circumstances of the assault upon him because it might tend to reveal the personnel involved in this secret program, the means by which this program executes its duties? Clearly that makes no sense. It doesn’t matter how secret they kept it when they were planning and when they were working through the techniques of this secret program. Once they decide to execute that program in the real world and expose people outside their control to the essentially mechanisms or the product of that planning, they have now relinquished control over that. And to simply say, well, it relates to the secret program and therefore you can’t talk about it, goes far beyond what can properly be classified… [emphasis added]
Judge Pohl, at one point in the proceedings, notes that the government is not seeking to classify all experiences and memories. They have sough to limit the classification to certain dates and places. Bogucki countered by arguing the information has to be owned, produced or under the control of the US government.
…Now, the only one of those that the government can even arguably rely upon is under the control of the United States Government. If you can go to the next slide, please. So again here, they are relying upon the prong that this statement is arguably under the control of the United States Government….Okay, but the only reason that they think they have control over this information, the only reason that theythink that final prong is satisfied is because they are holding our clients essentially in isolation…
What Bogucki is suggesting is his client has been completely dehumanized. To the government, he is not a person. He is a vessel containing details that if disseminated would invite scrutiny or possibly undermined current operations or missions against terrorism. Therefore, this vessel cannot come in contact with other prisoners or else those prisoners might come into possession of this information that the government wishes to keep secret. So, Bogucki’s client must be held in solitary confinement and suffer under those conditions because some agents used classified methods of interrogation or torture on him.
Let’s return to Knefel’s piece. He puts this all into the larger context hinting at the reality that what the military commissions system is a second-class system of legal justice that has been constructed to ensure convictions. He also highlights how Obama says he intends to close Guantanamo but a person suspected of being involved in the Benghazi attack could potentially end up at Guantanamo. The moment new prisoners start arriving at Guantanamo under Obama is the moment that any more platitudes about closing Guantanamo are exposed to be completely hollow.
And Knefel writes, “The military commissions are just one piece of a larger, disturbing trend toward centralized presidential power with virtually no oversight or transparency.” He contends:
…The bigger problem is that a once radical idea—that the executive branch should have its own legal system to try so-called enemy combatants—has been normalized and codified under two separate administrations. Recent claims that the CIA and FBI are attempting to send a suspect in the Benghazi killing of Libya Ambassador Christopher Stevens to Guantánamo Bay underscore critics’ skepticism that military commissions will be a limited tool with a definite ending.
The same, of course, is true for the “War on Terror” more broadly, as evidenced by a chilling Washington Postreport on the “disposition matrix,” a counterterrorism tool that further entrenches the policy of “targeted killing” embraced by the Obama administration. As Spencer Ackerman writes, “Obama did not run for president to preside over the codification of a global war fought in secret. But that’s his legacy.” Indeed, as John Kiriakou, a whistleblower recently prosecuted for trying to shed light on the CIA’s torture program, knows too well, the Obama administration has charged more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act of 1917 than all previous presidents combined…
The case of Kiriakou is a kind of bookend to the first term of a president, who pledged to be different from Bush and then decided to be completely subservient to the national security state like previous presidents. Kiriakou was subjected to a prosecution for revealing the name of a covert agent involved in the RDI program, who multiple people in the human rights community are believed to have known. He was prosecuted after he went on television and said the CIA had an official policy of torture because it did use waterboarding on detainees. That the CIA did not like and it made him a target. The government went after Kiriakou and in the process destroyed his life and the lives of his wife and five children by putting them through a prosecution that has left him impoverished and ruined.
What has happened to the torturers? How many people who actually engaged in torture of terror suspects have you heard about, whose lives have been wrecked because they were savages toward human beings? How many people have you read about in the news who authorized this policy and now are in jail because they instructed people lower than them to engage in torture and sought to cover it up with crafty legal justifications?
The answer is none. The answer is nobody. The answer is the US government remains committed to concealing details on methods of torture that were used on people now imprisoned at Guantanamo because the continuity of government was more important to the Obama administration than justice. And, the classification of the experiences and memories of terror suspects is supported by the government so agents, who engaged in torture, do not go through the kind of life-wrecking experience Kiriakou did.
Are aliens real? One hacker who broke into US Military computers says yes, claiming that he found evidence of extraterrestrial life in the computer networks he broke into. Now, the United States is seeking extradition for breaching both military and NASA computer networks. However, the UK says that he isn’t fit to stand trial and has blocked his extradition.
Gary McKinnon, 46, was a computer administrator previously. He hacked into military networks right after the September 11th, 2001 attacks. He says that he was looking for evidence of extraterrestrial life in those computers and that he found it. He claims he found both photographs of alien spacecraft and names of aliens who had flown them. If that is true, then the conspiracy theorists have been right all along. Aliens have landed on Earth and the United States Government is covering them up.
US Officials said that he caused almost a million dollars in damage and prosecutor Paul McNulty called it the ” biggest hack of military computers ever, at least ever detected.” UK Officials like Home Secretary Theresa May say that McKinnon suffers from depression and is at-risk of taking his own life. British Prime Minister David Cameron is also a supporter of McKinnon, even taking the case to President Barack Obama.
So, are aliens real? Is the government covering up extraterrestrials? This is perhaps not the most credible case that involves aliens, but depression does not necessarily mean mental incompetence, and apparently Gary McKinnon was competent enough to hack into one of the most secure computer networks in the world. One thing is certain. If the conspiracy theorists are right, Gary McKinnon should be receiving a visit from the Men in Black sometime in the near future.
New Tips and Tricks to Fool Surveillance Cameras now Known to be using advanced algorithm technology for automated Facial Recognition and profiling. With a few of the right LED lights, and a 9 volt battery on the brim of a hat, one can walk around with a veil of protection yet not stand out in public.
23 July 2012 – Statement from Jeremy Hammond, alleged Anonymous hacker – read in Foley Square, NYC
Thanks for everybody coming out in support! It is so good to know folks on the street got my back. Special thanks to those who have been sending books and letters, and to my amazing lawyers.
I remember maybe a few months before I was locked up I went to a few noise demonstrations a the federal jail MCC Chicago in support of all those locked up there. Prisoners moved in front of the windows, turned the lights on and off, and dropped playing cards through the cracks in the windows. I had no idea I would soon be in that same jail facing multiple trumped up computer hacking “conspiracies.”
Now at New York MCC, the other day I was playing chess when another prisoner excitedly cam e up as was like, “Yo, there are like 50 people outside the window and they are carrying banners with your name!” Sure enough, there you all were with lights, banners, and bucket drums just below our 11th floor window. Though you may not have been able to here us or see us, over one hundred of us in this unit saw you all and wanted to know who those people were, what they were about, rejuvenated knowing people on the outside got there back.
As prisoners in this police state – over 2.5 million of us – we are silenced, marginalized, exploited, forgotten, and dehumanized. First we are judged and sentenced by the “justice” system, then treated as second class citizens by mainstream society. But even the warden of MCC New York has in surprising honesty admitted that “the only difference between us officers here and you prisoners is we just haven’t been caught.”
The call us robbers and fraudsters when the big banks get billion dollar bailouts and kick us out of our homes.
They call us gun runners and drug dealers when pharmaceutical corporations and defense contractors profit from trafficking armaments and drugs on a far greater scale.
They call us “terrorists” when NATO and the US military murder millions of innocents around the world and employ drones and torture tactics.
And they call us cyber criminals when they themselves develop viruses to spy on and wage war against infrastructure and populations in other countries.
Yes, I am one of several dozen around the world accused of Anonymous-affiliated computer hacking charges.
One of many here at MCC New York facing trumped up “conspiracy” charges based on the cooperation of government informants who will say anything and sell out anyone to save themselves.
And this jail is one of several thousand other jails, prisons, and immigrant detention centers – lockups which one day will be reduced to rubble and grass will grow between the cracks of the concrete.
So don’t let fear of imprisonment deter you from speaking up and fighting back. Silencing our movement is exactly what they hope to accomplish with these targeted, politically motivated prosecutions. They can try to stop a few of us but they can never stop us all.
Real or imagined- reasonable or grandiose, I think we can all agree that things that Barrett Brown has recently said leading to his recent arrest and indictment were on the solid side of stupid. People who hate him figured it was about time they nailed him on something, and people who… don’t hate him as much… have defended him under the banner of “Freedom of Speech” and pointed to his claims of being harassed and goaded by the FBI and alleged informants, which, according to Brown, have included the Feds threatening to arrest his mother who he said has had nothing to do with his Anonymous hactivism and crowd-source-style-journalism ProjectPM activities.
As I mentioned in my previous post about the Kelly Thomas killing, the functions and execution of government powers and the legal system are by default biased heavily in favor of the powers that be and such powers have great potential to be, and many times have proven to be, corrupt as hell. That said, before we all collectively tell Barrett Brown to shut up regardless of whether such a pleading would tip a hat to his right to free speech, I think it is fair to acknowledge that Brown’s paranoid ramblings and associated “threats” may have been his only recourse to defend himself from the fears he professed were true: Agent Robert Smith is corrupt; the FBI is corrupt; the Zetas are out to get him; the FBI is in on it with the Zetas; and if armed men charged in on his home, Brown would feel justified in assuming it was a Zeta assassination attempt coordinated in conjunction with the FBI.
…THAT said, and in addition to Brown’s own confession of heroin addiction and issues with Suboxone withdrawal at and around the time of the “threats” and other tweets listed in the indictment, I think we can at least give the government credit for allowing a mental competence hearing for Brown before the trial against him proceeds. This should especially be appreciated by Constitution enthusiasts as the evidence of actus reus of Brown’s alleged crimes primarily revolves around a combination of arguably- and absolutely- protected speech.
As for that “conspiracy” charge? Well, look at the indictment: he was soliciting others to find “Restricted” information on Agent Robert Smith, which has been dubbed a “conspiracy” due to another’s attempt to find such “RESTRICTED” information with what is only described as an “Internet search”. Because you know, when I want to get down and dirty on a Federal Agent’s RESTRICED information, forget unauthorized access to a security clearance-protected Federal Database, I’m all about the old-fashioned Google stalk. For this charge, maybe we should give the FBI a mental competency hearing while we’re at it….
If you haven’t taken a peek at the Federal indictment against Barrett Lancaster Brown, I implore you to do so. Then, I invite you on a First Amendment adventure where I explain to you why we should all be offended and worried by the United States’ Prosecutor’s attack on our Right to Speech. The tale I shall tell will not necessarily defend Brown completely or successfully, but it will point out the fallacy of this indictment against him, which is supposed to contain “essential facts of the case”, but really just reveals the Government’s fear of our right to voice dissent and grievance against them.
Join me…
Count 1: Knowingly and Willfully transmitting in interstate commerce communications containing threats to injure the person of another. 18 USC Section 875(c).
While Brown does make vague and conditional threats against others such as @AsherahResearch and @_Dantalion, the indictment count doesn’t seem to care much about them, citing only “threatening to shoot and injure agents of the FBI” – specifically Robert Smith.
So let’s take a look at the first few useless items in this indictment:
Item 5) f. is a conditional threat made on Brown’s twitter against twitter user @_Dantalion in which Brown warns he will shoot if @_Dantalion comes near Brown’s home in Texas. Brown adds that such an act of self-defense of self and property is legal. Which it is. When I went to check @_Dantalion’s profile on October 5, 2012, on of the first tweets I came across was @_Dantalion explaining to another twitter user, “I am not an FBI agent”. So Brown made a conditional threat, the condition being an act that would trigger a legal right to defend oneself, against someone who is not an FBI agent. This cited evidence in the indictment does not lend to Count 1. At all.
Something I will say now that will apply across all of my arguments is that my belief, which may or may not be held up in a criminal law context in court, is that a threat that is not imminent does not constitute Assault. I base this on my understanding of the civil Tort offense of Assault which defines the intent behind Assault as an intention to cause imminent harm or apprehension of imminent harm. The above conditional threat Brown made to @_Dantalion does not detail imminence, and, as you will see as this story unravels, NONE of the threats made by Brown were imminent. Moving on…
Item 8) c. Is a vague, conditional threat toward renowned Anonymous foe, @AsherahResearch. Talk about my momma again and “see what happens”. So… what’s gonna happen? And what is it about this tweet that implies or infers the requisite intent for a threat against an FBI agent?
More importantly, why doesn’t Count 1 even mention that people who were not FBI agents were also “threatened”? Poor Dantalion and Asherah.
Where Brown is in trouble on Count 1, albeit with room for a defense, are items 12) c. and d.
The Greatest Incriminating Hits from the infamous “last video” by a disheveled, suboxone-withdrawn Brown include “Robert Smith’s life is over”, “I’m gonna look into his kids”, and “I will shoot and kill [the FBI] if they come.”
This is where we should all yell a hearty “Shut up, Barrett Brown” in the general direction of Texas. Don’t threaten a federal law enforcement agent, you guys. It’s enumerated in a Federal statute and is one of the few types of threats out there that does not need to be imminent to be illegal. It is contingent upon whether the threat is made in regards to LE carrying out their official duties.
But there is still a defense. Maybe. The “threats” regarding Robert Smith and his kids aren’t threats of injury. Brown even states “By ruin his life, I don’t mean kill him”. As for shooting and killing the FBI? I point to the “knowingly” sub-element of intent for this particular statute. The threat is conditional on whether or not the FBI comes. Brown never indicates that he knows the FBI is coming. He says in the item 12. video that the FBI has held onto his seized computers for months and has yet to allege Brown of a crime based on the evidence from a previous raid. In fact, as the worst evidence against Brown is this singular video, the FBI probably didn’t even know whether or not they were going to raid Brown at the time that this conditional threat was made. Admittedly, this is a tight defense to make, but I will come back to it for Count 3.
Further defense? Mental and emotional instability: persisting paranoia issues plus suboxone withdrawal. Although a finding of Brown’s allegation of FBI corruption would probably not happen, there is a question of self-defense. And if there was no real reason for self-defense, see: delusions of grandeur, delusions of persecutions, paranoid psychosis. In other words, possible insanity defense (and the thresholds for the insanity defense may be lowered when there was no action taken beyond speech).
Count 2: knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with other persons known and unknown to Grand Jury … to make restricted personal information about an FBI agent and immediately family publicly available with intent to threaten and intimidate the agent and to incite commission of violence against the agent. 18 USC Section 371 and 18 USC Section 119.
…How much more element-loaded can a charge get?
The “with intent” and the all-elements-must-be-fulfilled-indicative “and” ‘s of the latter part of this Statute combo are hard for the Government to corroborate with the facts of this indictment. They’re doing pretty good up to “incite commission of violence against” Robert Smith. We’ve got solicitation which, upon the cited agreement Brown made with another to gather Smith’s personal information, merges into conspiracy. We have immediate family members. We have intent to threaten and intimidate. But incite violence? That’s where the prosecution stretches it. Look through the indictment closely, and there is never a threat or suggestion of committing violence against Smith. Only the hypothetical FBI raiders, generally.
But I think this Count specifically is why the indictment tries to pancake all of Brown’s tweets together. Actually, the majority of this indictment is an attempt to build a criminal, violence-inciting profile of Brown out of several non-criminal tweets. This compilation is why I say we should be afraid for our Right to Speech.
It is clear in several tweets, that Brown is soliciting and possibly conspiring to gather restricted information on Robert Smith for the purpose of publicly releasing it. None of these tweets suggest violence toward Smith.
Non-exhaustively: 6) a. 8) a., 11, and 13. Although it legally doesn’t matter for conspiracy, it should be noted that no evidence is listed in the indictment that Brown succeeded in obtaining the sought restricted information on Smith.
One memorable case from my Criminal Law class (at the moment I cannot find the case, but will likely come back to revise this paragraph when I find it) is a case where a drunk driver was acquitted on appeal because evidence levied against him included, basically, pro-drinking propaganda bumper stickers the driver had. These bumper stickers were used as evidence toward the defendant’s intent. It simply didn’t work. Pro-drinking speech didn’t help the prosecutors in adding to the defendant’s intent for criminal drunken behavior. Similarly to this decision, I argue anti-government speech not directly associated with the accused behavior for the alleged crime of conspiracy shouldn’t lend to intent for the conspiracy.
In fact, this is nearly exactly what was held in California State Appellate courts in People v. Huss regarding the instruction of including picketing sign slogans as evidence for conspiracy to incite a riot as being an invalid, unconstitutional instruction. 241. Cal.App.2d 361. Although a California Appellate court decision doesn’t serve as precedent over the Federal District Court that Brown will face trial in, Huss borrows its reasoning from Federal Supreme Court case Terminiello v. City of Chicago. 337 U.S. 1. (How do you like them apples?)
…which should also hold for the next count…
Count 3: knowingly and willfully threaten to assault a federal law enforcement officer with intent to impede, intimidate, and interfere with such federal law enforcement while engaged in the performance of official duties and with the intent to retaliate against such federal law enforcement officers on account of performance of official duties. 18 USC Sections 115 (a)(1)(B) and (b)(4).
…and some of my favorite highlights of the Free Speech-protected tweets that shouldn’t lend to the intent of Counts 2 and 3 are…
2) c. “Do you know how to shoot? You have five years to learn. Maybe less.” Links to a short video of Brown doing some shotgun practice in an open field.
My assumption for this tweet is that in saying “You have five years to learn” how to shoot is a reference to a conspiracy such as FEMA camps where conspiracy theorists believe the government will raid us all and send us to “FEMA concentration camps”. Or something like that. But isn’t self-defense against a corrupt government the heart and soul of the Second Amendment? Otherwise, there is no specific (or even general) mentioned target for the suggested self-defense nor is there an imminence of the assumed threat posed by Brown’s pro-arms propaganda.
3) a. “Kids! Overthrow your government lol” Link? Get this- the link is to a Blondie music video, “Rapture”. A political satire on how the government and media has zombified us all. OH NOES! DISSENT AND GRIEVANCE!
The tweet itself reeks of satire. See: “Kids!” and “lol”. Before heading to the music video link, I thought maybe the link would lead me to something that would really rile me up with a fervent violent fire if I were susceptible to do so. Maybe a conspiracy theory that pulled at revolutionary heart strings? Maybe excerpts from the Anarchists’ Cookbook?
No. It’s a Blondie music video. Not exactly speaking to an incitement of violence nor an intent to retaliate against a raid.
Similar anti-government, pro-self-defense-against-a-corrupt-government comments include “Don’t Wait. Retaliate.” and 10) b.’s vague threat by Brown that he will use “other means at [his] disposal” to ‘wipe out the government’… the “wiping out” he promises to do includes more specific, non-violent threats of using courts, media, and his investigative journalism at ProjectPM.
And 2) e. “Have a plan to kill every government you meet.” in which there is no specific or general threat to any human being, but an abstract entity and with such an abstract entity being the object of the threat, “kill” could be interpreted as a non-violent version of the verb such as “stop” or “get rid of”.
Moving on…
The not-physical, non-injurious, cyber threats….
5) a. “…the net will give us revenge.”
5) c. “Nothing restrains me from my real work. #ProjectPM”
5) e. “Help #ProjectPM plan, execute further attacks … #PantherModerns”
For the record, the Panther Moderns are a FICTIONAL hacking group from the work “Neuromancer” who simulated a CYBER terrorist attack on a media conglomerate called “Sense/Net”
The ReTweeted threat that is actually a threat to himself:
7) “A dead man can’t leak stuff… Illegally shoot the son of a bitch.” Brown is comparing himself to the object and victim of this retweeted threat, Julian Assange. The presumed subject of the tweet instructed to “illegally shoot the son of a bitch” would be a LE officer who should act as a due process-depriving judge jury and executioner for Assange (comparatively, Brown).
Well, at least they’re giving Brown due process so far…
Not even threats and I don’t even know why they were included in the indictment:
2) a. “Don’t be a pussy. Call up every fascist and tell them you’re watching.” Links to a weird music remix featuring harmless sound clips that include Brown.
5) b.: “Fuck you.” -directed at the feds for apparently depriving Brown of his opiates, somehow.
5) d. “Journalists allow the guilty to escape. #ProjectPM ensures the guilty will be known to their children as they are, forever.
10) a. “This is part two of why I’m so fucking angry.” BB mad.
Here, I’ll repeat my defense for Brown’s intent. Knowledge is requisite for Count 3. Brown did not know that the FBI would raid him and his threat was contingent on a raid that he wasn’t even certain would occur based on a lack of the FBI’s ability to charge him with anything from the first raid of Brown.
And once again: insanity or diminished mental capacity due to Suboxone withdrawal. The worst and most incriminating of Brown’s threats from item 12 were coupled with Brown’s admission that he was a Heroin addict and hadn’t taken his Suboxone. In addition, Brown thinks he’s entitled to get his stuff back from the first raid months ago where the FBI took and held his computers. (Non-exhaustively: Items 8) b and 2, 10) b.) He also thinks he deserves an apology [10) b.]. Grandiose and possibly delusional. I almost wonder why the FBI didn’t go for a discrediting involuntary psych ward hold.
Or you know, just give him his stuff back, which as we are learning from recent developments in the PayPal 14 case, he may have very well had the right to after 60 days of the FBI holding it. (But I think feeling entitled to an apology is still a bit delusional.)
In Conclusion…
With and indictment riddled with constitutionally-protected speech, my fear is that the US Prosecutors and FBI wanted to put an attack on anti-government dissent and critique at the forefront of this issue. They wanted to scare us all into shutting up and watching what we say when it comes to speculating government conspiracies and suggesting we consider the possibility of an increasingly corrupt government and promote the intention behind the Second Amendment which is to protect ourselves from a worst-case scenario resulting from such corruption.
Watch your televisions. Click on those targeted advertisements tailored by our tracking of your Google searches. Did somebody tell you that non-violent protesters were beat and shot at by Riot Cops? Don’t worry. We did it for National Security reasons. And don’t mind the surveillance cameras in every retail store and on every street corner. They’re just livestreaming and storing your every move for TrapWire.
Is a UFO war underway between extraterrestrials and naval forces? That’s the shocking claim being made by a former US military contractor and scientist named John Kettler who alleges there is a UFO war raging in the waters off Antarctica, according to information made available on Oct. 26, 2012 by the Exopolitics Institute News Service.
According to John Kettler, a former US military contractor and scientist, there is an expanding UFO war that is now taking place in waters off Antarctica. Kettler cites unnamed “sensitive sources” to substantiate his claims that a US led coalition of naval forces is militarily engaging with hostile extraterrestrials. This UFO war is an extension of alleged naval battles off the coast of San Francisco earlier reported by Gordon Duff from Veterans Today who refers to his own unnamed “reliable” sources. There is little more than a collection of unnamed sources supporting such allegations, and there is good reason to conclude that Kettler’s and Duff’s claims are part of a psychological warfare operation that may be related to planning for a false flag alien event. There is one historical incident that casts light on whether or not Kettler’s claims are part of a psychological warfare program being slowly unveiled to the world. There is new evidence that Admiral Richard Byrd’s famed 1946/1947 naval expedition Operation High Jump did encounter and battle a mysterious UFO force in Antarctic waters.
According to John Kettler, who has written a series of articles claiming that the US Navy along with its allies are battling hostile extraterrestrials based in underwater locations in the Pacific:
The UFO War continues to expand, with heavy action in the Antarctic Ocean … according to highly sensitive sources. Two submarines of the Chinese PLAN (Peoples Liberation Army Navy) have been slammed together, resulting in injuries, but no fatalities, to the submariners inside them.
Kettler goes on to claim:
Last night, 20 UFOs, traveling at 25,000 mph, left the Antarctic Ocean in a group and went to Guadalajara, Mexico. Another group of 15, flying at the same speed, went to Argentina. This morning, 12 more emerged and went to Chile.
The official story surrounding the events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya which left four Americans dead, has now officially fallen apart.
After numerous flips and flops by the Obama administration, which originally attempted to paint the incident as a Muslim outcry over an anti-Islamic video, whistle blowers throughout the U.S. government, including within the White House, the State Department, national intelligence agencies and the U.S.military have made available stunning details that suggest not only did operational commanders have live visual and audio communications from drones overhead and intelligence assets on the ground, but that some commanders within the military were prepared to go-it-alone after being told to “stand down.”
Africom commanding officer U.S. General Carter Ham, after being ordered to essentially surrender control of the situation to alleged Al Queda terrorists and let Americans on the ground die, made the unilateral decision to ignore orders from the Secretary of Defense and activated special operations teams at his disposal for immediate deployment to the area.
According to reports, once the General went rogue he was arrested within minutes by his second in command and relieved of duty.
“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The question now is whether the American people will hold to account the chain of command responsible for leaving our people behind, fabricating a politically expedient story, and continuing to sell the now defunct lie(s) even after all of their variations of the story were found to be false and misleading.
A General who made the decision to assist diplomatic and intelligence assets on the ground has been arrested and will likely be retired or worse, while those who ordered the removal of embassy security details and ordered U.S. forces to stand-down are left to go on about their business and likely risk more American lives in the future.
In some circles the actions of those at the very top of the command structure during the Bengzahi attacks would be considered traitorous.
Hurricane Sandy is being described as the “worst storm in 100 years” and will possibly mutate to super-storm status once it combines with a polar air mass over the eastern United States enabling it to cause widespread damage and chaos, but how convenient is the timing of this “natural” event in regards to the election? Is it possible that the storm is a contrived event designed to throw the election for Obama?
The reality of weather modification is no conspiracy theory.
Since before the 50′s, weather modification techniques have existed. In fact, the threat of “weather weapons” was so imminent that the United Nations felt it necessary to draft a treaty ensuring no nation would use this “new means of warfare” against one another. Why would the U.N. draft a treaty if weather modification was just a conspiracy theory?
The 1976 UN Weather Weapons Treaty defined “weather weapons” as follows: “[…] the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes–the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere andatmosphere, or of outer space.”
…..
“High level pentagon sources contacted the White Dragon Society this week to warn that the massive storm hitting the US North-East this week was a HAARP attack by the Nazi faction of the Western oligarchy…”
This is a very good article from Press Core on weather modification and how Hurricane Sandy was ‘steered’ into NYC:
The US government is using the HAARP Sea–Based X–Band Radar (SBX) platform to intensify and steer the man made Hurricane Sandy. Hurricane Sandy is Obama’s October surprise – create and steer a hurricane and cause mass destruction. The US Air Force / Navy SBX is steering Hurricane Sandy into New York City.
All 3 of the US HAARP Weather Modification systems – the land based system in Alaska, the Sea Based SBX and the mini shuttle X-37B were all built for use as military weather modifying weapons of mass destruction – in direct violation of the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques…”
Back in 1997, a hurricane simulation drill took place surrounding a hypothetical Hurricane Sandy, modeled after the Hurricane of 1938 which swept up the Eastern Seaboard into New York. Below you’ll find information and charts base around the 1997 drill. Also included below are two other videos dedicated to the 1938 Hurricane, which coincidentally sound quite similar to Hurricane Sandy.
Westchester County Communications Officer Sandy Fried, an Amateur Radio operator and ODES staff member, had recently attended a training seminar at the National Hurricane Center in Miami. Part of the training was a simulation using data from the Hurricane of 1938 that caused major losses on Long Island and in Westchester. The texts of the simulated bulletins, forecasts, discussions and strike probabilities along with the hurricane’s track were sent home with the seminar attendees. We named the simulated hurricane after Sandy, who incidentally was nine years old during the real Hurricane of 1938.
…..
You won’t believe your eyes when you see what this video reveals!!! Satellite and Radar captured Infrasonic Undulation, Chemtrails en mass and Chem Dumping!!! Multiple weather system steering and super storm creation, right before your eyes!!!
DefinitelyHTA – HAARP Type Array infrasonic undulation. But it’s not just the array we know as HAARP in Alaska. It is a myraid of TTA network arrays working in concert. Arrays can be ground based, Satellite emitters, Field antenna signal boosters, flight based, ship based, mobile or even hand held. (Depending on the civilian or military use.) There are even TTA signal echo buoys throughout our oceans. Ionosphere fortified with chemtrail as a reflective frequency mirror.
Atmospheric Scientists in aircraft take information from hurricanes for DHS Operation H.A.M.P. (HURRICANE AEROSOL AND MICROPHYSICS PROGRAM). DHS funds it. One of the functions of those planes is deploying aerosols. In 2010 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) presented discussion on how these aerosols were effective at decreasing and increasing the intensity of Hurricane KATRINA under DHS Operation H.A.M.P.
“Singular Polarity” — simply a magnet with 1 pole rather than a north and south pole.
“Perpetual Motion Generator” — using 2 same pole magnetic unit – singular polarities against each other to create force away from each other continuously.
“Contrail vs chemtrail”. (As Congress refers to them.)
Contrails dissipate to invisibility within seconds or minutes of being laid down because they are simply steam from the jet wash.
Chemtrails are mixtures of aerosols that are sprayed in the ionosphere with metals and chemicals such as aluminum and barium in tiny particulates. 1 reason being to create a mirror effect to bounce frequency off of, to pass frequency as far as 1/4 of the globe away. HAARP website explains this process.
“Infrasonic Undulation” Looks like frequency on a spectrograph. If you Google images – spectrograph, you will find pictures of frequency. You’ll see sound waves in consistant patterns obviously man-made, electro-mechanically emitted. Chemtrail (already magneto-dynamic) becomes more dynamic when frequency is added to the mix to undulate (stir up) the system. “Infrasonic Undulation” through chemtrail is ELF waves stirring air deployed aerosols up. Hitting the metals etc… with high powered – low frequency disperses the metals throughout the storm, the moisture in the storm clings to those metals, Object 1 – move the metals, and you move the storm. Object 2 – decreasing and increasing the storm’s intensity. DHS Documented during KATRINA.
Which is why the new cloud name “Undulatus Asperatus.” “Undulated (Stirred Up) Breathing Vapors” Stirred up by TTA frequency. Kind of reminds you of the NAZI’s who insisted to their victims, “Now breath the vapors in deeply!!!” As they were locking them in the ‘showers’ to be gassed to death, doesn’t it! I get the feeling that when they came up with that name, they were laughing at their many victims whom they dub the “sheeple.”
TTA = Tesla Tech Array. HTA — HAARP Type Array.
(They use frequency to manipulate.) There are ground based TTA’s (like HAARP n Arecibo) multi-million watt frequency emitters around the world along with countless Low Orbit SAC (AEHF) Satellites, booster antenna arrays, oceanic echo buoys, military, commercial and privately owned sea going vessels with TTA units (BTW …ever heard of mass ocean animal deaths – burned bodies and the necropsy reports stating cause of death to be “Acustic Trama?”) , in field military and mobile units, are all a part of the SAME Global TTA Network, under the auspices of the UN and NATO and are thereby complicit.
Decency dictates that having this technology we should use it to save lives and property but…UN Agenda 21 – population reduction from 7 Billion to 500 Million. It means the wholesale slaughter of 6.5 Billion people. ‘The great culling’ they call it. Impossible to believe until you do the research as to why. If you step into their economic shoes, you understand their rationale. The PTB n UN want Obama in office. UN is overseeing our election. May need Martial Law to suspend elections.
If our country’s TTA is involved (and with FrankenStorm it is, because UN Treaty requires WE be the nation responsible under the UN “weather weapons” agreement) then our leader is at the helm of our TTA network. Working along side other countries’ TTA’s – this is a semi-global effort.
The reason???
UN Agenda 21 (Population Reduction) and attempt to suspend elections. With no electricty, floods, population displacement, damage etc… state of emergency – possibly even martial law.
Jesuit-Trained Knight of Malta Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense
Secretary of War (pardon me, Secretary of Defense) Leon Panetta has begun the great impeachment agitation. Yes, this “Italian-American” Roman Catholic, Jesuit-trained Knight of Malta has stated that he values permission of the “International Community” (as represented in the pope’s United Nations) to wage war on Iran over “Congressional Approval.” This is the same Leon Panetta who served during the Clinton Administration, President Bill Clinton having also been trained by the Jesuits at Georgetown University in Washington at whose command Clinton bombed “heretic” Orthodox Serbia for seventy-seven days. This is the same Leon Panetta who is an undeniable darling of the Jesuits, this Temporal Coadjutor having earned his JD at the Order’s Santa Clara University School of Law in California.
Further, Vice President Joe Biden has threatened to lead a movement in congress for the impeachment of President Barry Davis Obama if “Toby” does not seek “Congressional Approval” to wage the impending war on “infidel Shia” Iran. Well, Joe, the real master of the pope’s mulatto and political creation of the CIA (ruled by the Knights of Malta), is also another Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor. Sporting two honorary degrees conferred by the Jesuits, one from the University of Scranton and the other from St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, “Irish-American” Roman Catholic Joe Biden stands on the other side of the Order’s political Hegelian dialectic. Thus, Panetta is openly for Obama and Biden is against his political master, while Barry has been groomed for the presidency by none other than socialist-communist Greg Galluzzo, the Jesuit of Chicago having acted in sync with his brethren at Loyola University Chicago! All three, Panetta, Biden and Davis/Obama are all agents of the Jesuit Order obediently carrying out their parts of a screen play loaded with impending bloodshed and disaster for the country.
The question is: “Where are the Jesuits taking us via this agitation?”
To discover the answer we must review the Order’s quest, its final endgame for apostate Protestant/apostate Baptist White Anglo-Saxon-Celtic America. We know the Order seeks to impose a fascist military dictatorship as was attempted in 1934 via Knights of Malta John J. Raskob and Joe Kennedy not to mention Knight of Columbus Al Smith. They failed thanks to the bravery of General Smedley Butler; but the endgame would continue underground until now! Further, the Order seeks to wage a war on Shia Islam, and later upon Sunni Islam (including Turkey) after the Shia are mass-murdered, a war intended to unite the entire Sunni Muslim world against the pope’s “Holy Roman” Fourteenth Amendment, Corporate-Fascist, Socialist-Communist American Empire (1868-Present). Further, this unity among Sunni Islamic nations (including filthy rich Kuwait, the UAE and “Saudi” Arabia thanks to American technology given by the pope’s Knights) will then create a revived Sunni Caliphate, the forerunner of the pope’s Revived Kingdom of Babylon as per Jeremiah 50 and Revelation 18. So again, where are the Jesuits taking us via this agitation in Washington?
Your Editor proposes the following possibilities:
1. Obama is to be given another four more years. This agitation, in the end will create sympathy for the “re-election” of “Toby.” The pope’s script decrees Democrats begin the wars via the U.S. Navy and the Republicans either continue them while appearing to loathe the very war inherited from their predecessor. Remember, this present “War on Terror” is in fact no declared war on a specific enemy. As Jesuit Tom Clancy has rightly stated: there is no true cause of war, and thus there is no declared war on a specific nation. Legally, the empire is not at war—yet! And why should it so do? The empire has been under Emergency War Powers since March 6, 1933!
2. Biden made it clear. If there is a nuclear/biological attack within the US then the president could launch an immediate attack/retaliation on the declared “enemy” without any congressional approval whatsoever—and the majority of congress would not dissent. Therefore, there is the possibility, yea, an absolute certainty of imminent attack (not “if,” but “when”) planned by the pope’s CIA/NSA/FBI/DIA/DHS/ONI/etc., all acting in collusion to detonate a nuclear device sometime this Summer or Fall on the mainland that would accomplish several critical goals. Or, the sinking of the USS Enterprise would provide the essential cause for war, while no damage to the American commercial infrastructure would enable the “War Effort” to proceed full force. Either way, Obama would remain president/dictator/commander-in-chief with the consent of nearly the entire Black American population, Majority Savage Blacks and Minority Civil Blacks. There would be no Fall election since martial law would be in effect which includes the suspension of Congress, a Congress described by the late Knight of Malta J. Peter Grace back in the 1980s as “535 clowns.”
3. Obama would win the Fall election by a landslide (the pope’s Republican candidates having done their best to re-elect the pope’s Mulatto Sunni-Islamic usurper), the Order having manipulated its CFR-controlled press making a martyr out of a monster. (If the Order did so with Martin Lucifer King, “so mote it be” with Masonic Brother Obama!)
4. Obama would be impeached by the House of Representatives, Biden to be given the Democratic nomination backed by the aggrieved White Middle Class Tea Party—as no Republicans have called for Obama’s impeachment during this present agitation. And if Obama was assassinated by a Shia “Iranian terrorist” and if a mini suitcase-nuke was detonated in a predominantly Black American city such as Detroit spilling over into Windsor, Canada, Biden most assuredly would be president via Martial Law backed by the entire country as well as Canada, both “right and left” then to continue the policy of his predecessor—”constitutionally.” Democrats will hold the pope’s White House vaginal “Oval Office” of the Virgin Mary while war is declared on Iran!
Remember, Obama and Biden have promised to defend Israel, the pope’s “Revived Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem”—and they will. Both have promised to wage a war with no limits on Iran if Iran develops nuclear “weapons of mass-destruction”—and they will. Both have promised to put the country under Martial Law in a time of a national emergency—and they will. So how could the agents of the Black Pope manipulate the divided American masses of all races and religions into fighting this war on Iran? For this present agitation against Barry Davis Obama must facilitate this end!
If your Editor were the Black Pope he would continue this agitation throughout the Summer. Then in July or August (when the harmonic windows for on-ground atomic detonations are open), he would use his Roman Catholic-led American Intelligence Community to carry out four simultaneous acts. First, Obama (or one of his doubles) would be assassinated, his murderer to be an Iranian Shia. Secondly, and at the same time, he would detonate a nuclear device in Black American Detroit now gutted of all industry once owned by the Knights of Malta. These two crimes blamed on Iranian Muslims would unite and incite the entire Black American population (90 million people) to devotedly fight a war to the death against Iran. Thirdly, your Editor would detonate the capitol building in Washington (as depicted in the movie Live Free and Die Hard “starring” Knight of Malta Bruce Willis), accomplishing three things: universal incitement of the entire White population (especially the Roman Catholic/apostate Protestant “New Right” Tea Party) to war on Iran; the end of the American Congress, the empire’s dictator to be in absolute power; and the movement of the capital to Denver! And finally, I would sink the USS Enterprise thus uniting the entire American military to make total, merciless war on Shia Iran, Tehran hosting 20,000 racial Jews also to be slaughtered. Yes, blaming the Iranians for the the murder of Obama, the blowing of Detroit and Washington, D.C., and the sinking of the Enterprise—all covertly facilitated by the united American Intelligence Community overseen by its Intelligence Czar, the infamous Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Admiral Michael McConnell—would do the trick.
May the risen Lord Jesus Christ frustrate the plots of these incorrigible sinners, this dastardly military Company of Jesus ruling Rome, Tehran and Washington!
As a lawyer not particularly immersed in the technology world, Jay Leiderman first became interested in the hacker collective Anonymous around December 2010. That was when Anonymous activists launched distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS) against Mastercard and PayPal, who stopped processing donations to WikiLeaks.
Since then, he has represented a number of high-profile hackers, including Commander X, who is on the run from the FBI for a DDoS attack on a county website in Santa Cruz, California, to protest a ban on public sleeping, and Raynaldo Rivera, a suspected hacker from LulzSec who is accused of stealing information from Sony computer systems. Both Commander X and Rivera could face up to 15 years in prison.
Leiderman, who represents many of his hacker clients pro bono, argues that the law should be changed on DDoS. In an interview I conducted with Leiderman recently, he told me why slapping teenaged hackers with harsh prison sentences is counterproductive.
How did you first become involved with representing Anonymous?
The politics of it spoke to me and the fact that it was a newly emerging area of law really spoke to me. My partner and I do a lot of medical marijuana law. Primary among the reasons that we do that are that it’s new and emerging so we can help shape the way that the law ultimately fits society. And because we believe in the politics behind it. And it’s the exact same with Anonymous.
We have an opportunity here to make the courts, as these cases wind their way up, understand privacy issues, emerging tech issues, against the backdrop of civil rights and through the prism of free information. And that was something that was just an amazing opportunity for me and something that still engages me as I continue to take on these cases.
You’ve said about DDoS attacks that “they are the equivalent of occupying the Woolworth’s lunch counter during the civil rights movement,” but under U.S. law DDoS attacks are illegal. Do you think the law should be changed?
Oh, absolutely. Keep in mind that I didn’t say that in an unqualified manner about DDoS. If you were knocking someone’s front page offline to ultimately rape their servers and take credit-card information and things like that, that’s not speech in the classic sense. When you look at Commander X’s DDoS, what he was accused of in Santa Cruz, or with [the] PayPal [protests], these are really perfect examples. And very rarely in law do we have perfect examples.
Take PayPal for example, just like Woolworth’s, people went to PayPal and said, I want to give a donation to WikiLeaks. In Woolworth’s they said, all I want to do is buy lunch, pay for my lunch, and then I’ll leave. People said I want to give a donation to WikiLeaks, I’ll take up my bandwidth to do that, then I’ll leave, you’ll make money, I’ll feel fulfilled, everyone’s fulfilled. PayPal will take donations for the Ku Klux Klan, other racists and questionable organizations, but they won’t process donations for WikiLeaks. All the PayPal protesters did was take up some bandwidth. In that sense, DDoS is absolutely speech, it should absolutely be recognized as such, protected as such, and the law should be changed.
But say that I had a rival law practice across town from you and I was perhaps a bigger more powerful rival with more money and perhaps I wanted to down your website every single day. Isn’t that just the equivalent of me just going outside and spray painting and taking down your sign every day and preventing customers from coming to you?
But both of those actions would be illegal in the abstract. Taking down my sign or vandalizing it would be a graffiti or vandalism type charge whereas repeatedly DDoSing my site would be similar in method and manner to that. It’s why you have to be careful with the speech. What you have with PayPal, it’s a pure form of speech — it was a limited and qualified thing like Woolworth’s. African-Americans went into Woolworth’s and said, I want lunch, feed me lunch, I will eat it, pay for it, and leave. Same with PayPal.
Santa Cruz perhaps provides a more compelling case on that because Santa Cruz was about literally petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Santa Cruz wanted to essentially criminalize — or did criminalize — homeless people sleeping in public without qualification. And the city council wouldn’t listen, the police wouldn’t listen, no one would listen. People regularly die from exposure, because they can’t find safe and secure places to sleep in the community. Therefore getting your government’s attention in that manner should not be something that the U.S. government is interested in criminalizing and spending resources to prosecute. So in those regards, it’s different from the examples you gave, where I would be under perpetual DDoS.
So you’re not saying decriminalize DDoS per se, but perhaps it’s the way that DDoS is used and other legal factors would come into play there.
Here’s what we conceived in terms of the DDoS. The government and people who write about tech tend to call it a “DDoS attack” but in certain circumstances it’s not a DDoS attack, but a DDoS protest. So the law should be narrowly drawn and what needs to be excised from that are the legitimate protests. It’s really easy to tell legitimate protests, I think, and we should be broadly defining legitimate protests. The example you gave of the rival law firms, that’s not protest activities or traditional free speech activities.
The argument has been made that the problem with some of the sentences for Anonymous/LulzSec members is that a lot of them are really just foot soldiers, naive, young, vulnerable kids, who perhaps get into something over their heads. And they’re not skilled hackers who are trying to bring down the U.S. government and they don’t deserve long jail terms . Would you agree with that?
Absolutely, that’s probably one of the most often-repeated and truest things about a lot of these Anonymous members is that they’re not these ill-intentioned, misanthropes that really need to have the weight of the law come down on them. I agree with that 100 percent.
Who should the weight of the law come down on then? Should the weight of the law come down on the ringleaders who are behind these people?
Sabu‘s cooperation [aside], he would be a good example of someone who’s cruising for one of these eye-popping over-the-top sentences. He was a bit older, he had been involved in the hacking world for 10 or 15 years; he had a lot of prior Internet misdeeds. He was very skilled, or at least reasonably skilled, he had special skills. He was involved in other criminal activity, he was selling pounds of marijuana, which they didn’t charge him with. They dismissed those charges as part of his cooperation.
He was using his skills to commit credit-card fraud, without ideology, without politics behind it, without anything. He was literally stealing from people — this was not a big, nameless, faceless corporation…There was no ideology behind him stealing credit-card numbers from Mr. and Mrs. Smith…. He was recruiting people actively into LulzSec. One of the allegations in the case I’m handling [Raynaldo Rivera] is that Sabu recruited my client based upon my client’s skill, through another member of LulzSec, an intermediary.
Sabu was unquestionably the leader of LulzSec. When you read through the reports, as I have, it’s very clear that Sabu was giving orders, pressuring people to “get their hands dirty.” … It was Sony Pictures and the databases were organized via movie sweepstakes — names and password that were ultimately dumped on the Internet — and Sabu made individual people go in there and do individual databases so everyone had their hands dirty so that he could exert more control and get them to do more. He had importuned them to criminality.
… He’s looking at 124 years so that’s obviously beyond ludicrous. But if Sabu were to get a decade or something, that [could be] a sentence for someone like him with a really malignant heart. But for someone like Rivera and the typical member of Anonymous, no, those sentences simply don’t fit and for the most part I don’t believe they should be going to jail. A lot of these kids — and most of them are kids — don’t understand the criminal consequences here and could be rehabilitated; scared straight without a jail sentence. There are other things that we could do to them to make them understand that this is in fact illegal and not the way to express yourselves politically.
If we are not talking about harsh prison sentences, how should society respond to rehabilitate those hackers?
I really think this is a situation where a lot of these people are really scared of the consequences once they understand them. Usually someone like that, a criminal conviction in and of itself is a terrible black mark on someone’s record now. It becomes difficult to get a job. If you’re a person with computer skills, it becomes difficult to get computer clearances to be able to work your way up in a lot of these areas. So simply the conviction alone gets the message across, a probationary period where they’re being monitored or checked in on, some community-type service, working with the community in a productive manner. All sorts of creative punishments like those that are available and at the government’s disposal.
Do you think denying them access to the Internet is useful?
In some cases it might be useful and appropriate. You really have to look at the offense and the offender. If someone’s really unhealthy in their Internet use, it may not be a bad thing to look at them and say, a year, 18 months, two years, let’s see how you do without Internet in your life except work and school. That may well be a very good and healthy thing for some people, but you have to look at the offense and the offender before saying we should just yank this person’s Internet privileges.
You don’t think there’s a purpose to passing harsh prison sentences in that it sends a message and acts as a deterrent to any potential offenders?
I don’t necessarily think that message gets received by this population which are exclusively naive, not legally savvy, fairly young first-time offenders. That’s not a population who can really understand in a practical sense that if you do this, you’re going to get a harsh prison sentence. In some of their minds, it almost may be worse, to take away Internet use or modify their behavior in some ways as it so violently changes how their life ordinarily progresses.
Are there any Anons you wouldn’t represent?
It depends. I’ve been asked that question before and I struggle with it and here’s why. I don’t have to like or agree with the people that I represent to represent them. I have represented neo-Nazis and I’m Jewish. I’ve been assigned them when I was a public defender and it never really occurred to me until someone asked me, how do you feel about representing this skinhead and I said, you know, I didn’t think about it.
Everyone is entitled to a defense and the more reprehensible they are and maybe the more guilty they seem at the beginning of the case makes them more entitled to a vigorous and hard-hitting defense. So I don’t necessarily know that there’s someone I wouldn’t represent based upon what they did or based upon their politics. I wouldn’t go ahead and represent someone whose views I didn’t agree with pro bono. I’m not going to spend my time and energy that way. … Certainly there are many people I wouldn’t represent pro bono.
Would you represent Sabu pro bono?
No. The damage he did by turning so completely on people he used to call his brother [was considerable]. People who cooperate, throw someone else into harm’s way so they can soften the blow on themselves, I tend not to represent. For those reasons, I wouldn’t represent Sabu at all. […] He hurt a lot of people and he did it to save his own skin and he hurt a lot of people worse than they would otherwise be hurt.
Fight Back New Service is circulating the following statement from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
On the Day of the Heroic Guerilla, we remember Che Guevara
On October 8, 2012, the Day of the Heroic Guerilla, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine remembers Comandante Ernesto “Che” Guevara, revolutionary leader, fierce fighter, and principled struggler whose true commitment to internationalism and liberation lives on in the struggles of peoples around the world for freedom, justice and socialism.
Following the revolutionary victory in Cuba in 1959, Che’s commitment to international revolution did not diminish, and he joined Bolivian revolutionaries in 1966. On October 8, 1967, Che and his comrades were captured and surrounded by the US-backed Bolivian military, and executed.
Nine days later, Fidel Castro spoke, memorializing Che and commemorating October 8 as the Day of the Heroic Guerilla, saying “Che died defending no other interest, no other cause than the cause of the exploited and oppressed of this continent. Che died defending no other cause than the cause of the poor and humble of this earth … Before history, people who act as he did, people who do and give everything for the cause of the poor, grow in stature with each passing day and find a deeper place in the heart of the people with each passing day.”
In Palestine, Che’s spirit, his commitment to liberation, rises in the streets of our occupied homeland. We mourn and honor our Guevara Gaza, Mohammad al-Aswad, and the thousands of Palestinian Guevaras, the eternal martyrs, who have struggled, fought, sacrificed and died for the liberation of Palestine, and the thousands of Palestinian Guevaras still to come, to hold high the banner of the resistance until the day of victory is ours.
On the 45th anniversary of Che’s death, we remember him as one of the martyrs of Palestine, a great martyr for the freedom of the oppressed of the world. And we continue to live his words: “Let us sum up our hopes for victory: total destruction of imperialism by eliminating its firmest bulwark: the oppression exercised by the United States of America…And if we were all capable of uniting to make our blows stronger and infallible and so increase the effectiveness of all kinds of support given to the struggling people – how great and close would that future be!… Wherever death may surprise us, let it be welcome, provided that this, our battle cry, may have reached some receptive ear and another hand may be extended to wield our weapons and other men be ready to intone the funeral dirge with the staccato singing of the machine-guns and new battle cries of war and victory.”
A Danish spy claims that the third marriage of terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki was actually part of a CIA plot to set up the al-Qaeda leader for a CIA assassination attempt. A former member of Denmark’s intelligence service claims that he was paid by the CIA to introduce the American-born al-Awlaki to his future bride via letters and video proposals.
According to several reports in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten over the weekend, the spy is 36-year-old Morten Storm, a Dutch citizen who converted to Islam and moved to Yemen in the late 1990s. Storm says that he befriend many Islamic radicals during his time there, but became disillusioned with their cause and turned against them in 2006, offering to become a spy on behalf of PET, Denmark’s intelligence agency.
Storm says that in 2009, al-Awlaki asked him to help find a European Muslim woman to become his third wife. So Storm recruited a Croatian woman, who’s identified as “Aminah” in the reports, who was sympathetic to al-Awlaki via Facebook and helped introduce them. All the while, Storm says he was paid $250,000 by the CIA to set up the marriage, and they also supplied a suitcase rigged with tracking devices that was given to the woman—who was not in on the plot—when she traveled to Yemen to meet al-Awlaki. The supposed idea behind the plot was to use the device to determine the terrorist’s location and then kill them both with a bombing strike. The plan failed when the al-Awlaki’s aides made her get rid of the suitcase upon her arrival, but al-Awlaki and Aminah did eventually marry.
Even though that plan didn’t work out, Storm says he still contributed to the drone strike that did kill al-Awlaki in 2011. He says he continued to exchange messages with al-Awlaki via a USB stick that was passed back and forth between them. That stick may been the device that allowed the U.S. to pinpoint his location for the drone attack that killed him. (Aminah is said to still be alive today, working for an al-Qaeda magazine.)
The reports have upset some Danish citizens who are worried that if Storm’s story is real, it means their government participated in an illegal assassination. PET has said in the past that they played no part in his death. That doesn’t even get into the fact that they may have used an unsuspecting person as “live bait” for a deadly hit. Also, a Muslim community leader from Birmingham who knew Storm when he lived briefly in England has spoken out against him, saying Storm was a troublemaker who tired to radicalize young Muslims and is only out for attention and money. Storm claims that was just part of his cover as a radical Muslim and there are audio recordings linking him to al-Awlaki. Neither PET or CIA would comment on the story.
Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness. We form friendships so that we can feel certain emotions, like love, and avoid others, like loneliness. We eat specific foods to enjoy their fleeting presence on our tongues. We read for the pleasure of thinking another person’s thoughts. Every waking moment—and even in our dreams—we struggle to direct the flow of sensation, emotion, and cognition toward states of consciousness that we value.
Drugs are another means toward this end. Some are illegal; some are stigmatized; some are dangerous—though, perversely, these sets only partially intersect. There are drugs of extraordinary power and utility, like psilocybin (the active compound in “magic mushrooms”) and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which pose no apparent risk of addiction and are physically well-tolerated, and yet one can still be sent to prison for their use—while drugs like tobacco and alcohol, which have ruined countless lives, are enjoyed ad libitum in almost every society on earth. There are other points on this continuum—3,4-methylene-dioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA or “Ecstasy”) has remarkable therapeutic potential, but it is also susceptible to abuse, and it appears to be neurotoxic.[1]
One of the great responsibilities we have as a society is to educate ourselves, along with the next generation, about which substances are worth ingesting, and for what purpose, and which are not. The problem, however, is that we refer to all biologically active compounds by a single term—“drugs”—and this makes it nearly impossible to have an intelligent discussion about the psychological, medical, ethical, and legal issues surrounding their use. The poverty of our language has been only slightly eased by the introduction of terms like “psychedelics” to differentiate certain visionary compounds, which can produce extraordinary states of ecstasy and insight, from “narcotics” and other classic agents of stupefaction and abuse.
Drug abuse and addiction are real problems, of course—the remedy for which is education and medical treatment, not incarceration. In fact, the worst drugs of abuse in the United States now appear to be prescription painkillers, like oxycodone. Should these medicines be made illegal? Of course not. People need to be informed about them, and addicts need treatment. And all drugs—including alcohol, cigarettes, and aspirin—must be kept out of the hands of children.
I discuss issues of drug policy in some detail in my first book, The End of Faith (pp. 158-164), and my thinking on the subject has not changed. The “war on drugs” has been well lost, and should never have been waged. While it isn’t explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, I can think of no political right more fundamental than the right to peacefully steward the contents of one’s own consciousness. The fact that we pointlessly ruin the lives of nonviolent drug users by incarcerating them, at enormous expense, constitutes one of the great moral failures of our time. (And the fact that we make room for them in our prisons by paroling murderers and rapists makes one wonder whether civilization isn’t simply doomed.)
I have a daughter who will one day take drugs. Of course, I will do everything in my power to see that she chooses her drugs wisely, but a life without drugs is neither foreseeable, nor, I think, desirable. Someday, I hope she enjoys a morning cup of tea or coffee as much as I do. If my daughter drinks alcohol as an adult, as she probably will, I will encourage her to do it safely. If she chooses to smoke marijuana, I will urge moderation.[2] Tobacco should be shunned, of course, and I will do everything within the bounds of decent parenting to steer her away from it. Needless to say, if I knew my daughter would eventually develop a fondness for methamphetamine or crack cocaine, I might never sleep again. But if she does not try a psychedelic like psilocybin or LSD at least once in her adult life, I will worry that she may have missed one of the most important rites of passage a human being can experience.
This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. It has been many years since I have taken psychedelics, in fact, and my abstinence is born of a healthy respect for the risks involved. However, there was a period in my early 20’s when I found drugs like psilocybin and LSD to be indispensable tools of insight, and some of the most important hours of my life were spent under their influence. I think it quite possible that I might never have discovered that there was an inner landscape of mind worth exploring without having first pressed this pharmacological advantage.
While human beings have ingested plant-based psychedelics for millennia, scientific research on these compounds did not begin until the 1950’s. By 1965, a thousand studies had been published, primarily on psilocybin and LSD, many of which attested to the usefulness of psychedelics in the treatment of clinical depression, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), alcohol addiction, and the pain and anxiety associated with terminal cancer. Within a few years, however, this entire field of research was abolished in an effort to stem the spread of these drugs among the general public. After a hiatus that lasted an entire generation, scientific research on the pharmacology and therapeutic value of psychedelics has quietly resumed.
The psychedelics include chemicals like psilocybin, LSD, DMT, and mescaline—all of which powerfully alter cognition, perception, and mood. Most seem to exert their influence through the serotonin system in the brain, primarily by binding to 5-HT2A receptors (though several have affinity for other receptors as well), leading to increased neuronal activity in prefrontal cortex (PFC). While the PFC in turn modulates subcortical dopamine production, the effect of psychedelics appears to take place largely outside dopamine pathways (which might explain why these drugs are not habit forming).
The mere existence of psychedelics would seem to establish the material basis of mental and spiritual life beyond any doubt—for the introduction of these substances into the brain is the obvious cause of any numinous apocalypse that follows. It is possible, however, if not actually plausible, to seize this datum from the other end and argue, and Aldous Huxley did in his classic essay, The Doors of Perception, that the primary function of the brain could be eliminative: its purpose could be to prevent some vast, transpersonal dimension of mind from flooding consciousness, thereby allowing apes like ourselves to make their way in the world without being dazzled at every step by visionary phenomena irrelevant to their survival. Huxley thought that if the brain were a kind of “reducing valve” for “Mind at Large,” this would explain the efficacy of psychedelics: They could simply be a material means of opening the tap.
Unfortunately, Huxley was operating under the erroneous assumption that psychedelics decrease brain activity. However, modern techniques of neuroimaging have shown that these drugs tend to increase activity in many regions of the cortex (and in subcortical structures as well) [Note 1/24/12: a recent study on psilocybin actually lends some support to Huxley’s view.—SH] . Still, the action of these drugs does not rule out dualism, or the existence of realms of mind beyond the brain—but then nothing does. This is one of the problems with views of this kind: They appear to be unfalsifiable.[3]
Of course, the brain does filter an extraordinary amount of information from consciousness. And, like many who have taken these drugs, I can attest that psychedelics certainly throw open the gates. Needless to say, positing the existence of a “Mind at Large” is more tempting in some states of consciousness than in others. And the question of which view of reality we should privilege is, at times, worth considering. But these drugs can also produce mental states that are best viewed in clinical terms as forms of psychosis. As a general matter, I believe we should be very slow to make conclusions about the nature of the cosmos based upon inner experience — no matter how profound these experiences seem.
However, there is no question that the mind is vaster and more fluid than our ordinary, waking consciousness suggests. Consequently, it is impossible to communicate the profundity (or seeming profundity) of psychedelic states to those who have never had such experiences themselves. It is, in fact, difficult to remind oneself of the power of these states once they have passed.
Many people wonder about the difference between meditation (and other contemplative practices) and psychedelics. Are these drugs a form of cheating, or are they the one, indispensable vehicle for authentic awakening? They are neither. Many people don’t realize that all psychoactive drugs modulate the existing neurochemistry of the brain—either by mimicking specific neurotransmitters or by causing the neurotransmitters themselves to be more active. There is nothing that one can experience on a drug that is not, at some level, an expression of the brain’s potential. Hence, whatever one has experienced after ingesting a drug like LSD is likely to have been experienced, by someone, somewhere, without it.
However, it cannot be denied that psychedelics are a uniquely potent means of altering consciousness. If a person learns to meditate, pray, chant, do yoga, etc., there is no guarantee that anything will happen. Depending on his aptitude, interest, etc., boredom could be the only reward for his efforts. If, however, a person ingests 100 micrograms of LSD, what will happen next will depend on a variety of factors, but there is absolutely no question that something will happen. And boredom is simply not in the cards. Within the hour, the significance of his existence will bear down upon our hero like an avalanche. As Terence McKenna[4] never tired of pointing out, this guarantee of profound effect, for better or worse, is what separates psychedelics from every other method of spiritual inquiry. It is, however, a difference that brings with it certain liabilities.
Ingesting a powerful dose of a psychedelic drug is like strapping oneself to a rocket without a guidance system. One might wind up somewhere worth going—and, depending on the compound and one’s “set and setting,” certain trajectories are more likely than others. But however methodically one prepares for the voyage, one can still be hurled into states of mind so painful and confusing as to be indistinguishable from psychosis. Hence, the terms “psychotomimetic” and “psychotogenic” that are occasionally applied to these drugs.
I have visited both extremes on the psychedelic continuum. The positive experiences were more sublime than I could have ever imagined or than I can now faithfully recall. These chemicals disclose layers of beauty that art is powerless to capture and for which the beauty of Nature herself is a mere simulacrum. It is one thing to be awestruck by the sight of a giant redwood and to be amazed at the details of its history and underlying biology. It is quite another to spend an apparent eternity in egoless communion with it. Positive psychedelic experiences often reveal how wondrously at ease in the universe a human being can be—and for most of us, normal waking consciousness does not offer so much as a glimmer of these deeper possibilities.
People generally come away from such experiences with a sense that our conventional states of consciousness obscure and truncate insights and emotions that are sacred. If the patriarchs and matriarchs of the world’s religions experienced such states of mind, many of their claims about the nature of reality can make subjective sense. The beautific vision does not tell you anything about the birth of the cosmos—but it does reveal how utterly transfigured a mind can be by a full collision with the present moment.
But as the peaks are high, the valleys are deep. My “bad trips” were, without question, the most harrowing hours I have ever suffered—and they make the notion of hell, as a metaphor if not a destination, seem perfectly apt. If nothing else, these excruciating experiences can become a source of compassion. I think it would be impossible to have any sense of what it is like to suffer from mental illness without having briefly touched its shores.
At both ends of the continuum time dilates in ways that cannot be described—apart from saying that these experiences can seem eternal. I have had sessions, both positive and negative, in which any knowledge that I had ingested a drug had been extinguished, and all memories of my past along with it. Full immersion in the present moment, to this degree, is synonymous with the feeling that one has always been, and will always be, in precisely this condition. Depending on the character of one’s experience at that point, notions of salvation and damnation do not seem hyperbolic. In my experience, Blake’s line about beholding “eternity in an hour” neither promises, nor threatens, too much.
In the beginning, my experiences with psilocybin and LSD were so positive that I could not believe a bad trip was possible. Notions of “set and setting,” admittedly vague, seemed sufficient to account for this. My mental set was exactly as it needed to be—I was a spiritually serious investigator of my own mind—and my setting was generally one of either natural beauty or secure solitude.
I cannot account for why my adventures with psychedelics were uniformly pleasant until they weren’t—but when the doors to hell finally opened, they appear to have been left permanently ajar. Thereafter, whether or not a trip was good in the aggregate, it generally entailed some harrowing detour on the path to sublimity. Have you ever traveled, beyond all mere metaphors, to the Mountain of Shame and stayed for a thousand years? I do not recommend it.
(Pokhara, Nepal)
On my first trip to Nepal, I took a rowboat out on Phewa Lake in Pokhara, which offers a stunning view of the Annapurna range. It was early morning, and I was alone. As the sun rose over the water, I ingested 400 micrograms of LSD. I was 20 years old and had taken the drug at least ten times previously. What could go wrong?
Everything, as it turns out. Well, not everything—I didn’t drown. And I have a vague memory of drifting ashore and of being surrounded by a group of Nepali soldiers. After watching me for a while, as I ogled them over the gunwale like a lunatic, they seemed on the verge of deciding what to do with me. Some polite words of Esperanto, and a few, mad oar strokes, and I was off shore and into oblivion. So I suppose that could have ended differently.
But soon there was no lake or mountains or boat—and if I had fallen into the water I am pretty sure there would have been no one to swim. For the next several hours my mind became the perfect instrument of self-torture. All that remained was a continuous shattering and terror for which I have no words.
These encounters take something out of you. Even if drugs like LSD are biologically safe, the potential for extremely unpleasant and destabilizing experiences presents its own risks. I believe I was positively affected for weeks and months by my good trips, and negatively affected by the bad ones. Given these roulette-like odds, one can only recommend these experiences with caution.
While meditation can open the mind to a similar range of conscious states, they are reached far less haphazardly. If LSD is like being strapped to rocket, learning to meditate is like gently raising a sail. Yes, it is possible, even with guidance, to wind up someplace terrifying—and there are people who probably shouldn’t spend long periods in intensive practice. But the general effect of meditation training is of settling ever more fully into one’s own skin, and suffering less, rather than more there.
As I discussed in The End of Faith, I view most psychedelic experiences as potentially misleading. Psychedelics do not guarantee wisdom. They merely guarantee more content. And visionary experiences, considered in their totality, appear to me to be ethically neutral. Therefore, it seems that psychedelic ecstasy must be steered toward our personal and collective well-being by some other principle. As Daniel Pinchbeck pointed out in his highly entertaining book, Breaking Open the Head, the fact that both the Mayans and the Aztecs used psychedelics, while being enthusiastic practitioners of human sacrifice, makes any idealistic link between plant-based shamanism and an enlightened society seem terribly naive.
As I will discuss in future essays, the form of transcendence that appears to link directly to ethical behavior and human well-being is the transcendence of egoity in the midst of ordinary waking consciousness. It is by ceasing to cling to the contents of consciousness—to our thoughts, moods, desires, etc.—that we make progress. Such a project does not, in principle, require that we experience more contents.[5] The freedom from self that is both the goal and foundation of “spiritual” life is coincident with normal perception and cognition—though, admittedly, this can be difficult to realize.
The power of psychedelics, however, is that they often reveal, in the span of a few hours, depths of awe and understanding that can otherwise elude us for a lifetime. As is often the case, William James said it about as well as words permit[6] :
One conclusion was forced upon my mind at that time, and my impression of its truth has ever since remained unshaken. It is that our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence; but apply the requisite stimulus, and at a touch they are there in all their completeness, definite types of mentality which probably somewhere have their field of application and adaptation. No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded. How to regard them is the question,—for they are so discontinuous with ordinary consciousness. Yet they may determine attitudes though they cannot furnish formulas, and open a region though they fail to give a map. At any rate, they forbid a premature closing of our accounts with reality.
(The Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 388)
NOTES:
A wide literature now suggests that MDMA damages serotonin-producing neurons and decreases levels of serotonin in the brain. Here is the tip of the iceberg: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. ↩
What is moderation? Let’s just say that I’ve never met a person who smokes marijuana every day who I thought wouldn’t benefit from smoking less (and I’ve never met someone who has never tried it who I thought wouldn’t benefit from smoking more).↩
Physicalism, by contrast, could be easily falsified. If science ever established the existence of ghosts, or reincarnation, or any other phenomenon which would place the human mind (in whole or in part) outside the brain, physicalism would be dead. The fact that dualists can never say what would count as evidence against their views makes this ancient philosophical position very difficult to distinguish from religious faith.↩
Terence McKenna is one person I regret not getting to know. Unfortunately, he died from brain cancer in 2000, at the age of 53. His books are well worth reading, and I have recommended several below, but he was, above all, an amazing speaker. It is true that his eloquence often led him to adopt positions which can only be described (charitably) as “wacky,” but the man was undeniably brilliant and always worth listening to. ↩
I should say, however, that there are psychedelic experiences that I have not had, which appear to deliver a different message. Rather than being states in which the boundaries of the self are dissolved, some people have experiences in which the self (in some form) appears to be transported elsewhere. This phenomenon is very common with the drug DMT, and it can lead its initiates to some very startling conclusions about the nature of reality. More than anyone else, Terence McKenna was influential in bringing the phenomenology of DMT into prominence.DMT is unique among psychedelics for a several reasons. Everyone who has tried it seems to agree that it is the most potent hallucinogen available (not in terms of the quantity needed for an effective dose, but in terms of its effects). It is also, paradoxically, the shortest acting. While the effects of LSD can last ten hours, the DMT trance dawns in less than a minute and subsides in ten. One reason for such steep pharmacokinetics seems to be that this compound already exists inside the human brain, and it is readily metabolized by monoaminoxidase. DMT is in the same chemical class as psilocybin and the neurotransmitter serotonin (but, in addition to having an affinity for 5-HT2Areceptors, it has been shown to bind to the sigma-1 receptor and modulate Na+ channels). Its function in the human body remains mysterious. Among the many mysteries and insults presented by DMT, it offers a final mockery of our drug laws: Not only have we criminalized naturally occurring substances, like cannabis; we have criminalized one of our own neurotransmitters.Many users of DMT report being thrust under its influence into an adjacent reality where they are met by alien beings who appear intent upon sharing information and demonstrating the use of inscrutable technologies. The convergence of hundreds of such reports, many from first-time users of the drug who have not been told what to expect, is certainly interesting. It is also worth noting these accounts are almost entirely free of religious imagery. One appears far more likely to meet extraterrestrials or elves on DMT than traditional saints or angels. As I have not tried DMT, and have not had an experience of the sort that its users describe, I don’t know what to make of any of this. ↩
Of course, James was reporting his experiences with nitrous oxide, which is an anesthetic. Other anesthetics, like ketamine hydrochloride and phencyclidine hydrochloride (PCP), have similar effects on mood and cognition at low doses. However, there are many differences between these drugs and classic psychedelics—one being that high doses of the latter do not lead to general anesthesia. ↩
What caused the sudden rush of these most powerful leaders of the Western World to go to Afghanistan, this report continues, was to directly view the discovery by US Military scientists of what is described as a “Vimana” entrapped in a “Time Well”
that has already caused the “disappearance” of at least 8 American Soldiers trying to remove it from the cave it has been hidden in for the past estimated 5,000 years.
Vimana
Vimāna is a word with several meanings ranging from temple or palace to mythological flying machines described in Sanskrit epics.
Reference to ancient Indian flying vehicles comes from ancient Indian sources, many are the well known ancient Indian Epics, and there are literally hundreds of them. Most of them have not even been translated into English yet from the old sanskrit.
It is claimed that a few years ago, the Chinese discovered some sanskrit documents in Lhasa, Tibet and sent them to the University of Chandrigarh to be translated. Dr. Ruth Reyna of the University said recently that the documents contain directions for building interstellar spaceships!
Their method of propulsion, she said, was “anti-gravitational” and was based upon a system analogous to that of “laghima,” the unknown power of the ego existing in man’s physiological makeup, “a centrifugal force strong enough to counteract all gravitational pull.”
According to Hindu Yogis, it is this “laghima” which enables a person to levitate. Dr. Reyna said that on board these machines, which were called “Astras” by the text, the ancient Indians could have sent a detachment of men onto any planet, according to
the document, which is thought to be thousands of years old. The manuscripts were also said to reveal the secret of “antima”, “the cap of invisibility” and “garima”, “how to become as heavy as a mountain of lead.”
Steve Quayle
Stephen Quayle is the author of five books. For over thirty years, he has been investigating ancient civilizations, giants, UFOs and biological warfare as they relate to the future of mankind. Stephen discusses the coming worst-case scenarios approaching this world and how they interrelate to each other. Earthquakes, volcanoes, nuclear and biological terrorism, coupled with the planned financial meltdown of the U.S. dollar will thrust us into unimagined tribulations. Stephen Quayle is on record as stating that we have moved from the realm of natural threats into the arena of supernaturally guided events of the unseen hand of evil orchestrating world events of unfathomable proportions.
“Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.”
Imran Khan, the former Pakistan cricket captain turned politician, was taken off an international flight from Canada to New York and questioned by US immigration officials over his views on drone strikes and jihad.
Khan, who has been at the forefront of a high-profile campaign as leader of the Pakistan Movement for Justice party (PTI) to end US drone strikes in northern Pakistan, had been in Canada to give a speech and was on his way to a fundraising dinner in the US on Friday.
Khan recently attempted to lead a high-profile march into south Waziristan which included US peace activists from the Code Pink group with some 15,000 of his supporters.
He claims that the drone strikes kill large numbers of innocent civilians – a claim denied by the US.
“I was taken off from plane and interrogated by US Immigration in Canada on my views on drones. My stance is known. Drone attacks must stop,” Khan tweeted yesterday after his questioning.
He added: “Missed flight and sad to miss the fundraising lunch in NY but nothing will change my stance.”
A US state department spokeswoman confirmed Khan’s questioning. “We are aware that Imran Khan was briefly delayed in Toronto before boarding the next flight to the United States,” she told Pakistani media.
“The issue was resolved. Mr Khan is welcome in the United States.”
US immigration authorities refused to comment on Khan’s case but a spokeswoman quoted by the Toronto Sun newspaper said: “Our dual mission is to facilitate travel in the United States while we secure our borders, our people, and our visitors from those that would do us harm like terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals, and contraband,” said CBP spokesman Joanne Ferreira.
“Under US immigration law, applicants for admission bear the burden of proof to establish that they are clearly eligible to enter the United States. In order to demonstrate that they are admissible, the applicant must overcome all grounds of inadmissibility.”
Some Canadian commentators have speculated that Khan’s questioning was because of groups who have been protesting his visit to the US, including a group called the American Islamic Leadership Coalition which reportedly wrote to US secretary of state Hillary Clinton asking her to revoke the US visa granted to Khan.
“The US embassy made a significant error in granting this Islamist leader a visa,” the group said in a statement.
“Granting individuals like Khan access to the US to fundraise is against the interest of the people of Pakistan and the national security interests of the US.”
Ali Zaidi, an official in Khan’s party demanded “a prompt and thorough inquiry into this sordid episode” and “an unconditional apology from the US government”.
Former executive director Greg Smith resigned from bank in March
He wrote a newspaper opinion piece about ‘toxic’ culture at Goldman Sachs
His book, Why I Left Goldman Sachs, is out next week
Chapter 1 reveals how trainees were forced to attend pre-dawn ‘boot camp’ grillings and suffer humiliation if they got their boss’s lunch order wrong
Goldman Sachs executives partied in Las Vegas by sharing a hot tub with a topless woman they dubbed ‘Ms Silicone,’ the executive who publicly quit the firm has claimed.
Greg Smith said that during a bachelor weekend with colleagues they stayed at the five star Mandalay Bay Hotel where they drank themselves senseless and gambled at all hours.
‘Ms Silicone’ – apparently named for her large, fake breasts – accompanied them one afternoon for a soothing dip when they were all hungover from a heavy session in the casino.
Revelations: Ex-Goldman Sachs executive director Greg Smith’s book, out next week, describes the life of excess and drunken debauchery at the firm
Mr Smith also recalls one co-worker who was so arrogant about money that he gave him $1,000 in casino chips he had just won and said: ‘That’s what it’s like. Enjoy the weekend.’
The details are in Mr Smith’s book, Why I Left Goldman Sachs, which is not just exposing the ‘toxic’ culture at the bank, but the excess that comes with it.
It will also raise questions over his integrity as he freely admits feeling ‘screwed’ because his bonus on year was a mere $500,000 on top of a $200,000 salary.
Until now Mr Smith has painted himself as a principled man who quit because he could not stomach what he was seeing – but now appears to have bought into the Goldman mentality in the beginning as much as the others.
Mr Smith resigned in March in a resignation letter which was published in the New York Times and made the explosive claims that senior staff called their clients ‘muppets.’
The publication of his book has long threatened to lift the lid on a culture of bullying and greed at Goldman Sachs – and now it appears to be delivering.
Lap of luxury: Smith said that during a bachelor weekend with colleagues they stayed at the five-star Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas, where they drank themselves senseless and gambled at all hours
He writes: ‘Alcohol was a big part of the culture at the firm, as it is on Wall Street in general. Getting smashed with your clients was a regular occurrence.’
The book details how in 2005 he went on the bachelor weekend with a managing director called Bill-Jo who was playing Blackjack with $500 chips.
Mr Smith writes: ‘He drew a seven of clubs. The dealer pushed back Bill-Jo’s $500 chip with another one sitting on top.
‘Bill-Jo took both chips and put them into my hand. “That’s what it’s like,” he said. “Enjoy the weekend.”‘
The following afternoon the group were all hungover so they partied in the hot tub at the Mandalay Bay – with the topless woman they called ‘Ms Silicone.’
Party hard: Smith writes of an affair at New York’s Chelsea Piers which had ‘3,000 people in attendance, and nearly as many ice sculptures’ where all you did was eat and ‘get hammered’
Mr Smith also talks about a party put on for the securities division at Chelsea Piers in New York which took place in December 2006.
Clearly stunned even now, he writes that it was ‘an unbelievably ostentatious affair.’
The book says: ‘There must have been 3,000 people in attendance, and nearly as many ice sculptures… All you could do was eat, get hammered, and gape at the sheer spectacle of the thing.’
Mr Smith opens up about about Bonus Day which happened the same month which he claimed ‘determined a person’s entire self-worth.’
After Mr Smith’s damaging public revelation, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd C Blankfein told employees that internal emails were going to be scanned
But when it came to his turn, Mr Smith was disappointed that he only got $500,000 for his work.
He said: ‘By the logic of the outside world, I was being absurdly well-compensated for work whose chief benefit was to maintain the robustness of the world’s capital markets.
‘By any measure, I should have felt exceptionally lucky and grateful. But by the warped logic of Goldman Sachs and Wall Street, I was being screwed.’
According to Politico, which obtained a copy of Mr Smith’s book, the word ‘muppet’ was more widely used than had been thought.
Mr Smith writes: ‘Being a muppet meant being an idiot, a fool, manipulated by someone else.
‘Within days of arriving in London, I was shocked at how many times I heard people – both very senior and very junior, refer to their clients as muppets.
‘Clients were labeled muppets when they didn’t understand a complex markets concept or if they had trouble comprehending options pricing theory. Once a client was called a muppet who had no f****** clue what he was doing.’
The first chapter of the book has already been leaked online and given similar eyebrow-raising insights.
Titled ‘I Don’t Know, But I’ll Find Out,’ it details how, fresh out of university, a 21-year-old Mr Smith arrived at Goldman Sachs’ New York offices on a warm day in June 2000 to begin his summer internship.
Upon entering the building he was issued with an ‘innately demeaning’ bright orange ID badge that marked him out as a ‘plebe, a newbie and punk kid.’
He writes that interns had to carry around folding stools ‘at all times because there were no extra chairs at the trading desk’ and attend pre-dawn ‘boot camp’ grillings.
Scathing: Mr Smith worked at the Goldman Sachs New York headquarters (pictured) before moving to the London office
He recalls how one vice-president ridiculed an intern who did not know enough about Goldman Sachs’ stance on Microsoft shares. The trainee promptly burst into tears and ran out of the room.
On another occasion, a managing director ordered an intern to fetch him a cheddar cheese sandwich for lunch, only to receive a cheddar cheese salad.
Mr Smith writes: ‘He opened the container, looked at the salad, looked up at the kid, closed the container and threw it in the trash… It was a bit harsh, but it was also a teaching moment.’
Mr Smith received a $1.5million advance payment for his book.
In his time at Goldman on to become an executive director and head of the company’s U.S. equity derivatives business in Europe, the Middle-East and Africa.
But in the resignation letter he said the firm’s culture had changed from one that ‘revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility and always doing right by our clients’ to one where mistreating clients for profit had become standard, creating a ‘toxic and destructive’ environment.
NO MORALITY, NO INTEGRITY… NO FUTURE? THE FULL RESIGNATION LETTER
Greg Smith’s scathing resignation opinion piece was published in the New York Times on March 14. The full text is below.
Today is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.
To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.
It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.
But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.
I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work.
When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.
Over the course of my career I have had the privilege of advising two of the largest hedge funds on the planet, five of the largest asset managers in the United States, and three of the most prominent sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and Asia. My clients have a total asset base of more than a trillion dollars. I have always taken a lot of pride in advising my clients to do what I believe is right for them, even if it means less money for the firm. This view is becoming increasingly unpopular at Goldman Sachs. Another sign that it was time to leave.
How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.
What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.
Today, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. It’s purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.
It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.
It astounds me how little senior management gets a basic truth: If clients don’t trust you they will eventually stop doing business with you. It doesn’t matter how smart you are.
These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.
When I was a first-year analyst I didn’t know where the bathroom was, or how to tie my shoelaces. I was taught to be concerned with learning the ropes, finding out what a derivative was, understanding finance, getting to know our clients and what motivated them, learning how they defined success and what we could do to help them get there.
My proudest moments in life — getting a full scholarship to go from South Africa to Stanford University, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist, winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics — have all come through hard work, with no shortcuts. Goldman Sachs today has become too much about shortcuts and not enough about achievement. It just doesn’t feel right to me anymore.
I hope this can be a wake-up call to the board of directors. Make the client the focal point of your business again. Without clients you will not make money. In fact, you will not exist. Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer.
The Federal Reserve wants to know what you are saying about it. In fact, the Federal Reserve 
A General who made the decision to assist diplomatic and intelligence assets on the ground has been arrested and will likely be retired or worse, while those who ordered the removal of embassy security details and ordered U.S. forces to stand-down are left to go on about their business and likely risk more American lives in the future.
But both of those actions would be illegal in the abstract. Taking down my sign or vandalizing it would be a graffiti or vandalism type charge whereas repeatedly DDoSing my site would be similar in method and manner to that. It’s why you have to be careful with the speech. What you have with PayPal, it’s a pure form of speech — it was a limited and qualified thing like Woolworth’s. African-Americans went into Woolworth’s and said, I want lunch, feed me lunch, I will eat it, pay for it, and leave. Same with PayPal.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lap of luxury: Smith said that during a bachelor weekend with colleagues they stayed at the five-star Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas, where they drank themselves senseless and gambled at all hours
Party hard: Smith writes of an affair at New York’s Chelsea Piers which had ‘3,000 people in attendance, and nearly as many ice sculptures’ where all you did was eat and ‘get hammered’
After Mr Smith’s damaging public revelation, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd C Blankfein told employees that internal emails were going to be scanned
Scathing: Mr Smith worked at the Goldman Sachs New York headquarters (pictured) before moving to the London office