Really?
http://blogs.computerworld.com/14627/obamas_emergency_powers_over_internet_cybersecurity_bill_s_773?source=CTWNLE_nlt_networking_2009-08-31
Eh... there's probably loads of legalese that would need to be ironed out to keep this in check, but I'm perfectly fine with the president being allowed to rapidly respond to DDOS attacks and other potentially catastrophic attacks. While as a whole, the government doesn't have a great track record with security, keep in mind that it's *lack* of government regulation over the past couple of decades that has allowed numerous unfortunate events to unfold within the technology and communications industry (Microsoft's anticompetitive stuff in the mid to late 90s, and Comcast/Time Warner Cable/etc. refusing to build up the internet's backbone in the US because they have an oligarchy in the sector).
That said, if implemented poorly, this bill could be bad news. But it's something to watch carefully now, not something to freak out about as many of the bloggers in that link have done.
From a friend, explaining something more clearly than I've heard the news stations explain -
"I figure this "economic crisis", which was manufactured by our Congress through the passing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 (yes this whole economic catastrophe is manufactured by our own government) most likely will not be over for a couple of years if not a decade or more. You see Rob, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which was passed right after the Great Depression to prevent another Great Depression. What it did was make the merging of Investment Banks and Commercial Banks illegal and also made all these lending practices illegal. Well, they repealed the Glass-Steagall act and made all this possible once again just like it was before the Great Depression. It was deliberate. Also, Obama's first 100 days in office were patterned after FDR who passed all sorts of Socialist legislation back then. All the ABC agencies were created back when FDR came to power in his first 100 days. ABC Agencies are all the agencies that have acronyms. So why would they do this? Well, all you have to do is look at all the government takeover of private business to see what their motivation is, it's a huge power grab. Now they want to take over health insurance too. Next they want to tax energy massively with "Cap and Trade" which is Al Gore's "BTU Tax". This catastrophe is predominantly being caused by the Democratic party and RINO's, Republicans In Name Only (which seems to me what most Republicans are anymore anyways). If they get all this done, you and I will be utterly immobilized because they will be taking all your extra income over what your basic necessities are to survive. We will be as Socialist as many European nations are. It's not a conspiracy, it's simply what is happening. "
It might have been pure stupidity or insolent rebellion against common sense, but our government's desire for control is why we're in this mess. I'd say giving more BLIND control isn't going to assist us.
I have about 3 dollars left over at the day before payday. I don't see how much more hampered my life could be. I will be finding out...
HI BILLY MAYS HERE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! YEP THE INTERNET AND ALL YOUR BASE BELONG TO US! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. IT'S ALL MINE. MINE I TELL YA AARRRGGhHhhh .....
Matrix is a spirit channeler now. What have we come to? :-\
It's interesting to see how the United States resembles the Roman Empire right before they fell!!!
I find a lot of parallels with 4th century Rome. End of civilization? No. But there is going to be a huge change.
Are you referring to the pacing effect? The faster a civilization grows the faster it will fall?
No, more like the rampant overspending. The economic polarization of classes. A lack of foresight maintaining infrastructure. A general hate-rid of the USA for it's foreign policy.
Rome had all these problems, which lead to the splintering of the empire.
I hope it never happens. We have too many tech toys (weapons) which might get used. Plus, I love my country.
Unfortunately most of what is in that quote from Calico is true except it's not socialism, it's more like fascism or national socialism.
I've talked a few times on here about these issues. I could write twenty pages of messages on the topic. The trouble is it's hard to explain and mostly concentrates on the US. This is because the US is the most important country and the one country that can change everything.
The basic goal of the elitists who control the banking system etc is to destroy the nation state which is the highest achievement of civilization but no good to banking elites. The US is target numero uno because the people there can destroy their efforts. It's why it seems like politicians are actually working against the people of nation states. This is exactly what they are actually doing with "globalization".
>:( :(
I am not as optimistic as you guys are. If it was a sophisticated power control move, then I could at least feel that someone was at the helm. I see this as blatant and raw theft with the overarching characteristics of stupidity and greed as the driving forces. What most amazes me is how blatant it has become. In simple terms, it is like a miss-understood power fractal gone awry. If the scale isn't understood and controlled with understanding and vision, you're not going to get what you want. For instance, If I steal 50 cents from the coffee fund, and get caught, my reputation takes a hit. If I steal 150 dollars from a drug store during a flood, I might just catch a bullet in my head from the police officer that is protecting life and property. If I steal 15,000 dollars from my relatives, then it is said that mom didn't raise me right. And if I steal 500 Million from the government, it is said that I am a businessman. I fear that those at the helm are but thugs and thieves looking out only for themselves. And a shame it is that we let it come to that.
@pfrancke - The idea that this is all being caused by some who love to get away with having their own way, when it means damaging everyone in their path and winning their pot of gold, is exactly what the real problem is. If that is what you mean, we completely agree. We've given criminals the keys to the "kingdom".
It diminishes the clarity of this understanding a bit to say that people who are sociopaths are best suited as actors and politicians, but that is what seems to be the real deal.
Personally I think the structure of politics is it's real flaw. To get elected you have to choose a party that best fits your ideals (you can stand as an independant but you'd never get anywhere) and then you simply bend your views to whatever the public wants to hear at the time in order to get elected, then you revert back to whatever it is that you actually believe in or are getting paid for.
They keep going on about moral foundations and yet seem to have none of their own. We haven't seen enough of Obama yet to know what his intentions are, to do so within his first year would be moronic, but we're seeing it in the UK with the Tories. For the last year they have said nothing of their own policies and have spent that time pointing out how bad Gordon Brown is. Now the election is rolling around (campaigns start in may, a month before the general election) they make grand gestures of how they want to save Britain from the quagmire that Gordon Brown has set us in.
Well where was this a year ago. They said he was doing an awful job then but didn't have any better ideas of their own. Any minor trickle of policy ideas came from back benchers as a slip of the tongue. They cater to complaints, they all do. If we moan about something they use that to get elected and then do sod all about it.
They would shut down the internet tomorrow if they could easily do this and they will try to find a reason to do it because via the internet you can find out everything that is going on or even more important, what has happened in the past. If you look into the proper history of the British Empire you will understand. This still exists. It loots out nation states and has been doing this for hundreds of years. Now it is back and looting out nations once again - to do away with them. This is why we have all this discrediting of politicians even if they are not that bad like the expenses scandal in the UK - completely irrelevant compared to the banking bail out scandal. The idea is that representatives of the people, especially in Republics, are to be destroyed so that psychopathic feudalist oligarchies can rule again. It doesn't matter to them how many billions of people may die in the process, in fact that is part of their aim.
The US (like other nations i.e. United Kingdom) are bankrupt corporations. The people and their property are collateral for this bankruptcy. You birth certificate is traded like stock. Exactly like a slave. Lawyers have to swear oath to lie about this bankruptcy. The British Law Society runs all the bankruptcy. The Federal Reserve essentially owns the US and the people. The main shareholders are also the Queen's stock broker. It's not possible to find out everything the British Royal family are involved in but the "Crown" (not just the queen) owns much of the wealth of the planet. Obama is simply a puppet dictator no different from many leaders in other countries like Africa. The idea is to loot the USA and reduce it to the level of Africa. Zimbabwe fought back but not in good method that's why they have been destroyed. To think that the US is being looted down to third world status deliberately without the people doing anything about it is unbelievable to the rest of the world. In the UK, I can understand the apathy. Here, most people are brain dead zombies with no idea about true freedom and responsibility.
Once you study the history, it all fits like a glove - wars created by the British Empire to force nations into Bankruptcy. The American civil war was no exception. The US was made into a corporation to pay debts to the British for this. The dates all fit into a perfect pattern. The British Empire backs both sides as they always do. Hitler, Stalin etc etc. You name them - British Empire creations. The French Revolution was another.
The last US president who at least had intentions to try to change this was Kennedy. He made a speech about the conspiracy to destroy the US. He talked about secret societies etc. Shorty afterwards he was killed.
The American Civil War 1861–1865. Both sides backed by the British. The idea being that the North would win so larger collateral to then set the US up as a corporation to handle the huge debts to the British Empire. The actual Act Of 1871:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=0454
The District of Colombia is part of the British Crown as is the City Of London. Obama doesn't even answer to the American people at all. His job is to carry on this lie. You are not "citizens" of the United States Corporation at all. You were roped into this right at birth registration. You are Americans. Same situation in the UK. Under Common Law Of The Land the deceptive registration as citizen can not even be judged as lawful. The reason Great Britain, it's Commonwealth countries and the US have been free from tyranny is due to Common Law. Common Law came from Christianity. The idea that no human could be a slave. There is a whole history to this but I'm not starting out on that. These corporations do not operate under Common Law but the jurisdiction is still there. Corporations are run under Admiralty Law (British Empire). Try forcing a judge to swear oath to Common Law - They have to act differently or are at least then under oath to do so. The Queen is also under oath to uphold this law as are our politicians but then the Queen clearly believes she has divine right to be head of state. Under Common Law both parties must be able to know what the contract means. It is unlawful for a corporate state to force people into contract with it otherwise the state is simply admitting that the people are not free and the government is not of and for the people. This would be the essence of fascism. Common Law was decided by the people not bureaucrats. It operates under a very simple principle. People are free and do not harm others. The judgement of this must be made by a jury who should then set precedents for future cases. Interestingly, juries in the UK are now told they can only judge whether someone has broken the law not whether the law is just. This is a total corruption of the Common Law. Notice how Tony Blair wanted to do away with juries for many situations. Tony Blair is the ultimate corrupt politician hence why he is loved by the elites who now want him as president of the EU which he would accept without a single vote being cast by the people of Europe. Very few people actually break this Common Law except the people in control. They break the Common Law of the land on a daily basis. Like the police for example who have no more powers than anyone else in a Common Law country. This is why you can make what is called a citizen's arrest for example.
Many people talk of Communism. This is slightly misleading in terms of what most people think Communism is. It is more like a rule of fascist bankers but communism for the people which is more or less what Communism was set up to be anyway. Feudalism is probably a more correct correlation in terms of the final idea. Communists or Socialists are mere tools of the "Change". It is the "third Way" as often mentioned by Tony Blair. If you read my previous messages you will see that people already have no property. Your house is not yours and this will become obvious once it is eventually declared to not be up to carbon emission standards and you are then illegal occupants. The "Climate Change" bills are already passed for this.
Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:
"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, "climate debt" – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word "election" or "democracy" or "vote" or "ballot" occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He's going to sign it. He'll sign anything. He's a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he'll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can't resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you'll be the biggest paying country, they're not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I've read the treaty. I've seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!"
Is anyone going to get the Chia Obama?
Borders are like sieves - they used to be sieves for people and for money, but I would argue that they no longer serve as a control for money flow. So the fact that money is so difficult to track, the nation states are more difficult to define.
Anyway, in grand terms, the game seems to be about money - who gets it and how much, 1) how much money does he get (income, job, subsidy, services). 2) how much money does he keep (expenses, taxes, etc). With the excess, an individual can buy his toys. Certain toys cost more than others and have greater intrinsic value. Many of our toys we buy and then we throw away. The very valuable toys (like property), you (as a little guy) can't really own, because they are taxed. You need income of some sort to be able these taxes. So... to remove your property from you, all that needs to be done is end up on a fixed income in a world of inflation and soon you are not being able to pay the taxes. And ultimately, property taxed that isn't paid for ends up being lost.
So it is my belief that social constructs exist to force you to contribute to certain functions at certain rates. When we get to the point that the typical middle-class no longer has property, and all of his income is no longer his (in that the owner of the income no longer gets to choose how to spend it), then to your point, you are no longer free, but you are a serf. To me, the definition of free is "I can spend what I have on what I want". When that is no longer so...
The only point where you and I differ is that you feel this process is scripted and tightly controlled by a very few. I feel that there are many, many players, but that their goal is the same. To take from you everything that they can and to make you their serf. The rich wish to have only the rich and the poor. Actually I think they don't care about you or I, they care only to accrue more wealth. The tug is about what determines the middle class and how much freedom the middle class is allowed to have. The only vote anyone truly has is where he spends his dollar. When that choice is no longer yours, the game is over.
Yes. Good points. This is good quote. It really sums up the whole problem:
"The few who could understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." Nathaniel Meyer Rothschild
The Rothchilds are one of the largest shareholders of the Federal Reserve.
Rothcschild funded Cecil Rhodes. From the Wiki:
"Rhodes wanted to expand the British Empire because he believed that the Anglo-Saxon race was destined to greatness. In his last will and testament, Rhodes said of the British, "I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race." He wanted to make the British Empire a superpower in which all of the white countries in the empire, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony, would be represented in the British Parliament. Rhodes included Americans in the Rhodes scholarships and said that he wanted to breed an American elite of philosopher-kings who would have the USA rejoin the British Empire. Rhodes also respected the Germans and admired the Kaiser, and allowed Germans to be included in the Rhodes scholarships. He believed that eventually Great Britain, the USA and Germany together would dominate the world and ensure peace together."
This is the best series of videos to watch. You need to watch all of these and then understand why America must return to what it was founded on as enemy of the British Empire monetary system. These videos are from 1994!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7auQEXTWomA&feature=related
Thanks Guys , nice readings and links here. Wish i could contribute.
Efflux , i begun to watch the first part of the youtube link and could not stop.
Kadri.