Ex-CIA Agent Explains How Bloggers Can "Dump Congress On Its Ass"

Robert D. Steele, gives credence to all who speak out against our illegal government. As more and more ex-employees come out with what the REAL mission of our government is, the truth shall come to light and the truth shall set us free..

Wake Up America!

American Patriot Raided by SWAT Under Patriot Act (Video)

Walter Reddy, the founder of the modern Committees of Safety, joins Gary Franchi for a special interview to recount the recent SWAT Team raid on his home. You'll never see this on the mainstream news.

Wake Up Americans! This could just as easily happen to you!! 

Note: Committees of Safety is a non-partisan, grass-roots advocacy organization active throughout the 50 United States. Its purpose is to exercise the freedoms of speech, association, and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in order to educate Americans about, and mobilize them for political action around, the fundamental principles of liberty and self-government set out in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

To see their website, click here

New York Man Faces Five Years In Jail For ‘Linking’ To Online Videos

Why in the hell are Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agencies meddling with copyright affairs on internet domains? Here's a little secret...shhhhh don't tell anyone. The government wants to control the web. Simple as that!

Wake Up America! Your rights are being stomped on!

 

You may want to think twice the next time you share a link to your favorite video.

In a case against a New York website owner, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is claiming that merely linking to copyrighted material is a crime.

DHS, along with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), seized Brian McCarthy's domain, channelsurfing.net, in late January. The site has now been replaced with a government warning: "This domain has been seized by ICE - Homeland Security Investigations, Special Agent in Charge, New York Office."

"It is unlawful to reproduce copyrighted material, such as movies, music, software or games, without authorization... First-time offenders convicted of a criminal felony copyright law will face up to five years in federal prison, restitution, forfeiture and fine."

The advocacy group Demand Progress has claimed that McCarthy never reproduced copyrighted material, and that his website simply linked to other sites.

A criminal complaint obtained by the group seems to acknowledge that agents knew that McCarthy was running a "linking website."

"Based on my participation in the investigation leading to the February 2011 Seizure, I know that Channelsurfing.net was a 'linking' website," special agent Daniel Brazier wrote in the complaint.

"Based on my training and experience, I know that 'linking' websites generally collect and catalog links to files on third party websites that contain illegal copies of copyrighted content, including sporting events and Pay-Per-View events," he added.

The special agent detailed 17 copyrighted sports programs he was able to watch when he "clicked on links" at channelsurfing.net.

While the criminal complaint alleges that McCarthy did engage in the "reproduction and distribution" of copyrighted material, it is never clear that he actually reproduced any of the specified broadcasts.

"Under that sort of thinking, everyone who's sent around a link to a copyrighted YouTube video is a criminal," Demand Progress warned, calling the prosecution a "radical shift" in the way the government polices the Internet.

The Phoenix Independent Examiner's Chris Greenwood expressed concern about what the case meant for freedom of expression on the Internet.

"You see, when you shut down the last truly free medium that absolutely anyone can use to call for justice, freedom, or democracy where they don’t exist, you leave the communication to the wealthy, who can afford the ad space in print media and air time on television and radio," he wrote.

"Bryan McCarthy is being used as an example," Greenwood added. "Someone who possesses no copyright material, broadcasts no copyrighted material and duplicates no copyrighted material is being held by authorities because he has a site that indicates to people that there are people who are possessing, duplicating and reproducing potentially copyrighted material for others to watch."

To see the full government complaint, click here

Article by David Edwards, The Raw Story

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Parents Of Vaccine Damaged Children Their Right To Seek Justice

In 6-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a decision that bars parents of vaccine-damaged children from seeking justice against vaccine manufacturers. The parents, Robalee and Russell Bruesewitz of Pittsburgh, saw their healthy child damaged by a diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine in April, 1992. Just hours after receiving the shot, their daughter Hannah went into seizures. Today she still suffers from residual seizure disorder. 

The parents sought compensation by first filing their case with the vaccine court -- a special pseudo-justice system set up by the U.S. government to provide blanket immunity to the drug companies while still offering settlement payouts for parents whose children are damaged by vaccines. Since being formed in 1986, this court has paid out $1.9 billion to parents whose children were damaged by vaccines.

But in the case of Bruesewitz, their claim was denied. The vaccine court, after all, is run by the U.S. government, and the government doesn't want too many payouts to take place because that would set a precedent of vaccine damage that could cost the government billions (or even trillions) of dollars in unexpected settlement fees.

So the Bruesewitz parents decided to file their claim in the regular court system as their last remaining option for seeking justice for the damage caused to their child by what can only be called a "faulty product" (the vaccine).

The great injustice of legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers

It is interesting that most people agree with the idea that when corporations make dangerous products that harm or kill children, they should be held accountable. Makers of baby strollers or infant formula, for example, are not granted immunity from lawsuits. Nor are makers of automobile child restraint seats or baby cribs. In every case other than vaccines, corporations are held accountable for the safety of their products. But like magic, when it comes to vaccines, safety is not their concern because they have zero liability anyway.

The liability, it turns out, has been shifted to the federal government which operates its "let's-make-a-mockery-of-justice" vaccine court. This puts the federal government in the position of denying any validity to legitimate claims that vaccines harm children, because to admit such a thing would cause a tidal wave of claims to come flooding into the vaccine court, resulting in potentially trillions of dollars in payouts to all the parents whose children have been harmed by vaccines.

What we have here, folks, is a genuine circle-the-wagons, cover-your-eyes, deny-the-truth cover-up involving Big Government and Big Pharma operating "in cahoots." The government gives the vaccine industry blanket immunity, then they both join hands in denying that vaccines cause any damage whatsoever.

The parents, meanwhile, are denied their Constitutional right to due process! Such is the upshot of today's Supreme Court decision, which has now condemned countless more children to suffer the seizures, comas and deaths caused by vaccines -- even while their parents will have no legitimate legal recourse.

That's why this situation is not only a travesty of public health but also a travesty of justice.

Vaccines are medical violence against children

The vaccine industry is killing children. It is maiming them, destroying their nervous systems and causing permanent harm. These are acts of medical violence committed against children. Even the vaccine court admits this link through its own cash payouts to parents of damaged (or dead) children.
And yet, the U.S. government continues to endorse these acts of violence against children. It even goes so far as to excuse them by providing immunity to the corporations those products harm these children.
 
It doesn't take a genius to realize that this blanket immunity takes away any incentive of safety from the vaccine manufacturers. With no liability, what motivation do they have to improve the safety of their products? They have none. No wonder vaccines continue to be so dangerous, manufactured with mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde among other neurotoxic ingredients.
 
This entire situation is nothing less than extraordinary. The vaccine industry gets blanket immunity. The government denies parents their Constitutional right to due process. The children continue to be harmed and killed by vaccines, and yet the parents have no means by which they can seek justice.

This is entirely un-America. It is a violation of the Constitution, a violation of justice and of course a violation of the health of our children.

This is, effectively, an act of state-sponsored medical terrorism against parents and children.And it begs the question: When parents are denied due process; denied their Constitutional rights; denied their day in court and denied compensation for the harm that has been brought upon their children, what options of recourse do they have left?
Those denied justice through the courts will seek it in other ways

This is where acts of violence will no doubt enter the picture. Violence is the last, desperate option for those who have been denied all other options to resolve their grievances peacefully. When the courts, the government and the corporations have conspired against you to harm your children and then deny you any legal recourse, it is only a matter of time before some parent of a vaccine-damaged child decides to take matters into their own hands through acts of violence committed against those who damaged their children.

Do not misinterpret this as an endorse of such actions. NaturalNews has consistently and repeatedly decried the use of violence to resolve problems. Yet we cannot deny that in this legal / pharma / government conspiracy that causes children to be harmed while denying parents any legitimate legal recourse, it is inevitable that angry, disenfranchised parents will sooner or later reach a boiling point and decide to pursue justice in the only way left available to them.

Vaccines, after all, are a form of medical violence against children. It is unreasonable for the state to maintain the position that it can support a system of violence against children without fomenting violence as a reaction.

The source of the violence is, of course, the state itself, which is now even engaged in efforts to strip away  religious exemption.

The vaccine industry declares war on America's children

This is, as I mentioned earlier, an act of war against America's children. Every war sooner or later spurs the rise of a resistance. And today, the vaccine resistance movement is growing by leaps and bounds, with more and more parents, doctors, and even scientists joining it every day. Every death of a child by vaccines is blood on the hands of the vaccine pushers and the government which now openly conspires with it.
In an age when the government actively conspires to harm and even kill your children through a system of medical violence, parents not only have the natural right -- but the duty -- to take active measures to protect their children from further harm.

The uprising against the vaccine state

If this issue of the state enforcing acts of medical violence against children cannot be resolved through the Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process, it will sadly and inevitably be resolved through acts of popular uprising. That is the lesson being learned today all over the world: In Egypt, Libya, Iran and even Wisconsin.
When the People are suppressed, with their children are maimed by the state, when their rights are denied by the courts, and when they feel as if they have no options remaining to them, they will sooner or later take to the streets with sticks, or stones, or bullets. One way or another, they will seek the justice that has been denied them by the corrupt state, operating in a criminal conspiracy with the vaccine industry.

Article by Natural News

Obama Plans to Nationalize Wireless Internet.... Shades of Mubarak and Gadhafi?

In what amounts to the next initiative undertaken by the Obama administration toward its escalating program of government expansion and nationalization of various aspects of the lives of the American people (such as the government takeover of health care, intervention in banks, and the nationalization of various automobile companies such as General Motors), the federal government is now embarking upon a program of government-directed wireless internet (Wi-Fi) delivery.

President Obama outlined his plan for government wireless access and broadband expansion at a February 10 press conference at Northern Michigan University in Marquette, Michigan. The conference revealed yet another well-known truth about the proposal, characteristic of any other initiatives which believe that government is capable of expanding access to any commodities: It is rooted in his Quixotic, insolvent, debunked, and expansionist view of government, and in his failure to realize the proper relation of government to the myriad possibilities made possible by the free market, in a more efficient and capable manner. The Wi-Fi expansion proposal not only reflects an unconstitutional view of government spending and scope, but is also a continuation of Franklin Delano Roosevelt-style economics, which failed the country at the height of the Great Depression and continue to contribute to the national deficit and economic woes.

Obama’s speech was reminiscent of FDR’s numerous addresses given to rural farmers and laborers during the era of the New Deal, relying on flawed Keynesian notions that increased government spending is an effective means of stimulating economic development and reducing budget deficits, despite the fact that such government programs and the implementation of Keynesian economics in the Nixon years have led the United States down a path of valueless, inflated fiat currency and unbalanced budgets for close to 40 years.

The New York Times reports:

“This isn’t just about a faster Internet or being able to find a friend on Facebook,” Mr. Obama said in a speech at Northern Michigan University here, after viewing a demonstration on long-distance learning over the Internet.

“It’s about connecting every corner of America to the digital age,” the president said. “It’s about a rural community in Iowa or Alabama where farmers can monitor weather across the state and markets across the globe. It’s about an entrepreneur on Main Street with a great idea she hopes to sell to the big city. It’s about every young person who no longer has to leave his hometown to seek new opportunity — because opportunity is right there at his or her fingertips.”

Indeed, as noted by Henry Payne in the National Review, and precisely debunking Obama’s view that the federal government is needed to develop wireless Internet infrastructure throughout the country, the successful Marquette wireless Internet program Obama lauds was made possible not with one cent of federal funding, but as a model program through the collaborative effort of the local government (which is constitutionally permitted to provide such programs) and private enterprise (tech giants Intel, Motorola, Cisco, and Lenovo provided the local government with matching funds, and supplied the university with the prototype for its WiMAX broadband technology). The White House’s proposal mirrors FDR’s massive Rural Electrification Administration program of the 1930s, which provided federally-funded loans for the installation of electrical distribution systems to serve rural areas, and was later amended in 1949 to provide federal funding for the expansion of telephone service to rural areas, as part of President Harry Truman’s Fair Deal.

It is even being touted as part of Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as the stimulus, and millions of dollars in funding for Obama’s wireless Internet program has already been appropriated through the provisions of the legislation. As early as September 2010, the government website http://www.recovery.gov, which was created as a resource to highlight where taxpayer funds are being used as part of the stimulus program, touted the supposed economic benefits of government-financed Wi-Fi. Furthermore, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke praised increased Wi-Fi as an effective means of achieving a more globalized America, in which information access “shrinks the world” by reducing barriers among nations and peoples. Commerce.gov reported:

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke today announced 14 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act investments to help bridge the technological divide, create jobs, and improve education and public safety in communities across the country. The investments, totaling $206.8 million in grants, are the final awards in a program to increase broadband Internet access and adoption, enhancing the quality of life for Americans and laying the groundwork for sustainable economic growth.

“In a globalized 21st century economy, when you don’t have regular access to high-speed Internet, you don’t have access to all the educational, business and employment opportunities it provides,” Locke said. “These critical Recovery Act investments will create jobs and lay the groundwork for long-term sustainable economic growth in communities across America.”

“In total, we are investing in 233 strong projects that reach every state. Most are ‘middle mile’ networks that expand high-speed Internet availability to communities and connect key institutions, such as schools, libraries, and hospitals. This focus allows us to get the biggest bang for every grant dollar by addressing communities’ broadband problems while creating jobs and facilitating sustainable economic growth,” Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling said. “We are also investing in public computer centers and training to help more Americans compete better in today’s workforce.”

According to the Department of Commerce, $7 billion in funds are being used toward the development of rural Wi-Fi, under the administration of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service, the latter the same agency which implemented the New Deal and Fair Deal programs of rural electrification and telephone service expansion. NTIA is utilizing approximately $4 billion of that funding for the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), which provides grants to support the deployment of broadband infrastructure, enhance and expand public computer centers, and encourage sustainable adoption of broadband service.

Stimulus funds are being spent toward 233 BTOP projects, which the Department of Commerce says will:

• Fund the installation or upgrade of approximately 120,000 miles of broadband networks, including fiber-optics, wireless, microwave, and other technologies. Of this amount, approximately 70,000 miles involve construction of new broadband facilities.
• Provide broadband access to approximately 24,000 community anchor institutions, including schools, libraries, government offices, health care facilities, and public safety entities
• Deploy middle mile infrastructure in areas with nearly 40 million households and 4 million businesses, many of which will benefit from new or improved broadband service provided by last-mile providers that are able to utilize the new, open infrastructure to extend or upgrade their service for consumer and business customers.
• Invest in more than 3,500 new or upgraded public computer centers in libraries, schools, community centers and other public locations.
• Invest in more than 35,000 new or upgraded public computer workstations.
• Make public computer center workstations and training available to more than 1 million new users

As early as May 2009, special interests connected with the wireless internet industry looked at the stimulus as a windfall. 
According to Stan Schatt, vice president of the market intelligence company ABI Research, the Recovery Act represents a windfall for wireless service providers as well as for satellite service providers, and it will have an enormous impact on Wi-Fi and wireless broadband vendors. In addition to the program empowering tech giants, it will also serve to further inflate big government spending and create new programs, as the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Education, and the healthcare industry each are poised to benefit, as reported in The Register:

The healthcare biz will be itching to add or improve Wi-Fi-enabled mobile devices, sensors, and communications systems that will link health networks with the stimulus money, the report claims.

Meanwhile, the education market will want "learning anywhere" equipment that requires purchasing VoIP and WLAN equipment and software to track students' progress for No Child Left Behind record keeping.

But the real money is in selling wireless equipment to the Department of Homeland Security and US Customs and Border Protection, the report asserts. The agencies represent a "potential goldmine" to kit providers, as the government itself will be taking a generous portion of the stimulus money for tactical communications equipment, infrastructure equipment, and security equipment. Even critical infrastructure construction projects such as bridges and tunnels often require wireless video surveillance systems.

In typical Orwellian double-speak, Obama’s proposal was touted as an “investment,” rather than spending that the federal government cannot afford, and according to the White House, the spending will reduce the deficit by $9.6 billion over the next 10 years, as the government will consider auctioning off its portion of the wireless spectrum to private companies, which can result in government gaining as much as $28 billion in revenue from the sales. (This is a direct application of economist John Maynard Keynes’ Theory of Countercyclical Spending — that government should take an active economic role by imposing policies that run counter to market trends by engaging in fiscal stimulus, or deficit spending, as a means of staving off massive unemployment):

The President’s proposals to auction off spectrum freed up from the government and voluntarily relinquished by current commercial users, is estimated to raise $27.8 billion. This total is above-and-beyond the auction proceeds that are used to provide an incentive for private and government users as well as the auction proceeds that are expected even absent the President’s proposal. After the cost of the investments proposed by the President, the initiative would reduce the deficit by $9.6 billion over the next decade.

In fact, many of the industries which Obama hopes will help deflect the cost off of taxpayers have been less than enthusiastic about this proposal. Experts say that the plan is overly ambitious and complicated, relying heavily on the participation of cautious television broadcasters who are loath to easily give up their greatest asset — the wireless broadband spectrum. Government estimates don't include how much money it would return to broadcasters who give up airwaves in voluntary "incentive auctions." Those television broadcasters will get a cut of the proceeds, the administration has promised, though it hasn't offered more details; broadcasters want more guarantees auctions will be voluntary, and they are searching for details on how much they would receive from the auctions. Those details, however, are crucial for broadcasters, said Gordon Smith, president of the National Association of Broadcasters."We aren't against the plan but want to make sure this is truly voluntary, and we want to hold harmless those who don't want to participate," Smith said, as reported in The Washington Post.

In addition, advocates for Internet competitiveness and choice in the digital marketplace fear that Obama’s proposal may adversely affect both the taxpayer and the integrity of the technological free market. Gigi Sohn, president of the public interest group Public Knowledge, said that while federal attention to mobile broadband technology was a positive development in her view, “It is not at all clear that incentive auctions will take place. Even under circumstances of familiar auction procedures, estimates of revenue can vary greatly from what is actually achieved." Sohn and many lawmakers also pointed to a questionable track record for federal programs to expand broadband connections. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said that “Before we target any more of our scarce taxpayer dollars for broadband, it is critical to examine whether the money already being spent is having an impact, as well as how we can minimize waste, fraud and abuse.”

While there is no direct benefit anticipated for the taxpayer, manufacturers of consumer electronics such as the iPhone and Netbook are hailing the plan, which was met with approval by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), one of the largest technology trade associations in the world.

Article by Daniel Sayani, The New American

ENOUGH! Our Government Needs to Stop Trying to Protect Us

This little piece by John Stossel may seem good natured on the surface, but you need to read between the lines to catch the full impact. Your government is not trying to protect you, it is trying to control you. Wake up Americans! You are not sheep. You are citizens! Act like it!

I feel so much safer now knowing that politicians like Jimmy Jeffress want to protect me!

Doctors ask about your family history because it’s one of the best predictors of what will bring your demise. My family history? Being hit by public transportation while distracted. My grandfather was killed by a bus when he was crossing the street while reading. I was hit by a taxi when jaywalking.

Arkansas State Senator Jimmy Jeffress proposed to “make it illegal for you to wear headphones in both ears if you're working out or walking on or near a street.”

He’s not alone. New York City wants to ban texting while crossing the street.

I feel safer already.

[NOT!] No. I don’t. And I feel less free. What’s next: no walking and chewing gum because some Americans can't?
The foolish legislator may have been inspired by this video of a woman falling into a fountain. It’s been viewed millions of times.

Trying to change such behaviors with legislation is pointless and intrusive. So are laws banning texting and using cell phones when driving. Those proposals are more compelling because distracted drivers do kill lots of people. But the laws don’t work. In fact, the laws may even lead to more accidents.

People do all kinds things while driving. They eat, fix their hair, put on lipstick, light cigarettes, and we even saw someone curling their eyelashes. If we must always drive with two hands on the wheel, should we outlaw picking your nose? Just putting on my sunglasses or drinking a sip of coffee takes a hand of the wheel. The radio is a big distraction problem; I'm constantly distracted trying to push the tiny buttons to avoid commercials.

In many states, the proposed laws call for hands-free devices like earpieces, but have you ever tried to put on one of those ear-pieces while driving? That's more of a distraction than the cell phone.

What one person may find to be a distraction may be an easily integrated invention for another. Carmakers keep bringing us new gadgets like navigation systems. While some of these new features may be distracting, we adjust to them. 

Why try to idiot-proof the world by banning new technology?
Just because something is wrong or dangerous doesn’t mean that banning it will solve the problem. Texting is just one of many activities that distract drivers. If I’m not texting, I’m eating, smoking, changing the radio station, trying to figure out the GPS, or simply talking to another passenger. All of these actions take our attention off the road; should they all be banned too? Maybe we are just getting better at multi-tasking? 

If outlawing cell phones didn’t decrease the number of traffic related deaths, and banning texting doesn’t seem to either, why don’t they just leave us alone. Of course, maybe these laws are passed not just to prevent accidents, but to generate tickets that provide funds for governments.

Fortunately, Arkansas’ Jimmy Jeffress has had second thoughts. This afternoon he dropped his proposal.


Article by John Stossel, Fox News