Translate

Saturday, August 19, 2017

SINCERE CONDOLENCES



WHILE I AM NOT CURRENTLY ABLE TO SIT HERE AND HAMMER OUT SEVERAL BLOGS A DAY AS I ONCE DID, I DO MANAGE TO KEEP UP WITH WORLD AFFAIRS.

WHEN I READ THE FOLLOWING, MY HEART AND MIND WERE DEEPLY TROUBLED.
SUCH LOSS, SUCH CONTINUATION OF LOSS.    

FOR MY MANY READERS IN THE U.S., RUSSIA, SPAIN, MY OCCASIONAL READERS FROM FINLAND, FOR ALL WHO HAVE SUFFERED THESE SENSELESS KILLINGS, THE TEA ROOM SENDS YOU HEARTFELT CONDOLENCES.
MY TEARS FALL WITH YOURS.
I SO WISH IT WOULD ALL END AND NO MORE LIVES WOULD BE LOST ANYWHERE.
YOUR LOSS GRIEVES ME DEEPLY, DEEPLY.


Islamic state claims responsibility for Russia stabbing attack.

7 stabbed in Siberian attack; Russia skeptical of IS claim.


Spain says cell behind Catalan attacks dismantled, police seek van driver.


Finland stabbings 'a likely terror act;' Ties to Spain eyed


And at home?
More of the same, I fear...

2 State Troopers Wounded In Shooting In Western Pennsylvania


One Officer Killed, Three Wounded In Pair Of Shootings In Jacksonville and KIssimmee, Florida.

What do these murders, these attacks ever accomplish for those who choose to do such things?
Their heinous acts usually end in their own lives being lost as well.
Time passes and nothing changes.

Perhaps the one thing it does accomplish is to sow the seeds for the need for revenge...more killing...retribution.

AND THEN WHAT?
THE VICIOUS CYCLE NEVER ENDS.


OUR LOVED ONES ARE LOST TO US, TIME GOES ON, THE PAIN REMAINS.

BUT THOSE WHO DESIRE TO KILL ALSO REMAIN WITH US, DECADE AFTER DECADE, CENTURY AFTER CENTURY.

MAY WE REACH A TIME WHEN ONE GENERATION DECLARES "ENOUGH!" AND STANDS BEHIND THAT.
MAY AT LEAST SOME OF US LIVE TO SEE THAT DAY WHEN HUMAN BEINGS DECIDE TO STOP KILLING FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS.

I MAINTAIN HOPE.
I HAVE PURPOSED IN MY HEART TO MAINTAIN HOPE.


MAY LIFE AND THE LOVE YOU FEEL FOR YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS, FELLOW CITIZENS GIVE YOU ALL HOPE.


//WW


THE QUARANTINE OF DISSENT IN AMERICA : FREE SPEECH ZONES SHOULD BE EVERY INCH OF AMERICAN SOIL

The above is not some foreign war zone. It is an assault on unarmed pipeline protesters in South Dakota by water cannons, tear gas, percussion grenades and rubber bullets, Dec. 1-2 of last year.

ALL OF THESE PHOTOS SHOW WHAT PEACEFUL PROTESTS GET IN TODAY'S AMERICA...WELL, WHAT CERTAIN 'CHOSEN' PROTESTERS CAN EXPECT, SHALL WE SAY?

AMERICA'S "2%, OR 1%", THOSE WHO OWN EVERYTHING THAT RUNS THE AMERICAN MACHINE,  JUST WON'T STAND FOR PEOPLE PROTESTING AGAINST THEIR PRIVATE AGENDA.
Below, it only took six police armed with riot sticks to "properly" take down a pipeline protester.

Below, a few more who just couldn't wait to help control that "mob" at Standing Rock's protest site.

Above, one smiling cop and a female in distress at an Occupy Wall Street protest in 2011. She looks dangerous, right? Some found it odd that the "Tea Party" protesters never received similar treatment, nor did the recent Democrats who were out doing property damage to protest Trump's election.

Why are some treated to beatings and others are not?
WHY WEREN'T THE CLINTON SUPPORTERS ARRESTED AFTER THEIR RIOTS?
WHY WAS THE 'OCCUPU' GTOUP TREATED SO DIFFERENTLY FROM "TEA PARTY" PROTESTERS?

Occupy protests claim 3 deaths in 2 days - NY Daily News

Below, student protesters being pepper-sprayed ...and that particular policeman called for another can of spray and went back over the kids a second time.


Heavily redacted FBI memos confirm that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was aware of a plot to assassinate the Houston organizers of “Occupy Wall Street,”
but the agency has managed to withhold the details from the American public using the worn-out excuse that transparency compromises national security.

According to the agency’s official memos, an unnamed party or agency “planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary… [Redacted] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.”  

Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy...Guardian,U.K.


DISSENT AND FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA...GOING, GOING, ALMOST GONE. 

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."
[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]”
― Harry Truman

“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”
― Benjamin Franklin

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt

“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions."
(Essay to Leo Baeck, 1953) ― Albert Einstein


Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States...

#1. Act of Sept. 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 81, § 13, in part).  

#140. Act of Oct. 28, 1989 (Pub. L. 101-131), 103 Stat. 777, 18 U.S.C. § 700. The Flag Protection Act of 1989, criminalizing burning and certain other forms of destruction of the United States flag, violates the First Amendment. Most of the prohibited acts involve disrespectful treatment of the flag, and evidence a purpose to suppress expression out of concern for its likely communicative impact.

United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).  

#144. Act of Nov. 29, 1990 (Pub. L. 101-647, § 1702), 104 Stat. 4844, 18 U.S.C. § 922q. The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, which makes it a criminal offense to knowingly possess a firearm within a school zone, exceeds congressional power under the Commerce Clause. It is "a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise." Possession of a gun at or near a school "is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce."

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).


AND THE LAST ENTRY?
2005

#165. Act of December 30, 2005 (Pub. L. 109-148, § 1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(1)). A provision of the Detainee Treatment Act eliminating federal habeas jurisdiction over alien detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is invalidated as a violation of the Suspension Clause [Article I, § 9, clause 2].


WHY ONLY 165 "UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS" IN 200 YEARS?
BECAUSE MOST OTHERS HAVE NEVER BEEN DISPUTED, THAT'S WHY.

AVERAGE CITIZEN, EVEN IF HE/SHE KNOWS SUCH THINGS CAN BE DISPUTED ARE (A) NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH LEGAL JARGON TO GO THROUGH CONGRESSIONAL "ACTS" AND SEE THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THEM, OR (B) NOT RICH ENOUGH TO TAKE THINGS TO THE "SUPREME COURT"...OR (C) SIMPLY DON'T CARE WHAT ACTS CONGRESS PASSES.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO "INTERPRET" THAT OLD CONSTITUTION, BUT MOST AMERICANS ARE NOT AWARE OFF THAT EITHER, SO NO PROTESTS ON THAT, NO DISSENT WHERE DISSENT SHOULD BE.

2012

In 2012, Congress passed (almost unanimously) and the President signed into law H.R. 347 : The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act.

Among other provisions, the law criminalizes the offense of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so.
The Secret Service is given the authority to decide on its own what is cordoned off but this includes special events of “national significance” or any area that a President (or anyone afforded Secret service protection) might be visiting, even temporarily.

WE SAW IT HAPPENING RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES AND DID NOTHING TO STOP IT.
The Crime of Peaceful Protest

MANY, CHAMPAGNE GLASSES IN HANDS, EVEN TOASTED THE MISTREATMENT OF THE OCCUPY WALL STREET PROTESTERS AND GLOATED WHEN STUDENTS WERE KICKED IN THE STOMACH, PEPPER-SPRAYED, BEATEN AND DRAGGED ACROSS CONCRETE STREETS, SHOT IN THE FACE WITH 'PERCUSSION GRENADES', AND SOME EVEN LAUGHED WHEN PEOPLE WERE KILLED....   

WE SAW IT DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MARCHES, THE VIETNAM WAR PROTESTS, SAW IT WHENEVER AMERICANS PROTESTED ANYTHING DURING THE LAST CENTURY AND ALL OF THIS ONE, SO FAR..
YOUR "CAUSE" HAD BETTER MATCH THE AGENDA OF THE MIGHTY RULERS, OR DOWN YOU GO.

THINGS ESCALATED TO VIOLENCE ALMOST EVERY TIME A GROUP OPPOSED TO THE ELITIST MINDSET TURNED OUT.

VIOLENCE CARRIED OUT AGAINST PROTESTERS HAS BECOME ACCEPTABLE, EVEN LAUDED, AND YET WE PRETEND TO AGREE THAT ALL HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE RIGHT TO PROTEST WITHOUT FEAR.

BUT WE LIE.
WE'RE AFRAID OF THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
WHY?

WHY DID AMERICA MILITARIZE ITS POLICE FORCE, CREATE "S.W.A.T." TEAMS TO HANDLE EVERYDAY PROBLEMS IN OUR COMMUNITIES?

WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTEND A TRULY PEACEFUL PROTEST AND STAND ON AN AMERICAN STREET AND STATE YOUR DISSENT, YOUR DISAGREEMENT WITH ANYTHING YOU DISAGREE WITH WITHOUT FEAR OF ARREST... OR WORSE?

WHY ARE WE SO DIVIDED AGAINST ONE ANOTHER THAT MANY TODAY CAN'T STAND TO EVEN HEAR AN OPPOSING THOUGHT EXPRESSED ALOUD BY A FELLOW AMERICAN WITHOUT ATTACKING WHOMEVER VOICES THAT OPPOSING VIEW AND SCREAMING 'FOUL!', SCREAMING 'RACIST, FASCIST, BIGOT, HATE-MONGER!'?

WHY IS ANGER ALWAYS AT A BOILING POINT, ALWAYS ERUPTING INTO RAGE WHEN ANOTHER AMERICAN SPEAKS OUT AGAINST WHAT WE BELIEVE IN?

I HAVE FOUND MYSELF GUILTY OF THIS, AND THAT IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS I ASK THESE QUESTIONS.

I ABSOLUTELY CONFESS THAT I HAVE WISHED FOR A BASEBALL BAT AND 5 MINUTES ALONE WITH MORE THAN ONE OTHER HUMAN BEING OVER THE PAST FEW DECADES SO I COULD "BEAT SOME SENSE INTO THEM", AS THE OLDER FOLKS USED TO SAY.

THAT SCARED ME, SCARES ME NOW TO WRITE THAT, BUT IT'S THE TRUTH AND TRUTH IS WHAT THIS BLOG WAS ABOUT IN THE VERY BEGINNING, NO MATTER WHO IT HURTS, AS I STATED ON DAY 1.

OUCH! THE TRUTH HURTS!

WE NOW HAVE LAWS AGAINST LIBERTY, AGAINST FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE CRIMINALIZATION OF CITIZEN DISSENT. 
TODAY, IF YOU SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, YOU CAN BE LABELED A DOMESTIC TERRORIST, AN EXTREMIST, DANGEROUS TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

HOW DID THESE COME INTO EXISTENCE IN A SO-CALLED "FREE SOCIETY"?
WAS IT ALL, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AN ILLUSION ALL ALONG?

WERE THE FOUNDING FATHERS KIDDING US WHEN THEY SAID, "LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL...EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL CITIZENS...RIGHT TO DISSENT", ETC?
I DON'T THINK SO.


I AGREE WITH MUCH THAT IS STATED IN THIS ARTICLE:
[NOTE:
An earlier version appeared in Human Rights Commission, The Right of Peaceful Protest Seminar, Canberra, 3-4 July 1986 Papers, Occasional Paper No. 14 (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1986), pp. 93-117]
The dominant political actors in liberal democracies are the state, corporations and professions.


"Challenging the status quo is a difficult business. Dominant groups have various ways to limit the effectiveness of challengers, including promoting a narrow conception of 'acceptable protest,' channeling dissent into appeals to the government and, if necessary, using repression.

The very idea of 'protest' should be considered suspect because it diverts attention away from the routine activities of powerful groups.
Routine activities by these actors establish the ongoing political and economic framework for the society.

Governments promote legislation, establish foreign policy and decide on policy. State bureaucracies both prepare and implement policies, and exercise administrative discretion in areas such as policing, welfare and the law.
The electoral system ensures a ritualized competition between political parties (Ginsberg, 1982). 

Corporations routinely make investments, hire and fire employees, introduce new products and services, and mould opinion through advertising. Professions hold monopolies on particular types of services--such as medical and legal services--and within those monopolies make decisions about the types and costs of services (Derber et al., 1990; Larson, 1977).

Dominant groups occasionally engage in struggles with each other, as in the case of elections, corporate takeovers and the medical profession's resistance to state regulation.

The actions of these groups are not usually called protest, though.

The term protest is applied to actions of groups that are painted as outside the mainstream.

The full power of the state can be employed against those individuals and groups placed in the category of protesters.
When trade unions go on strike that is recognized as a form of political protest--and often stigmatized--but when corporations redirect investments out of a particular area (a 'capital strike') that is taken to be a normal exercise of corporate prerogatives.

Even the major political struggles in liberal democracies, such as between workers and employers, are usually about the balance of power within the system, not about the organizing principles of the system itself.

Nevertheless, the dominant institutions are backed in the last resort by force, namely by the police and the military.

Whereas violence by 'protesters' is invariably condemned and often called terrorism, violence by the police or military is usually seen as legitimate.  
The government strategy for limiting and controlling protest is based on an implicit restriction of the protest: it must be protest to the state to take action, not autonomous action itself. It is when protesters take direct action which in itself furthers their aims (rather than relying on the government to do it for them) that this action is commonly seen as 'out of hand.'
Workers may lobby and demonstrate for industrial democracy; that can be tolerated. It is when they unilaterally implement it themselves on the shopfloor that police are brought in. Concerned citizens can appeal to the government to end abuses by spy agencies; that is fine. But when they investigate the agencies themselves and publish the identity of spies and details of their operations, it is time for legislation and harassment to stop them. 

 
A final problem is inequality of resources. Ernest Fitzgerald was a single person trying to do his own job plus make informed criticisms of Defense Department performance. In attempting to discredit Fitzgerald, officials in the Defense Department could call on virtually unlimited funds and personnel to mount refutations."

WHO HOLDS THE REINS OF POWER?
WHO DECIDES WHO IS A TERRORIST, A THREAT TO SOCIETY?
NOT WE, THE PEOPLE.

"The full power of the STATE can be employed against those individuals and groups placed in the category of protesters."

ONCE UPON A TIME WE SAID THAT THOSE WHO PROTESTED SOMETHING THE GOVERNMENT HAD DONE WERE EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, SOMETHING OUR AMERICAN HISTORY BOOKS LAUDED WHEN THE "PATRIOTS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION" DID SO...BUT NO MORE.

ONE EXAMPLE OF THE FAILURE OF "GOING THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS", AS OPPOSED TO PROTEST:   
The usual point of view of the dominant groups is that people should leave social problems to the elites and experts. If action isn't happening quickly enough, then they should work through 'normal channels.'
The trouble with these channels is that they are biased in favor of privileged groups.
Native Americans as a group can hardly get ahead by rising up through corporations or professions, since it is discrimination in such areas which is the cause of many of their problems.

Lobbying holds little hope, since lobbying is mainly of benefit to those who have money, power or some other reason why their views should be listened to. (Arguing on the basis of social justice alone doesn't get lobbyists very far.)

Finally, Native Americans, as a stigmatized minority group, have little electoral impact.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE:
A million people marched for peace in New York in 1982, but this did not lead to any substantive changes in government policy.

THE SAME RULES DO NOT APPLY TO ALL.
Direct action against the military, such as opposing conscription or encouraging desertion, can result in prison terms; recalcitrant trade unions may be threatened with deregistration.

By contrast, prison terms for corrupt politicians or corporate executives are seldom contemplated

There is a wide variety of measures taken in liberal democracies to repress political opposition. Most of these measures are taken by agencies of the state, especially by the police and the military which are the custodians of legitimate violence. The role of repression is a major one (Goldstein, 1978; Wolfe, 1973) but has been downplayed by most theorists of liberal society (McCamant, 1984).

Thus the concerns of a minority (the elite) get to dictate the terms for the majority.

CENSORING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

Political censorship is an effective method of stifling dissent. There are a limited number of examples outside wartime in which Western governments take overt action to censor publications, such as the Progressive case (Morland, 1981). 

The existence of small dissident presses often can be ignored if the information they present does not reach a wider audience. On a number of crucial issues the top executives of the mass media are reluctant to go out of their way to antagonize the government and powerful corporations (Bagdikian, 1990; Herman and Chomsky, 1988).

AS WE CAN SEE QUITE EASILY, IT IS THE MAJOR BENEFACTORS OF GOVERNMENT WHO OWN THE MEDIA IN AMERICA TODAY.
OWNERSHIP DICTATES CONTENT.

Harsh legal penalties can be used to repress protest. It is widely recognized that the legal systems do not dispense neutral justice, but rather that arrest, conviction and sentencing are all part of a wider political struggle.

CORPORATE crimes are often ignored or at most dealt with by token fines.
Protest of a political nature on the other hand often is greeted with excessive penalties.

Another way to smash dissent is to selectively (create and) enforce laws.
Spying, censorship and selective use of the law all serve to inhibit political opposition.

AND THEN THERE ARE THE LAWS, PASSED BY A CONGRESS ETERNALLY BEHOLDEN TO THEIR BIGGEST CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS, TO WALL STREET.

In wartime civil liberties of all sorts are drastically curtailed, so much so that a liberal democracy at war can be characterised as a 'constitutional dictatorship' (Rossiter, 1948). Rights of free speech, assembly, protection from arbitrary arrest, the right of trial by jury: these and other freedoms are reduced or removed in wartime (Linfield, 1990).

AS I HAVE WRITTEN MANY TIMES HERE, WE HAVE "BEEN AT WAR", ALTHOUGH UNDECLARED, SINCE KOREA.
BEING AT WAR SIMPLIFIES HOW WE CAN BE MANIPULATED, SUPPRESSED, DICTATED TO AND FORCED TO COMPLY WITH RULES, LAWS WE WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH IN PEACETIME. 

WE ARE "AT WAR WITH TERRORISTS", BUT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT STATES THAT WE WHO PROTEST, WHO VOICE DISSENT ARE TERRORISTS OF A SORT.
WE, THE PEOPLE, THE AMERICAN VOTERS, THE AMERICAN WORKERS, THE 'AVERGEJOE/JANE' CAN BE LABELED A THREAT TO THIS NATION WITH NOTHING NEEDED TO BACK THAT UP.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DECIDES, END OF STORY.


ONCE UPON A TIME, EVERY INCH OF AMERICA WAS A "FREE SPEECH ZONE".
NOT ANYMORE.

ONE OF THE REASONS AMERICANS HAVE GIVEN UP THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH ANYWHERE INSIDE AMERICA'S BORDERS IS THAT CONGRESS, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE WHITE HOUSE PHRASE JUST ABOUT  EVERYTHING IN "LEGALESE", THAT JARGON OF ATTORNEYS, OR AS MY UNCLE CALLED IT, "LEGAL MUMBO-JUMBO".

CONGRESS WAS SCARED OUT OF THEIR WEE MINDS WHEN RON PAUL TRIED TO GET A LAW PASSED THAT REQUIRED CONGRESS TO READ EACH PROPOSED LAW ALOUD ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.
THEY DON'T READ THE LAWS THEMSELVES, FOR THE MOST PART, BUT HAVE "STAFFERS" DO THAT FOR THEM AND "SUMMARIZE".
THIS IS HOW WE GOT THE HEINOUS "PATRIOT ACT", FEMA BEFORE THAT, AND THE REVAMPED PAIRING OF THOSE TWO IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S "NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT".

March 19 2012

H.R. 347, benignly titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3.When President Obama signed it on March 8, almost nobody seems to have cared.

Simply put, the way the bill will “improve” public grounds is by moving all those unsightly protesters elsewhere. The law purports to update an old law, Section 1752 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that restricted areas around the president, vice president, or any others under the protection of the Secret Service.
The original law was enacted in 1971 and amended in 2006.

At first blush, the big change here is that while the old law made it a federal offense to "willfully and knowingly" enter a restricted space, now prosecutors need only show that you did it "knowingly"—that you knew the area was restricted, even if you didn’t know it was illegal to enter the space.

But it’s important to understand what has changed since the original law was enacted in 1971, because it shows how much a tiny tweak to the intent requirement in a statute can impact the free speech of everyone.

For one thing, the law makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest.
Period.
It is a federal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone.

For another, it’s almost impossible to predict what constitutes “disorderly or disruptive conduct” or what sorts of conduct authorities deem to “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

The types of events and individuals warranting Secret Service protection have grown exponentially since the law was enacted in 1971. Today, any occasion that is officially defined as a National Special Security Event (NSSE) calls for Secret Service protection.

NSSE’s can include basketball championships, concerts, and the Winter Olympics, which have nothing whatsoever to do with government business, official functions, or improving public grounds. Every Super Bowl since 9/11 has been declared an NSSE.

And that brings us to the real problem with the change to the old protest law.

Instead of turning on a designated place, the protest ban turns on what persons and spaces are deemed to warrant Secret Service protection. It’s a perfect circle: The people who believe they are important enough to warrant protest can now shield themselves from protestors.

Let’s start by recalling that political speech—of the sort you might direct toward Newt Gingrich or Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, both of whom merit Secret Service protection—is what the First Amendment most jealously protects.

Demonstrators can almost never be muzzled based on what it is they want to say.

The First Amendment also has a special solicitude for speech in what are called traditional public fora.
There is a presumed right of access to streets, sidewalks, and public parks for the purpose of engaging in political discussion and protest. And while the government can always impose reasonable limits on demonstrations to ensure public order, that power comes with a caveat: It must never be used to throttle unpopular opinion or to discriminate against disfavored speakers. That is a powerful caveat: The degree of slack a court will cut any given restriction on public protest will rest on whether the government appears to be acting even-handedly.

The changes in Section 1752 thus really do matter because they permit those in power to relegate their detractors to perform their political speech in REMOTE locations, far from the public and the press.
They do so in the name of protecting the security of the government official, despite the fact that their actual motivation for doing so has everything to do with the message of their opponents.

Law professor Timothy Zick of William and Mary Law School published an outstanding analysis of what are known as “spatial tactics” in the Texas Law Review a few years back.

When it comes to relegating demonstrators to obscurity, two approaches predominate: keeping protesters outside an expansive, sanitized bubble that surrounds the very event they have come to protest, or allowing them to come closer, but only within the confines of heavily policed “protest pens” that one federal judge likened to temporary internment camps.
Here’s one way the new legislation becomes doubly problematic: The exclusion zones imposed by Section 1752 have no natural or intuitive spatial boundaries. They can be as large as law enforcement claims is necessary to ensure the security of whoever the Secret Service is protecting.

Whatever they have come to say, the presence of demonstrators at these events carries a powerful message in and of itself that cannot be delivered as effectively in any other place.

Being 'permitted' to deliver their message in the same forum and at the same time as the speaker they oppose highlights the passion and commitment that animates the protesters.
It underscores the existence of dissent, which is precisely what those who would sanitize the space around high officials would have us forget.
In short, citizen protests puncture the pretty, patriotic illusion of a focus-grouped, Photo-shopped media event, and replace it with the gritty patriotic reality of democracy in action. That’s why the teeny cosmetic changes to Section 1752, which purport to be about new kinds of security, are really all about OPTICS
.

HOW DID WE GET HERE, TO THIS PLACE OF QUARANTINED FREE SPEECH, FROM WHERE WE WERE BEFORE WORLD WAR I OR II WHEN IT WAS A CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY THEN TO PROTEST INJUSTICES AND THE MEDIA AND THE POLICE WERE THERE TO HELP US?

HAVING WATCHED IT ALL UNFURL A DECADE AT A TIME, I MUST SAY THAT THE TRUE HORRORS OF WHAT HAPPENS TO DISSENTERS/PROTESTERS BEGAN TO SHOW UP IN THE 1950s AND 1960s.
CIVIL RIGHTS SEEMED TO BE SOMETHING AMERICANS WERE NOT READY TO CONSIDER YET, SO PROTESTS WERE "DISCOURAGED"...BY POLICE BATON AND ATTACK DOGS QUITE OFTEN.


AT KENT STATE DURING THE VIETNAM WAR PROTESTS IN 1970, THOSE DISSENTING WERE DISCOURAGED BY GUNSHOT.

THINGS ESCALATED SO QUICKLY FROM THAT.


Wounded Knee: A 71-Day Siege and a Forgotten Civil Rights Movement


Wounded Knee | We Shall Remain | American Experience | PBS



I COULDN'T BELIEVE HOW QUICKLY DISSENT BECAME A HAZARD TO ONE'S HEALTH, HOW DANGEROUS IT BECAME TO PUBLICLY VOICE AN OPINION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, AGAINST ANYTHING, REALLY.

BUT, IN LESS THAN 30 YEARS FROM WOUNDED KNEE, THE SILENCING OF DISSENTERS HAD BECOME AN ART FORM.

THEN AGAIN, THE TYRANNY OF THE 'NEW GOD IN TOWN', "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS", HAS SERVED TO SILENCE MILLIONS.


2002

HOW TO QUARANTINE DISSENT, A LA GEORGE W. BUSH, 2002.

TRY TO IMAGINE THIS HAPPENED TO YOU.

When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path.

Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"


2001
A St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were grandmothers -- were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome."

One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, "War is good business. Invest your sons."
The seven were charged with trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct."

The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone." Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak.

2004

Bush visited London and the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city and impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters," according to Britain's Evening Standard.

But instead of a "free-speech zone," the Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect Bush from protesters' messages. Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit.

ALSO IN 2002, PROTESTING AMERICANS BECAME LABELED "POTENTIAL TERRORISTS" AND THE FBI BEGAN GATHERING PRIVATE INFORMATION ON ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS WITH AN EYE TO HAVING THEM CHARGED WITH TREASON.
Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department’s recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as POTENTIAL TERRORISTS.
In a May 2003 terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who “expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government.” If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of “suspected terrorists.”

On May 30, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans’ everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists “for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox.”

The FBI took a shotgun approach towards protesters partly because of the FBI’s “belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps towards the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal,” according to a Senate report.

On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is now actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators—supposedly to “blunt potential violence by extremist elements,” according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official. Given the FBI’s expansive defintion of “potential violence” in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.

The FBI is also urging local police to report suspicious activity by protesters to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is run by the FBI. If local police take the hint and start pouring in the dirt, the JTTF could soon be building a “Total Information Awareness”-lite database on those antiwar groups and activists. 

JOINT TERRORISM TASKS FORCES, FORMED TO KEEP DISSENT TO A MINIMUM...OF ZERO.

Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF), of which there are currently 104 located in cities and towns across the United States, were created in the 1980s and greatly expanded in the aftermath of 9/11. They were set up to coordinate between diverse federal agencies and local law enforcement, and often work in tandem with “Fusion Centers” that are supposed to collect and analyze data related to potential terrorism.

BUT THEY COLLECT MUCH OF THEIR 'DATA' BY USING "LISTENING DEVICES" LIKE 'STINGRAY TECHNOLOGY'...TAPPING DIRECTLY INTO CITIZENS' CELLPHONES AND NOT ONLY LISTENING BUT TRACKING THEIR MOVEMENT...ANY TIME THEY PLEASE.

In an interesting case reported by Wired magazine, 2015, police in Erie County, NY, used the technology 47 times in the last five years and only received the required permission from a court once.

Even in that case, “they asked for a court order rather than a warrant, which carries a higher burden of proof... (and) mischaracterized the true nature of the tool.”

The same story notes that the New York Civil Liberties Union posted documents online that showed the FBI and local police departments had made binding agreements to keep their use of the technology secret, even going so far as to ask courts to dismiss criminal cases in which the use of Stingray might be revealed.

The fear of terrorism being openly exploited by law enforcement has allowed police to resurrect COINTELPRO in all but name.

Attempts To Silence Dissenters Will Not End Well
OCT. 06, 2016
"Discussion can only exist where customs and norms demand that all voices be heard, that the points of the opposition are at least characterized as something resembling what they are, and that no one is excluded from participation by the fact that they possess views of which the majority – or a powerful minority – disapproves.
But instead of that, today we have a liberal elite that gleefully bludgeons people with opposing views into silence, and then pats itself on its collective back for its enlightenment.

This will not end well."

ACTUALLY, IT WILL NEVER END BECAUSE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE AT LEAST ONE WHO WILL HAVE THE COURAGE TO STAND AGAINST THE STATE, AGAINST A WRONG, AGAINST THE SHREDDING OF THAT OLD CONSTITUTION BY CONGRESSIONAL OR PRESIDENTIAL OR JUDICIAL WHORES, TRAITORS, LIARS, AND THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS THEY PASS TO APPEASE THEIR MONEYED MASTERS. 
SURE, DISSENT CAN BE QUARANTINED IN AMERICA, BUT IT WILL NEVER, EVER END.
FOR IT TO END WOULD MEAN ANNIHILATION OF ALL WHO DO NOT ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THE RULERS HERE. 

IS THAT NEXT? 




_________________________________________

FURTHER READING:

~ Book:
Violations of free speech and rights of labor. Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, Seventy-fourth Congress, second session[--Seventy-sixth Congress, third session] pursuant to S. ... Catalog Record - Electronic Resource Available



~ H.R.2908 - 112th Congress (2011-2012): Testimonial Free Speech Act of 2011 Introduced in House. To protect the First Amendment rights of individuals to share their experiences and perceptions of the effects of foods and dietary supplements.
~ THE DAY SCALIA EXPOSED EXECUTIVE-JUDICIAL COLLUSION AGAINST CONGRESS, VOTERS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Scalia exposed that in King versus Burwell the Court elevated politics over both the rule of law and the separation of powers. The majority recognized the ACA (ObamaCare) work as written, so it colluded with the executive branch to expand federal power beyond the clear limits Congress imposed.

As a result, the IRS is now taxing, borrowing, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars that no Congress ever authorized.

King v. Burwell was a hard loss for health care reform, limited government, and the rule of law.
Scalia’s dissent was a silver lining, though, and a brilliant one at that.





//WW

KILL SWITCH ENABLED FOR INTERNET AND CELLULAR SERVICE

WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SOUGHT IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF DONALD TRUMP AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, THOSE HOLD-OVERS FROM OBAMA DAYS IN THE CIA, NSA, FBI AND THE MILITARY ARE GOING CRAZY IMAGINING WHAT HE MIGHT DO.









ACTUALLY, OBAMA DIDN'T NEED SUCH AUTHORITY IN 2010...HE ALREADY HAD IT FROM FEDERAL LAWS FROM DECADES AGO, LIKE THIS ONE MORE RE:

Section 606 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides emergency powers to seize control of ALL communications facilities if the president declares there is a "war or threat of war" or "a state of public peril." 



EDWARD SNOWDEN REVEALED THE TRUTH IN 2013 IN A SERIES OF INTERVIEWS WITH THE GUARDIAN, U.K. 

"Companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft– they all get together with the NSA and provide the NSA direct access to the back ends of all of the systems you use to communicate, to store data, to put things in the cloud, and even to just send birthday wishes and keep a record of your life. And they give NSA direct access that they don’t need to oversee so they can’t be held liable for it. I think that’s a dangerous capability for anybody to have but particularly an organization that’s demonstrated time and time again that they’ll work to shield themselves from oversight.

I grew up with the understanding that the world I lived in was one where people enjoyed a sort of freedom to communicate with each other in privacy without it being monitored, without it being measured or analyzed or sort of judged by these shadowy figures or systems anytime they mentioned anything that travels across public lines.

I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded. And that’s not something I’m willing to support, it’s not something I’m willing to build, and it’s not something I’m willing to live under. So I think anyone who opposes that sort of world has an obligation to act in the way they can.


THE WAR TO CONTROL ACCESS TO INFORMATION

WHAT IF OUR ACCESS TO FACTUAL DATA AND TRUTH POSED SUCH A THREAT TO THOSE IN HIGH PLACES THAT THEY HAD DECIDED TO END OUR ACCESS TO IT?

WHAT IF, SLOWLY, SUBTLY, WHAT ONCE WAS 'OUT THERE' FOR US TO FIND AND DIG INTO, TO UNRAVEL AND SEE FOR OURSELVES, WAS JUST GONE, OR REPLACED BY WHATEVER THE TECH GIANTS WANTED US TO FIND AND THAT ONLY?

SOME LONG-TIME READERS WILL RECALL WHEN I JUST DECIDED TO THROW IN THE TOWEL BECAUSE I COULD NO LONGER TRUST ONCE-TRUSTED SOURCES FOR REAL NEWS, HOW I COMPLAINED THAT THE NEWS SOURCES WERE JUST RECYCLING OLD NEWS, WERE CREATING NEWS THAT WASN'T NEWS AT ALL.I FOUND INCREASINGLY "INVALID" LINKS/ERROR MESSAGES TO RECENT AND YEARS-OLD ARTICLES, SOME STILL ACCESSIBLE BY MEANS OF THE INTERNET WAYBACK MACHINE, BUT MOST WERE JUST GONE.

IT SEEMED LIKE, OVERNIGHT, ACCESS TO MANY THINGS WAS CUT OFF.

WELL, IT WAS, AS YOU WILL SEE.

HOW CLOSE DID WE COME TO LOSING UNBRIDLED USE OF THIS INTERNET?

HOW MANY BIG NAMES IN CONGRESS WERE ON THE SIDE OF THOSE WHO WANTED TO THROTTLE WHAT WAS AVAILABLE TO US, TO KEEP ACCESS TO SOME SITES FROM BEING PART OF OUR "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION"?

WHY IS THE U.S. MILITARY PUSHING CONGRESS TO BLOCK SOME SITES FROM OUR SIGHT?

WHY DOES THE MILITARY BLAME OUR ACCESS TO ONCE-INACCESSIBLE INFORMATION AS THE CAUSE OF THE 'REVOLT' OF AVERAGE CITIZENS IN THE LAST ELECTION AND CITIZENS QUESTIONING WHAT OUR 'LEADERS' ARE DOING?

FROM THAT REPORT, ACCESS TO THE INTERNET FOMENTS CIVIL UNREST.
Among the most dangerous drivers of the risk of civil unrest and mass destabilization, the document asserts, are different categories of fact. 
“Fact-inconvenient” information consists of the exposure of “details that, by implication, un­dermine legitimate authority and erode the relationships between governments and the governed”?—?facts, for instance, that reveal how government policy is corrupt, incompetent or undemocratic.

“Fact-perilous” information refers basically to national security leaks from whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning, “exposing highly clas­sified, sensitive, or proprietary information that can be used to accelerate a real loss of tactical, operational, or strategic advantage.”

“Fact-toxic” information pertains to actual truths which, the document complains, are “exposed in the absence of context”, and therefore poison “important political discourse.” Such information is seen as being most potent in triggering outbreaks of civil unrest, because it:

“… fatally weakens foundational security at an international, regional, national, or personal level. Indeed, fact-toxic exposures are those likeliest to trigger viral or contagious insecurity across or within borders and between or among peoples.”

WASN'T IT THE INTERNET THAT WAS BLAMED FIRST OF ALL FOR CLINTON'S LOSS IN THE ELECTION?

WASN'T IT "HACKERS, VIA THE INTERNET, WHOM THE DNC AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA BLAMED FOR THE REVEALED TRUTH OF THAT CAMPAIGN'S DIRTY TRICKS AND INTERNAL EMAILS THAT INSULTED JUST ABOUT EVERY GROUP OF PEOPLE IN AMERICA ...EXCEPT THE ELITE?

WASN'T IT THOSE EMAILS "GOING VIRAL" AND OUR ABILITY TO SEE THEM, PLUS THE "VIRAL VIDEOS" THAT SHOWED CLINTON IN FITS OF RAGE, HOW THE CLINTON TEAM WITH HELP FROM THE DNC SCREWED BERNIE SANDERS OUT OF THE NOMINATION, OR SHOWED CLINTON STRUGGLING WITH HER HEALTH THAT TURNED THE TIDE AGAINST CLINTON AND PUT TRUMP IN OFFICE?


LET ME SHOW YOU THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS INTERNET.

LET ME SHOW YOU WHY, FOR 100 YEARS AND MORE, THOSE WHO WOULD RULE OVER US HAVE BEEN DEATHLY AFRAID WE WOULD SOMEDAY HAVE THE ABILITY WE NOW HAVE TO SEE THE CHARADE, THE LIES, THE CONS, THE TREASON AND THE COLLUSION OF ALL THOSE ELECTED CRIMINALS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.

THE INSTITUTION OF A "TWO-PARTY SYSTEM" (OR 3 OR 100) WAS FOR ONE THING ONLY...TO DIVIDE THE NATION AND, USING THE ENSUING VIOLENCE BETWEEN THE FACTIONS, STRIP AMERICA AND AMERICANS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND OUR SOVEREIGNTY.
THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB OF THAT...WE'RE ALMOST THERE.


THE INTERNET OFFERS US INCREDIBLE KNOWLEDGE, AN INSIGHT INTO EVENTS AS THEY HAPPEN, CONTACT WITH OTHERS ALL ACROSS THE WORLD IN SECONDS.
IT IS TOO POWERFUL A TOOL FOR "COMMON MAN", SAID OUR MILITARY'S REPORT RECENTLY.

ONCE WE REALIZED WHAT WE HAD, A WAY AROUND THE SPOON-FED GARBAGE OFFERED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA (MSM), A WAY TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE SOURCES, EVEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GLOBE, AND SEE THE LIES, SEE THE TRUTH FOR OURSELVES, THE POWERS THAT BE PANICKED LIKE NEVER BEFORE.

EXAMINING THIS FACT, AND THE TERROR THAT TRUMP APPARENTLY STRIKES IN THE ROTTED HEARTS OF THE OWNERS OF THE "GREAT AMERICAN PROPAGANDA MACHINE", SOMETHING HE COULD RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC AT ANY MOMENT, MAYBE YOU WILL SEE WHY THOSE WHO DON'T WANT THAT KIND OF POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE "COMMON MAN", LOWLY US, WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE GOING TO DO ALL THEY CAN TO ROB US OF THIS TOOL WE HAVE THAT UNCOVERS THEIR SCHEMES AND THEIR LIES.

[I will TRY to refrain from ALL-CAPS but no promises.]


FORBES MAGAZINE ONLINE, DEC. 2, 2016
In an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor, Timothy Edgar, the academic director of law and policy at Brown University's Executive Master in Cybersecurity program wrote,

The view that the internet should be open, interoperable, and free from state censorship has been a pillar of American policy since the 1990s. Mr. Trump sharply departs from this establishment consensus. "We’re losing a lot of people because of the internet," he mused at a rally in South Carolina last year, referring to the online recruitment efforts of terrorist groups. "We have to talk ... about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some way."

If Trump decides to build a great firewall, he may not need Congress. Section 606 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides emergency powers to seize control of communications facilities if the president declares there is a "war or threat of war" or "a state of public peril." In 2010, a Senate report concluded that section 606 "gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down." With a stroke of a pen, Trump could invoke it.

If Trump wants to “close that internet up,” all he will need is an opinion from his Attorney General that section 606 gives him authority to do so, and that the threat of terrorism is compelling enough to override any First Amendment concerns. 

[WRONG, FORBES.
THAT AUTHORITY WAS HANDED TO EVERY PRESIDENT BEFORE , BEFORE COMPUTERS/INTERNET, SINCE 1934 TO CONTROL NEWS SOURCES AND COMMUNICATIONS.
(FEMA sprang forth from
the Federal Civil Defense Administration (FCDA) by President Harry S. Truman in 1950.)
EVER SINCE FEMA CAME TO BE, 1978-1979, FEDERAL LAW GIVES TOTAL CONTROL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSPORT COMPANIES, HIGHWAYS, PORTS, RIVERS, THE AIR SPACE OVER THE U.S., BANKS,
ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, ENERGY COMPANIES, EVERYTHING TO FEMA IN CASE OF "NATIONAL EMERGENCY".

FEMA CAN EVEN SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION AND SEND CONGRESS HOME FOR 6 FULL MONTHS, NO RECOURSE.

FEMA CAN, DID, AND WILL COMMANDEER THE INTERNET AND PHONE SERVICES FOR THEMSELVES, "IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY" OR NATURAL DISASTERS.

AS I WROTE IN AN OLDER ARTICLE ABOUT THE POWER FEMA WIELDS, IT WAS SUPPORTED BY EVERY ADMINISTRATION SINCE TRUMAN.

It was conceived during the Richard Nixon Administration, refined by President Jimmy Carter, then given teeth in the Ronald Reagan and George Bush Administrations.

NOT ONE DAMNED THING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT SHORT OF FULL-BLOWN REVOLUTION, BUT FEMA WILL ALSO CONTROL THE NATIONAL GUARD, WHILE MOST OF OUR ENLISTED MILITARY SERVES ABROAD.
WE'D BE LIKE THE OLD 'INDIANS', OUT-GUNNED.

THERE ARE SEVERAL FAIRLY RECENT INSTANCES IN WHICH BOTH INTERNET AND PHONE SERVICE WERE INTENTIONALLY DISRUPTED DURING PROTESTS AND SO-CALLED DISASTERS.]


In 2010, a Senate report concluded that section 606 "gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down."

Let's not forget Independent Party Senator Joseph Lieberman's 2010 attempt to create an "Internet kill switch" for the President.

The kill switch is associated with S.3480, The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act [PDF], which was co-sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), and Senator Tom Carper (D-DE). The bill, which was first introduced in June 2010, has come under fire for supposedly giving the President the ability to do what Egypt did last week–i.e. cut off the nation’s connection to the rest of the Internet during a time of crisis.

[MY NOTE: Actually, during the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya access to the Internet was denied in an effort to limit "peer networking" which protesters were using to organize resistance against those governments.

Looks like our 'Boyz on the Hill', our OWN government are afraid of the same thing HERE in America?]

Joe Lieberman was passionate about the president having the say-so for the kill switch.
In an interview on June 20, 2010, Lieberman said ,

"We need the capacity for the president to say, 'Internet service provider, we’ve got to disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from another foreign country'. Right now, China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war. We need to have that here, too."  

[THAT'S NICE, COMRADE LIEBERMAN.]

In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC’s power to impose “net neutrality” rules.   

ALSO IN 2016: Turkey introduced an internet kill switch law permitting authorities to "partially or entirely" suspend internet access due to wartime measures, national security or public order.    

THE UK HAS ADMITTEDLY HAD THIS ABILITY TO KILL THE INTERNET SINCE 2003.
In the United Kingdom, the Communications Act 2003 and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 allow the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to suspend Internet services, either by ordering Internet service providers to shut down operations or by closing Internet exchange points.

India frequently terminates internet connections in Kashmir and northeastern states.

SINCE ALL OF THE ABOVE NATIONS HAVE HAD AND USED THE TECHNOLOGY TO LIMIT OR SUSPEND THE INTERNET IN THEIR NATIONS, DARE WE IMAGINE THE U.S. DOES NOT HAVE THIS CAPABILITY?

OF COURSE WE DO!


AS WE'VE SEEN, BACK IN 2016, FORBES WAS ALMOST HYSTERICAL WHEN IT WROTE THE ARTICLE I QUOTED ABOVE WARNING THAT TRUMP COULD KILL THE INTERNET.

BUT IN 2013, WHISTLEBLOWER EDWARD SNOWDEN SAID THAT SWITCH WAS ALREADY THERE.
Snowden gave an interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald about his thoughts on his reasons behind whistleblowing and what what his experience in the NSA was like.

Greenwald: "Talk a little bit about how the American surveillance state actually functions. Does it target the actions of Americans?"

Snowden: "NSA and intelligence community in general is focused on getting intelligence wherever it can by any means possible. It believes, on the grounds of sort of a self-certification, that they serve the national interest. Originally we saw that focus very narrowly tailored as foreign intelligence gathered overseas."

"Now increasingly we see that it's happening domestically and to do that they, the NSA specifically, targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them and it analyses them and it measures them and it stores them for periods of time simply because that's the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends. So while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government or someone they suspect of terrorism, they're collecting you're communications to do so."

"Any analyst at any time can target anyone, any selector, anywhere. Where those communications will be picked up depends on the range of the sensor networks and the authorities that analyst is empowered with. Not all analysts have the ability to target everything. But I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a Federal judge to even the President if I had a personal e-mail."

Snowden: "The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. People will see in the media all of these disclosures. They'll know the lengths that the government is going to to grant themselves powers unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society. But they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests."

"And the months ahead, the years ahead, it's only going to get worse until eventually there will be a time where policies will change because the only thing that restricts the activities of the surveillance state are policy.

And because of that a new leader will be elected, they'll find the switch, say that 'Because of the crisis, because of the dangers we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power.' And there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny."  

I DON'T CARE IF YOU LOATHE SNOWDEN, TRUTH IS TRUTH, NO MATTER WHO TELLS IT.
NEVER HATE THE TRUTH BECAUSE OF WHO TELLS IT.     

The US Government Has an Internet Kill-switch — and It’s None of Your Business

[IN 2016],
the Supreme Court declined to hear a petition from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) that sought to force the Department of Homeland Security to release details of a secret “killswitch” protocol to shut down cellphone and Internet service during emergencies.

The American people are (once again) left in the dark regarding the inner-workings of another dangerous and intrusive government program.

EPIC has been fighting since 2011 to release the details of the program, which is known as Standard Operating Procedure 303.
EPIC writes, “On March 9, 2006, the National Communications System (‘NCS’) approved SOP 303, however it was never released to the public. This secret document codifies a ‘shutdown and restoration process for use by commercial and private wireless networks during national crisis.’” 

EPIC continues, “In a 2006-2007 Report, the President’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (‘NSTAC’) indicated that SOP 303 would be implemented under the coordination of the National Coordinating Center (‘NCC’) of the NSTAC, while the decision to shut down service would be made by state Homeland Security Advisors or individuals at DHS. The report indicates that NCC will determine if a shutdown is necessary based on a ‘series of questions.’”

Despite EPIC’s defeat at the hands of the Supreme Court, the four-year court battle yielded a heavily redacted copy of Standard Operating Procedure 303. 

The fight for transparency regarding SOP 303 began shortly after a Bay Area Rapid Transit (“BART”) officer in San Francisco shot and killed a homeless man named Charles Hill on July 3, 2011.

The shooting sparked massive protests against BART throughout July and August 2011. During one of these protests, BART officials cut off cell phone service inside four transit stations for three hours.

This kept anyone on the station platform from sending or receiving phone calls, messages, or other data.'

A MOTHER JONES ARTICLE FROM 2013:  

The Government’s Secret Plan to Shut Off Cellphones and the Internet, Explained 
"There are a few ways the federal government could exercise its power to shut down and restore internet and cellphone service... The government is explicitly authorized to target a “localized area”—such as a bridge—or potentially an “entire metropolitan area,” according to a recent Government Accountability Office report.
(Both DHS and the White House declined to comment for this article.)
[I]n Egypt, the government spent a lot of time prior to the anti-Mubarek protests making sure all of the nation’s internet service providers ran through a single entryway, so that it could easily shut things off. China is working on nationalized routing. 

Harold Feld, vice president at Public Knowledge, an advocacy group focused on communications and technology policy, says that big internet companies still control a large portion of [internet] subscribers in the United States, and if the top 10 service providers cooperated with the government, “you could shut things down fairly easily.”

“I find it hard to imagine why an internet kill switch would ever be a good idea, short of some science fiction scenario wherein the network comes alive a la Terminator/Skynet,” Feld says. “At this point, so much of our critical infrastructure runs on the internet that a ‘kill switch’ would do more harm than anything short of a nuclear strike. it would be like cutting off our own head to escape someone pulling our hair.”

The same argument applies to smothering cellphone service.
“The benefit of people being able to communicate on their cellphones in times of crisis is enormous, and cutting that off is in and of itself potentially very dangerous,” argues Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.  

Is it legal for the Obama administration to activate a kill switch?
Yep, and kill switches aren’t new.
In 1918, a congressional joint resolution authorized the president to assume control of US telegraph systems, in order to operate them during World War I.
Then, in 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Communications Act, which decreed, “Upon proclamation by the President that there exists war or a threat of war, or a state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency, or in order to preserve the neutrality of the United States, the President, if he deems it necessary in the interest of national security or defense, may suspend or amend” both wireless radio and phone services, which means it’s not clear whether this could apply to internet service (although the Federal Communications Commission has used that argument before, when deregulating internet service over telephone lines in 2005).

What is clear is that in 2006, the Bush administration entered into a secret agreement with telecom giants and came up with a specific plan as to when and how the government can actually shut down these networks—called Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 303.
And in 2012, President Obama reaffirmed that DHS could seize private facilities and shut down communications, in a July executive order

THERE WAS A KILL SWITCH ON CELL PHONE SERVICE 12 YEARS AGO, FOR SURE.
In 2005, shortly after suicide bombers attacked the London tube, federal authorities disabled cell networks in four major New York tunnels. The action was reportedly taken to prevent bomb detonation via cellphone, and according to a National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee review, it “was undertaken without prior notice to wireless carriers or the public.” 

In 2009, during Obama’s inauguration, the feds used devices that blocked cellphones from receiving signals to prevent bomb detonation. In 2011, officials for the San Francisco transit system cut off cellphone service in four Bay Area Rapid Transit stations for several hours to preempt a planned protest over BART police fatally shooting a homeless man.

What are the constitutional problems of a kill switch?
Civil liberties advocates argue that kill switches violate the First Amendment and pose a problem because they aren’t subject to rigorous judicial and congressional oversight. “There is no court in the loop at all, at any stage in the SOP 303 process,” according to the Center for Democracy and Technology.
“The Executive Branch, untethered by the checks and balances of court oversight, clear instruction from Congress, or transparency to the public, is free to act as it will and in secret.”

David Jacobs of EPIC says, “Cutting off communications imposes a prior restraint on speech, so the First Amendment imposes the strictest of limitations…We don’t know how DHS thinks [the kill switch] is consistent with the First Amendment.” He adds, “Such a policy, unbounded by clear rules and oversight, just invites abuse.”

What don’t we know about the kill switch plan?
A lot.
We don’t know the “series of questions” that help DHS determine whether it should activate a kill switch, how DHS will go about implementing the kill switch, how long a shutdown will last, and what the oversight protocols are.
For example, Jacobs from EPIC says that, it appears that “DHS wouldn’t have to call up the president to implement this, he would be involved in the same indirect way that he is with all kinds of executive branch actions.”
This information was requested in the FOIA lawsuit filed by (EPIC) and could be revealed as early as December. “Hopefully exposure of such a lunatic idea will allow the public to beat some common sense into these agencies,” says Feld.

AND, AS WE SAW ABOVE, EPIC WAS HANDED SUCH A HEAVILY REDACTED, FRAGMENTED PIECE OF THIS THING THAT IT IS BASICALLY WORTHLESS EXCEPT TO LET US KNOW A KILL SWITCH EXISTS FOR CELL PHONE SERVICE.    

2016, PROTESTERS IN OREGON HAD BOTH CELL PHONE AND INTERNET SERVICE "KILLED".

It is possible that the government may have used the internet kill switch again, during the standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in 2016.

On Sunday, January 31st, 2016, Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) interviewed David Fry, one of four remaining occupiers at the time, who told OPB that, “the FBI made it so the occupiers can’t make outgoing calls on their cellphones,” and that only his cell phone, “can receive incoming calls, but that the other three in the refuge appear unable to receive calls on their cellphones.”
The occupiers also told OPB that they had lost access to the internet.

According to TheCount.com, “Supporters who attempt to call Fry end up reaching the FBI instead.”

More recently the cellular internet killswitch may have been engaged during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests at Standing Rock in North Dakota. 

In one video posted to Facebook in early December 2016 by anti-DAPL activist Josh Long, phones are shown being shutoff, one phone is shown going from fully charged to a drained battery state, and another phone that was halfway charged then became drained as well. Some protesters claim their phone’s GPS function was switched on while at the protest.

Other protesters reported the tell-tale signs of an IMSI catcher being in the area, such as a change in signal strength, or the network being degraded from LTE to 2G. Others claimed their phones had malware installed on them while at Standing Rock. 

The North Dakota Air National Guard does have a General Atomics MQ-1 Predator drone stationed at it’s base in Fargo, North Dakota.
The Predator drone can be loaded with equipment to surveil and jam cellular signals, The Intercept has a list of PGL Payloads that can be placed on a Predator drone.
Some aircraft flying over Standing Rock have been using fake tail numbers, including one that was identified as a private helicopter being flown to support law enforcement efforts. It is possible DRT boxes may have been aboard these aircraft. 

Non-profit organizations and even a federal agency are investigating the possible illegal use of IMSI catchers at Standing Rock.
The National Lawyers Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a federal Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request and a state Open Records Request on October 20th, 2016 to investigate the use of unconstitutional surveillance.  

John Wathen, a photojournalist who was at Standing Rock, told the Huffington Post that he had been interviewed by an investigator from the FCC and that, “The FCC has opened an investigation into the use of “Stingray” technology against Water Protectors.”

The Internet Was Just Taken Over by a Global Monopoly, And No One Even Noticed

The U.S. fulfilled its objective to “privatize” the Internet. September, 2016  
Some U.S. lawmakers felt giving up oversight could permit less scrupulous regimes to seize total or partial control of vital Internet function — with potentially disastrous results.

The Chicago Tribune quoted Ted Cruz: “President Obama intends to give increased control of the Internet to authoritarian regimes like China, Russia, and Iran. Like Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal, Obama is giving away the Internet.”

And as The Economist noted, whoever controls the Internet’s “address book” also holds the power to censor — any domain name can be revoked and the website no longer found.
Critics have also noted the eagerness of proponents of the transition as an indicator ceding control should be considered more carefully — or at least delayed significantly to give the American public some say in the matter."

'PREVENT INTERNET PRIVACY FOR 'COMMON CITIZENS' AT ANY COST.'

THIS REALLY BACKFIRED ON CLINTON, DIDN'T IT, WHEN WHAT SHE THOUGHT WAS PRIVATE TURNED OUT TO BE A 'VIRAL SENSATION' THANKS TO WIKILEAKS.   


December 20, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s response to a question about the power of high technology to ensure privacy.

Blasting “encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into,” Clinton said, “I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project...

Tech companies like Apple have resisted calls to place a “backdoor” in encryption technology that would allow governments to peek at private communications, arguing that such a backdoor could equally be exploited by hackers and render the privacy protections useless.

“Maybe the backdoor is the wrong door, and I understand what Apple and others are saying about that,” Clinton said, insisting nonetheless that a door was necessary: “I know that law enforcement needs the tools to keep us safe.”  

Aaaaaaaaand Hillary just terrified everyone with an internet connection. #DemDebate

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) December 20, 2015


That is when the tech giants started stepping in, because if the media could no longer control the masses with their propaganda, tech giants like Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (owned by Google), and others, could damn well control what was and wasn't seen on the Internet.
Facebook framed it as a battling "fake news" on their platform, after denying that "fake" stories had any impact.

Twitter started censoring and shadow-banning conservative voices from sharing content, claiming certain content was "sensitive content."

YouTube started flagging channels on restricted mode, start demonetizing videos with claims of fighting "extremism."


Google, the largest search engine on the net, has started making sure the "results" found during searches were their preferred narrative versus items that actually ranked higher, providing higher ranking (seen on the 1st page of their search results) to leftist sites
like Snopes, Wikipedia, and the mainstream media , with few exceptions.
The difference between searches on Google and the results found, compared to DuckDuckGo, is amazing.


THE EFFECTS OF THIS COORDINATED CAMPAIGN CAN BE SEEN IN THE NUMBERS
Independent Media website owners can tell readers all day long how this has effected not just traffic but revenue as the MSM, and now the tech giants, have all started waging war on Independent Media, but seeing is believing, so we conducted an experiment using Alexa, which is a site that analyzes website traffic and statistics, and the results, seen in graphs, for a large number of Independent Media sites, provides indisputable proof of how effective their coordinated campaign has been.

“Google has an 88 percent market share in search advertising, Facebook (and its subsidiaries Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger) owns 77 percent of mobile social traffic and Amazon has a 74 percent share in the e-book market,” University of Southern California Annenberg Innovation Lab director emeritus Jonathan Taplin wrote in an April 22 op-ed in the New York Times.

“In classic economic terms, all three are monopolies.” 

High-profile journalist Glenn Greenwald, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on National Security Agency spying on Americans (revealed in leaks by Edward Snowden) tweeted April 22 that a discussion on the tech firms’ market domination was “way overdue.”

“The unrestrained power amassed by the Silicon Valley monopolies is staggering,” Greenwald tweeted.

Greenwald is not the only one that has suggested this, as top White House adviser Steve Bannon, has also been arguing for it and the question of breaking up Google was even argued at the liberal NYT.
May be the first (and last!) time in history that Steve Bannon and any writer at the NYT actually agree on anything.

THE BATTLE FOR THE INTERNET

Most people in this country have access to at most two broadband providers. This lack of competition gives those providers control over consumers’ access to internet services and content – as well as internet companies’ access to those same consumers.

Most broadband providers are also cable and telephone suppliers and offer services that compete with those internet companies. For example, Netflix competes with cable companies’ various programming offerings, such as on-demand programming and streaming video services. There is an obvious incentive for the broadband provider to degrade or block Netflix service. Alternatively, the provider could extract additional payment not to do so.

Major sections of the FCC’s first network neutrality rules were struck down last year by a federal court of appeals. The key issue was not the wisdom of the rules, adopted in 2010, but the authority of the FCC to implement them. 

The FCC had classified broadband providers as “information services” rather than “telecommunications services.” 

Information services are subject to limited regulation.

In contrast, telecommunication services are subject to substantial regulation under Title II of the Communications Act.

There is also the possibility that Congress may step in and pass net neutrality regulation limiting the FCC’s authority to impose its own rules or creating a different set of them.
In general, Democrats, who are the majority on the FCC, favor net neutrality, while Republicans, the majority in both houses of Congress, oppose it.  


The FCC is forced to regulate 21st-century technology with 20th-century law. The last major rewrite of the Communications Act was pre-broadband, long before Facebook and YouTube even existed. Even Google was a year away. The long-term solution is a complete rewrite of the Communications Act, but that appears unlikely anytime soon.

AS ALWAYS, THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN AND THE SITUATION AMERICANS ARE IN TODAY WAS FORESEEN AND WRITTEN ABOUT ALMOST 50 YEARS AGO BY A VERY DANGEROUS MAN.
THE SURVEILLANCE STATE, THE CONTROL OF ALL WE CAN FIND AND READ OR SEE FOR OURSELVES, INDEPENDENTLY, WAS 'PREDICTED', IF NOT PLANNED, IN 1968 AND 1970.


The inspiration for [David] Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission was Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1970 book, 'Between Two Ages'.

Here is a short look at what Brzezinski actually wrote:

"Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control." (Between Two Ages, pp.252-253).

The second source, less well known, is a Brzezinski article “America in the Technetronic Age”, that appeared in the now defunct journal Encounter (January 1968).

What Brzezinski wrote, over forty years ago, is this:

"At the same time, the capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase. As I have already noted, it will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen, in addition to more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities." (p.21). 

Brzezinski seemed to believe the “long-range effect” of the “transition and its turmoils” he was documenting would be to “deepen and widen the scope of the democratic process in America” (Between Two Ages, p.265).

ALSO FROM THAT SAME BOOK:


"Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites … [Whose] ties cut across national boundaries … It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook …(p.59) The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty …(p.56) [F]urther progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position." (p.300).

GOOD CALL, O GLOBALIST TOOL. INSIDER INFORMATION, WAS IT? 

TAKING DOWN THE INTERNET WOULD CREATE AN ECONOMIC NIGHTMARE AS THE FOLLOWING PDF SHOWS.
BUT WHAT'S A LOT OF MONEY LOST COMPARED TO CONTROL OF THE MASSES, RIGHT?

(PDF) Dainotti et al., Analysis of Country-wide Internet Outages Caused by Censorship, ACM, 2011

THERE ARE SEVERAL PDFs ABOUT DETECTING THE KILL SWITCH ONCE IT'S INITIATED AND THE SOMEWHAT HOPELESSNESS OF BEING ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT <HERE>. 
IT'S A LOT OF READING AND IT ISN'T PLEASANT.

WE'LL ALL JUST AWAKEN ONE DAY, GO TO THESE COMPUTERS, TURN ON AND FIND....NOTHING...IT WILL JUST BE GONE.

THE IDIOTS RIOTING ALL OVER THE NATION AND TRYING TO KILL ONE ANOTHER ARE JUST BRINGING IT ABOUT FASTER THAN WE MIGHT HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN HAD WE NOT BECOME A NATION OF HATERS WHO HATE HATERS WHO HATE ....WELL, YOU KNOW....

TOUGH TIMES AHEAD, PEOPLE OF EARTH.
ALL THE BEST.









_____________________

BTW....SO THAT WE WHO HAVE INTERNET ACCESS AND HAVE WIKILEAKS ON THE INTERNET DON'T FIND MORE THAN WE "SHOULD", A GREAT PURGE OF DIGITAL RECORDS IS UNDERWAY TO KEEP SECRET MANY, MANY THINGS...


Edward Snowden‏Verified account @Snowden
Jul 18

"The CIA plans to destroy the records of its investigations into journalism it didn't like."

https://t.co/bLoNPnn2SS



DELETE FILES REGARDING AMERICAN WAR CRIMES...PROTECT LBJ, REAGAN, BUSH JUNIOR, OBAMA, ET AL..

Tillerson to Shutter State Department War Crimes Office

Critics charge top U.S. diplomat with giving the green light to perpetrators of mass atrocities.

Tillerson is downgrading the U.S. campaign against mass atrocities, shuttering the Foggy Bottom office that worked for two decades to hold war criminals accountable, according to several former U.S. officials.

EPA FILES....GOING, GOING, GONE. MUSTN'T HAVE CLIMATE CHANGE EVIDENCE.

ERASING HISTORY IS A PURELY MARXIST GOAL.
LOOK AT WHAT COMMUNISTS DO, WHAT ISIS IS CURRENTLY DOING...ERASE HISTORY.
THAT WAY NO ONE CAN LOOK BACK ON A TIME WHEN THE WHOLE WORLD WASN'T WHAT THE NEW MASTERS WANT IT TO BE.








//WW