Are you trusting "the process"?
Are you keeping up?
; )
May be slow to load,items coming from other servers.
FBI Wiretapping of Internet Users. "All Your Data Belongs to Us" A Seamless Global Surveillance Web By Tom Burghardt | |
Global Research, November 21, 2010 | |
In a further sign that Barack Obama's faux "progressive" regime will soon seek broad new Executive Branch power, The New York Times disclosed last week that FBI chief and cover-up specialist extraordinaire, Robert S. Mueller III, "traveled to Silicon Valley on Tuesday to meet with top executives of several technology firms about a proposal to make it easier to wiretap Internet users." Times' journalist Charlie Savage reported that Mueller and the Bureau's chief counsel, Valerie Caproni, "were scheduled to meet with senior managers of several major companies, including Google and Facebook, according to several people familiar with the discussions." Facebook's public policy manager Andrew Noyes confirmed that Mueller "is visiting Facebook during his trip to Silicon Valley;" Google, on the other hand, "declined to comment." Last month, Antifascist Calling reported that the U.S. secret state, in a reprise of the crypto wars of the 1990s, is seeking new legislation from Congress that would "fix" the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) and further curtail our civil- and privacy rights. When the administration floated the proposal in September, The New York Times revealed that among the "fixes" sought by the FBI and other intrusive spy satrapies, were demands that communications' providers build backdoors into their applications and networks that will give spooks trolling "encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct 'peer to peer' messaging like Skype" the means "to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages." And with a new "security-minded" Congress set to convene in January, chock-a-block with Tea Partying "conservatives" and ultra-nationalist know-nothings, the chances that the administration will get everything they want, and then some, is a sure bet. More here .... | |
The Associated Press recently issued a new policy stating they will fine people for violating the copyright laws, saying they will charge any blogger who quotes more than five words of AP text.
There is evidence the AP has not adequately complied with this licensing requirement. The AP has -- without permission -- allegedly illegally used, without paying copyright royalties, for using original work. There are over 10,000 re-publications of a quote which the AP was never granted a license.
The Associated Press may be found liable for infractions of the copy
right laws. The violations could touch on the millions. The issue is
not the number of times the work was published, but how many people
subsequently relied on the AP to republish, and view the original work.
Example AP Use Without Securing Adequate License
The following AP allegedly contains more than five-words which the AP has not properly attributed, nor has it properly provided funds for the use of those five words.
Sean Penn only the latest. . .
By Jerry ShwartzAssociated Press
Sunday, December 29, 2002
"Others have suffered lesser. . ."
"Beware the leader. . ."The AP policy says only five (5) words may be used. The AP violated its
The Associated Press was not granted any license to use this quote;
The Associated Press never provided any funds to use these words, as the AP policy says must be done;
The Associated press did not lawfully procure a license to use these words, as the AP policy requires;
The Associated Press never obtained a license to publish any of the quote, as the AP policy requires;
The Associated Press was not the original author of the quote, and did not have any power to create, generated, or self-manufacture a license for works it did not created;
The Associated Press was never authorized to use these words under any license connected with the AP policy;
The Associated Press has never sought permission, nor obtained any legal rights, performance rights, or any copyright permissions, as the AP policy states.
The Associated Press was never granted a waiver, nor are they a party to any agreement which expressly authorizes the AP to redistribute the information, as the AP policy states.
Anyone in the universe who has ever been quoted by the AP, should demand -- now -- the AP provide them with money for the use of more than five words in any AP comment.
All Quotations the AP has ever made, issued, or reported, should be subject to expansive class action lawsuits and settlement discussions.
The world should seek from the AP reimbursement and fees for any words the AP uses from anyone.
A few months ago I talked about Megan Meier, a young girl who encountered verbal and emotional abuse from a classmate’s mother via MySpace. That abuse eventually led to Megan committing suicide, and sparked a whole series of internet debates about where the fault for something like that lies and how accountable social networks should be for the actions of their users.
Today Facebook announced that they will be implementing over 40 safeguards to help protect its users from sexual predators and online cyberbullying:
Facebook, the world’s second-largest social networking Web site, will add more than 40 safeguards to protect young users from sexual predators and cyberbullies, attorneys general from several states said Thursday.
Facebook and officials in 49 states and the District of Columbia agree to safeguards to protect young users.
The changes include banning convicted sex offenders from the site, limiting older users’ ability to search online for subscribers under 18 and building a task force seeking ways to better verify users’ ages and identities.
“The agreement marks another watershed step toward social networking safety, protecting kids from online predators and inappropriate content,” said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who announced the agreement Thursday with his counterparts in several other states.
Obviously I think that’s a huge step forward for the internet, especially since both Facebook and MySpace have agreed to adopt the guidelines set out in the agreement. And while it’s impossible to protect everyone from harm on these networks, I definitely think it’s a move in the right direction.
The internet could soon be made obsolete by a new "grid" system which is 10,000 times faster than broadband connections. Scientists in Switzerland have developed a lightning-fast replacement to the internet that would allow feature films and music catalogues to be downloaded within seconds. The latest spin-off from CERN, the particle physics centre that created the internet, the grid could also provide the power needed to send sophisticated images; allow instant online gaming with hundreds of thousands of players; and offer high-definition video telephony for the price of a local call. David Britton, professor of physics at Glasgow University and a leading figure in the grid project, believes grid technology could change society. He said: "With this kind of computing power, future generations will have the ability to collaborate and communicate in ways older people like me cannot even imagine." The power of the grid will be unlocked this summer with the switching on of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a new particle accelerator designed to investigate how the universe began. The grid will be turned on at the same time to store the information it generates, after scientists at CERN, based near Geneva, realised the internet would not have the capacity to capture such huge volumes of data. The grid has been built with fibre optic cables and modern routing centres, meaning there are no outdated components to slow the deluge of data, unlike the internet. There are 55,000 grid servers already installed, a figure which is expected to rise to 200,000 within the next two years. Britain has 8,000 servers on the grid system, meaning access could be available to universities as early as this autumn.
Monday, April 07, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0
The Internet could soon be made obsolete. The scientists who pioneered it have now built a lightning-fast replacement capable of downloading entire feature films within seconds.
At speeds about 10,000 times faster than a typical broadband connection, "the grid" will be able to send the entire Rolling Stones back catalogue from Britain to Japan in less than two seconds.
The latest spin-off from Cern, the particle physics centre that created the web, the grid could also provide the kind of power needed to transmit holographic images; allow instant online gaming with hundreds of thousands of players; and offer high-definition video telephony for the price of a local call.
David Britton, professor of physics at Glasgow University and a leading figure in the grid project, believes grid technologies could "revolutionise" society. "With this kind of computing power, future generations will have the ability to collaborate and communicate in ways older people like me cannot even imagine," he said.
The power of the grid will become apparent this summer after what scientists at Cern have termed their "red button" day - the switching-on of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the new particle accelerator built to probe the origin of the universe. The grid will be activated at the same time to capture the data it generates.
Cern, based near Geneva, started the grid computing project seven years ago when researchers realised the LHC would generate annual data equivalent to 56m CDs - enough to make a stack 40 miles high.
This meant that scientists at Cern - where Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the web in 1989 - would no longer be able to use his creation for fear of causing a global collapse.
This is because the Internet has evolved by linking together a hotchpotch of cables and routing equipment, much of which was originally designed for telephone calls and therefore lacks the capacity for high-speed data transmission.
By contrast, the grid has been built with dedicated fibre optic cables and modern routing centres, meaning there are no outdated components to slow the deluge of data. The 55,000 servers already installed are expected to rise to 200,000 within the next two years.
Professor Tony Doyle, technical director of the grid project, said: "We need so much processing power, there would even be an issue about getting enough electricity to run the computers if they were all at Cern. The only answer was a new network powerful enough to send the data instantly to research centres in other countries."
That network, in effect a parallel Internet, is now built, using fibre optic cables that run from Cern to 11 centres in the United States, Canada, the Far East, Europe and around the world.
One terminates at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory at Harwell in Oxfordshire.
From each centre, further connections radiate out to a host of other research institutions using existing high-speed academic networks.
It means Britain alone has 8,000 servers on the grid system – so that any student or academic will theoretically be able to hook up to the grid rather than the internet from this autumn.
Ian Bird, project leader for Cern's high-speed computing project, said grid technology could make the internet so fast that people would stop using desktop computers to store information and entrust it all to the internet.
"It will lead to what's known as cloud computing, where people keep all their information online and access it from anywhere," he said.
Computers on the grid can also transmit data at lightning speed. This will allow researchers facing heavy processing tasks to call on the assistance of thousands of other computers around the world. The aim is to eliminate the dreaded "frozen screen" experienced by internet users who ask their machine to handle too much information.
The real goal of the grid is, however, to work with the LHC in tracking down nature's most elusive particle, the Higgs boson. Predicted in theory but never yet found, the Higgs is supposed to be what gives matter mass.
The LHC has been designed to hunt out this particle - but even at optimum performance it will generate only a few thousand of the particles a year. Analysing the mountain of data will be such a large task that it will keep even the grid's huge capacity busy for years to come.
Although the grid itself is unlikely to be directly available to domestic internet users, many telecoms providers and businesses are already introducing its pioneering technologies. One of the most potent is so-called dynamic switching, which creates a dedicated channel for internet users trying to download large volumes of data such as films. In theory this would give a standard desktop computer the ability to download a movie in five seconds rather than the current three hours or so.
Additionally, the grid is being made available to dozens of other academic researchers including astronomers and molecular biologists.
It has already been used to help design new drugs against malaria, the mosquito-borne disease that kills 1m people worldwide each year. Researchers used the grid to analyse 140m compounds - a task that would have taken a standard internet-linked PC 420 years.
"Projects like the grid will bring huge changes in business and society as well as science," Doyle said.
"Holographic video conferencing is not that far away. Online gaming could evolve to include many thousands of people, and social networking could become the main way we communicate.
"The history of the internet shows you cannot predict its real impacts but we know they will be huge."

The Tripods novels described a dystopia of high-tech feudalism. More>>
Headache? Maybe it's that new electronic circuit printed on your skull....
More>>
Information moving through cyberspace travels in tiny packets that hopscotch around the world. Using data from a two-week stretch in April 2005, the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) traced these packets' paths from hub to hub and country to country to capture a snapshot of the worldwide network topology.
| Image courtesy of the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis. Click to view a larger version. |
1 FLAT EARTH SOCIETY
CAIDA's map represents a flattened Earth, with cities positioned around the circle. Tracing the circumference clockwise corresponds to moving from east to west. Each square represents a data hub, which lines up on a spoke with the city in which it is registered. The closer to the center it lies, the more data it traffics.
2 SINOSNUB
The United States owns 74 percent of the 4 billion available Internet protocol (IP) addresses. China's stake amounts to little more than that of an American university. Not surprisingly, China is championing the next wave of the Internet, which would accommodate 340 trillion trillion trillion IP addresses.
3 YOU STILL WON'T GET TO HAWAII
Hubs in Honolulu—and all over the Pacific—connect to only a few other hubs, which means your data are highly unlikely to pass through the Aloha State.
4 RING AROUND THE NET
The concentric rings of squares near the perimeter result from CAIDA's mapping mechanism, which plots a hub's distance from the center according to how many connections it has.
5 BRING IT ON HOME
The farther from the center, the lonelier the hub. The squares closest to the circumference of the circle represent the Internet service providers, or ISPs, that connect home PCs to the Internet. When one of these goes down, customers have no other way to get online.
6 WELCOME TO SPAMALOT!
UUNet is one of the oldest and largest ISPs; it connects to more than 2,000 other hubs. It is also the most vulnerable to junk mail and hosts more spam-generating gangs than any other ISP.
7 CAN THE CENTER HOLD?
If a high-traffic hub goes down, the data will usually find another path. "There are shortcuts everywhere," says CAIDA's Brad Heffaker. If a packet can't find its way, it returns a discouraging message to the sender.
Risk Communication and the Community Response to a Bioterrorist Attack: the Role of an Internet-Based early warning system A.K.A “The Informal Sector”
|
| NATO Security through Science Series |
| Risk Assessment and Risk Communication Strategies in Bioterrorism Preparedness |
| 10.1007/978-1-4020-5808-0_14 |
| Manfred S. Green, Jonathan Zenilman, Dani Cohen, Itay Wiser and Ran D. Balicer |
Marjorie Pollack6
| (6) | ProMED-mail, International Society for Infectious Diseases, Boston, MA, USA |
I'm waiting for an update that shows ALL the links .. but here is more confirmation of what I noticed ...
MUCH OF THE MIDDLE EAST IS INTERNET FREE
February 1, 2008 at 11:29 am
(Blogging, Conspiracy Theories, DesertPeace Editorial)
(Ben Heine © Cartoons)
By the above headline I am not implying that Internet access is free….
I’m not one that usually believes in International Conspiracy Theories… but THIS is too much of a coincidence not to be related to one.
For most of this week there has been virtually no Internet connectivity to much of the Middle East. This has caused many problems to merchants and to areas of education… needless to say, the Blogesphere…
Why do I suspect something ‘fishy’…. Israel has not been affected at all. Most of what is disseminated from Israel via the Internet is not the same nature as what is transmitted by DesertPeace or like minded people, but rather from the zionists themselves. It just seems too coincidental for Israel not to have it’s fingers in this particular pie…. there is way too much that Israel would not want to be written about at this particular time.
Hopefully the problems will be solved soon and news can once again get out to the world….
AlJazeera posted THIS about the situation…
CNN also covers the problem….
The Jerusalem Post carried THIS AP Report….
27 Comments
Mayer Amschel Bauer said, February 1, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Third cable break today. I work with Submarine Cable Systems, and generally they are so reliable that you can go years without seeing a single break. Now three in the same area - in three days? Sabotage, beyond all doubt.
Mayer Amschel Bauer said, February 1, 2008 at 4:21 pm
This from the BBC on the latest break:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi
Mayer Amschel Bauer said, February 1, 2008 at 4:34 pm
And Iran is unreachable.
http://www.internettrafficrepor
ralphie said, February 1, 2008 at 4:42 pm
****************NOW is a good time to see which “middle eastern” (hint hint wink wink) websites are still funcional.
Tom Westergaard said, February 1, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I’ve only checked one Middle East site, presstv.ir and they’re still available from the USA. I’ll do some more checking but if there were one site the powers-that-be would have at the top of their list to interrupt it would be presstv.ir .The site is hosted in Tehran.
Ref:
http://whois.domaintools.com
http://www.presstv.ir/detail
Fiona said, February 1, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I’m generally not one to get caught up in conspiracy theories either, but this smells more than fishy, it stinks. After reading the articles Steve linked to, then finding the latest one today from CNN regarding the cable being cut off Dubia, I had my suspicions. Now checking out the links Mayer provided, my alarm bells are ringing loud and clear. Quite startling to see Iran with “0″ connectivity (Current Index: 0, Response Time: 0, Packet Loss: 100%).
pissedoffpatriot said, February 1, 2008 at 5:13 pm
It is my personal opinion the US special ops have ‘damaged’ these cables in preparation for upcoming operations either in Pakistan or some Israeli coordinated op. That or else they needed to install taps to circumvent foreign telecoms so they have complete unfettered access as in the US. Either way it is part of a broader plan and we know our ‘Napolean’ (Bush) is getting desperate to attack Iran for his Israeli masters before he gets exiled to his Argentina ‘farms’
Internet failure hits 2 continents! - AznLover.com - Sharing All Things Asian said, February 1, 2008 at 5:43 pm
[…] gotta love covert wars. Actually, no, I hate them with a passion. Anyway, this is from the blog: MUCH OF THE MIDDLE EAST IS INTERNET FREE ? Desertpeace —- INTERNET FREE February 1, 2008 at 11:29 am (Blogging, Conspiracy Theories, DesertPeace […]
Tom Westergaard said, February 1, 2008 at 5:59 pm
President Ahmadinejad’s blog is still available. It’s hosted on a dedicated server in Tehran.
Ref:
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir
http://whois.domaintools.com
Kavosh ISP is online - it’s an Internet Service Provider located in Iran
http://217.218.80.9/
http://whois.domaintools.com
Same thing with Khayamnet
http://www.khayamnet.net/
http://whois.domaintools.com
Here are some other sites located in Iran. I haven’t checked them all to see if they’re hosted in Iran but a couple I tried were still online:
http://www.farsisites.com
Mayer Amschel Bauer said, February 1, 2008 at 6:10 pm
4th cable break; this time between Sri Lanka & Suez. My antennae are going crazy. This is absolutely NOT accidental; working with these systems is my job, and I have never ever (in over ten years) seen more than one major cable break at a time - and that’s usually worldwide. Four in less than a week - all within a couple of thousand miles? Do me a favour! The odds against are so astronomical as to be not even worth thinking about.
http://www.marketwatch.com
(This article says the third; it’s actually the fourth).
Mayer Amschel Bauer said, February 1, 2008 at 6:12 pm
4th cable break; this time between Sri Lanka & Suez.
http://www.marketwatch.com
(This article says the third; it’s actually the fourth).
Jhoffa_ said, February 1, 2008 at 6:13 pm
1) Repeated seismic activity in the area keeps breaking the cables.
2) An attack is being planned.
3) Data collection devices are being installed.
4) A means of controlling these cables or their traffic is being installed in preparation for a future attack.
5) President Nero, or the juz, or both, are engaging in a silly form of collective punishment because they aren’t getting anywhere fast with sanctions.
Sirk said, February 1, 2008 at 6:13 pm
As Tom Westergaard wrote, presstv.ir does seem to be operational and accessible via the web.
After reading about the CIA dirty tricks all over the world since its inception, could what we are seeing as presstv.ir really be a mock-up?
I agree with you all that this does seem more than a little ‘fishy.’
Heather said, February 1, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Terrorist attack on the way? Military action against Iran? Pakistan? We all now Dubya is looking for an excuse to kick off military action to boost his party’s election chances. Keep an eye on this story, I think we are in for a very bumpy ride.
Oscar said, February 1, 2008 at 8:38 pm
my god, I can hardly ready what it says in the entry because that font is just unreadable.
Oscar said, February 1, 2008 at 8:39 pm
read, not ready
Fran said, February 1, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Where re Israel’s submarines these days, the ones they bought from Germany?
Tom Westergaard said, February 1, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Sirk,
I don’t take anything — anything — that the U.S. government says at face value. If they tell me what time of day it is I’m still going to check my watch. However, regarding presstv.ir: It would be virtually impossible for the CIA or another entity to set up a phony news bureau within Iran using an Iranian web host. Presstv.ir is widely known around the world. It requires Iranian government permission and cooperation in order to exist. If the Iranian government did not approve of presstv.ir for whatever reason presstv.ir would be out of business. If it was a phony news organisation set up without Iranian government approval the Iranian government would say so publicly. Since presstv.ir is a division of the Iranian Al Alam News Channel, and both alalam.ir and presstv.ir sites list IP addresses inside Iran the Iranian government must officially approve of both sites.
http://whois.domaintools.com
http://whois.domaintools.com
Regards,
Tom
harmonie22 said, February 1, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I like your philosophy. I believe the Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace too. I’m not Palestinian or Israeli, but a dual national by birth- Arab & American. I even wrote a poem about it recently too- check it out if your interested:
http://theperceptionpoint
good luck to you.
peace.
Tom Westergaard said, February 1, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Sirk,
I don’t take anything — anything — that the U.S. government says at face value. If they tell me what time of day it is I’m still going to check my watch. However, regarding presstv.ir: It would be virtually impossible for the CIA or another entity to set up a phony news bureau within Iran using an Iranian web host. Presstv.ir is widely known around the world. It requires Iranian government permission and cooperation in order to exist. If the Iranian government did not approve of presstv.ir for whatever reason presstv.ir would be out of business. If it was a phony news organisation set up without Iranian government approval the Iranian government would say so publicly. Since presstv.ir is a division of the Iranian Al Alam News Channel, and both alalam.ir and presstv.ir sites list IP addresses inside Iran the Iranian government must officially approve of both sites.
http://whois.domaintools.com
http://whois.domaintools.com
Regards,
Tom
Top Posts « WordPress.com said, February 2, 2008 at 12:00 am
[…] MUCH OF THE MIDDLE EAST IS INTERNET FREE (Ben Heine © Cartoons)[image] […]
MUCH OF THE MIDDLE EAST IS INTERNET FREE « Qiyyama said, February 2, 2008 at 12:39 am
[…] […]
Tom Westergaard said, February 2, 2008 at 3:00 am
Sirk,
I don’t accept anything — anything — that U.S. government politicians or spooks or employees say. If they tell me what time of day it is I’m still going to check my watch. However, regarding presstv.ir: It would be virtually impossible for the CIA or another entity to set up a phony news bureau within Iran using an Iranian web host. Presstv.ir is widely known around the world. It requires Iranian government permission and cooperation in order to exist. If the Iranian government did not approve of presstv.ir for whatever reason presstv.ir would be out of business. If it was a phony news organisation set up without Iranian government approval the Iranian government would say so publicly. Since presstv.ir is a division of the Iranian Al Alam News Channel, and both alalam.ir and presstv.ir sites list IP addresses inside Iran the Iranian government must officially approve of both sites.
http://whois.domaintools.com
http://whois.domaintools.com
Regards,
Tom
Much of the middle east is internet free « SANDS OF TIME said, February 2, 2008 at 4:26 am
[…] post info By partofyou Categories: Uncategorized By the above headline I am not implying that Internet access is free…. I’m not one that usually believes in International Conspiracy Theories… but THIS is too much of a coincidence not to be related to one. For most of this week there has been virtually no Internet connectivity to much of the Middle East. This has caused many problems to merchants and to areas of education… needless to say, the Blogesphere… Why do I suspect something ‘fishy’…. Israel has not been affected at all. Most of what is disseminated from Israel via the Internet is not the same nature as what is transmitted by DesertPeace or like minded people, but rather from the zionists themselves. It just seems too coincidental for Israel not to have it’s fingers in this particular pie…. there is way too much that Israel would not want to be written about at this particular time. Read the rest of the story […]
Simon said, February 2, 2008 at 8:35 am
To Tom Westergaard: Actually, spoofing websites is very easy - if you can hijack the domain name, and even better, the IP address. Let’s assume that all of Iran is indeed offline - all that the CIA (or whoever) would need to do is set up their own server using the known IP address of presstv.ir, and the US would now have complete control of that site.
Here is something for everyone to think about:
“Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hailed the development of his country’s nuclear industry after Iran received the last batch of nuclear fuel from Russia for its first nuclear power plant, a move signifying the approaching launch of the reactor.”
http://mnweekly.ru/news
If you were going to bomb the Iranian reactor, the time to do it is BEFORE it is fully fueled and fired up. If you bomb the reactor AFTER it is operational, Chernobyl would look tame in comparison. So NOW is really the last chance to do the job. But what if the fuel is already in place? The radiation released would be devastating. Controlling information from Iran might seem to be a good idea, unless you don’t mind pictures of thousands of innocent civilians dying from radiation sickness being broadcast all over the world…
Tom Westergaard said, February 2, 2008 at 1:24 pm
§ First off, my apologies to the site owner for the repeated posts. I was having trouble downloading the page and my comments timed out a couple times. I wasn’t sure whether of not they transmitted. §
Simon said:
“To Tom Westergaard: Actually, spoofing websites is very easy - if you can hijack the domain name, and even better, the IP address. Let’s assume that all of Iran is indeed offline - all that the CIA (or whoever) would need to do is set up their own server using the known IP address of presstv.ir, and the US would now have complete control of that site.”
* * * *
Spoofing websites is realatively easy — if the website being spoofed keeps quiet and does not publicly object to the spoof. Stealing credit cards and using them fraudulently is relatively easy too– as long as the person who owns the card doesn’t complain about it being stolen and used fraudulently. As I stated in 18. above
If it [presstv.ir] was a phony news organisation set up without Iranian government approval the Iranian government would say so publicly.
If presstv.ir techs in Iran noticed the site was not under their control they would report that to the domestic authorites. The authorities would shut down the site or publicly disavow any connection to and official approval of presstv.ir. That hasn’t happened.
Cheers,
Tom
Dana said, February 2, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Omigods, Simon, that’s as terrible a theory as it is plausible.
I so hope you are wrong.
I’ve just checked my favorite website for information on Iran, Iran Chamber Society to see if it’s still live, which it is, but the domain is a ‘.com’, not ‘.ir’ …
In any case, I recommend that everyone visit the site to see and explore the beauty that the ‘Axis of evil’ would be perfectly willing to destroy, just as it has Iraq.
It was two years ago today that the BBC News reported on the Information Operations Roadmap, the United States military's approach to information warfare, with an emphasis on the Internet.
Now, from the revealing article, With Friends Like These ..., in the prestigious international journal, The Guardian, comes some important related information:
"The third board member of Facebook is Jim Breyer. He is a partner in the venture capital firm Accel Partners, who put $12.7m into Facebook in April 2005. On the board of such US giants as Wal-Mart and Marvel Entertainment, he is also a former chairman of the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). Now these are the people who are really making things happen in America, because they invest in the new young talent, the Zuckerbergs and the like. Facebook's most recent round of funding was led by a company called Greylock Venture Capital, who put in the sum of $27.5m. One of Greylock's senior partners is called Howard Cox, another former chairman of the NVCA, who is also on the board of In-Q-Tel. What's In-Q-Tel? Well, believe it or not (and check out their website), this is the venture-capital wing of the CIA ...
"The US defence department and the CIA love technology because it makes spying easier. 'We need to find new ways to deter new adversaries,' defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in 2003. 'We need to make the leap into the information age, which is the critical foundation of our transformation efforts.' ..."
Read on at The Guardian
Categories: cia, internet, disinformation
Kucinich tells Moyers 'I'm the Democrats' Democrat'
| Mike Aivaz and Adam Doster Published: Saturday January 5, 2008 |
| |||
| Print This Email This | ||||
Although Democratic presidential nominee Dennis Kucinich says he’s won a number of Internet polls in recent months, the Ohio Congressman was not invited to participate in Saturday night’s ABC debate in New Hampshire. On the PBS series Bill Moyers Journal, Kucinich discussed why he thinks the mainstream media isn’t paying attention to his campaign.
“I think that what's noteworthy is I think we have two cultures here,” he says. “One which is the emerging culture of information technology that's Internet-based. And the other one is the more conventional TV technology which is coming to a clash. And I think they reflect some political trends in this country that maybe aren't getting too much attention. But they are going to have an impact.”
Kucinich was so angered with ABC’s decision that he filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against ABC. While the network said Kucinich did not qualify for the debate because he didn't place in the top four in Iowa or poll higher than five percent in New Hampshire or nationally, he told Moyers the decision shouldn’t be left to the media.
“Whatever their criteria was, they have no right to make the decision for the people of New Hampshire prior to the election being held,” he said. “They have no right. As licensees, you know, the airwaves belong to the public, lest we forget. They don't belong to ABC. Disney, which owns ABC, has had executives contributing to some of the candidates in this race. It's a very serious matter here.”
Given his absence, the Congressman anticipated that Saturday night’s event would not be a serious debate because the other challengers are too ideologically aligned.
“Well, you know what, Bill? How can you have a debate if you don't have a voice that challenges all the others?” he says. “I mean, my position on the American political scene is to show people that there's a whole different direction that America can take here at home and in the world.”
Kucinich attributes his poor showing in Iowa to his lack of effort campaigning in the state. “I felt that my time would be better spent laying the groundwork for later primaries and caucuses,” he told Moyers.
The following video is from PBS's Bill Moyers Journal, broadcast on January 04, 2008
With little fanfare from local or foreign media, the Japanese government made major moves this month toward legislating extensive regulation over online communication and information exchange within its national borders. In a series of little-publicized meetings attracting minimal mainstream coverage, two distinct government ministries, that of Internal Affairs and Communications (Somusho) and that of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Monbukagakusho), pushed ahead with regulation in three major areas of online communication: web content, mobile phone access, and file sharing.
On December 6th, in a final report compiled by a study group under the Somusho following up on an interim report drafted earlier this year, the government set down plans to regulate online content through unification of existing laws such as the Broadcast Law and the Telecommunications Business Law [1,2]. The planned regulation targets all web content, including online variants of traditional media such as newspaper articles and television broadcasting, while additionally going as far as to cover user-generated content such as blogs and webpages under the vaguely-defined category of "open communication" [3,4,5,6].
Only days following the release of the Dec. 6 report, again through the Somusho, the government on Dec. 10th requested that mobile phone companies NTT Docomo, KDDI, Softbank and Willcom commence strictly filtering web content to mobile phones for users under the age of 18 [7,8,9,10]. The move to filter content in this area comes at a time when the Japanese market has become saturated with mobile phones, a growing proportion of which are held by high-school and even grade-school students. The proposed policy, in part responding to fears and anxieties expressed by parents about online dating sites, is broad in scope and reportedly covers all websites with forum, chat, and social networking functionality.
Regulation of a third area of online communication, that of online file sharing, was meanwhile advanced through the Private Music and Video Recording Subcommittee of Japan's Agency for Cultural Affairs (under the Mobukagakusho) in a meeting held on December 18th. Authorities and organizations pushed in this case for a ban on the download of copyrighted content for personal use, a category of file transfer previously permitted under Article 30 of Japan's Copyright Law [11,12,13,14].
The final report on Internet regulation released on December 6th, and the meetings about mobile phone regulation and copyright policy held on December 10th and 18th, collectively touch on nearly every aspect of modern network communication in Japan and together indicate a significant shift in government policy vis-a-vis the Japanese cyberspace. While granted little attention in mainstream media, a series of Japanese-language articles, government reports, and blog entries on the topic together sketch basic details of the proposed regulations. The main points of these documents are summarized below, with references to resources offering more in-depth discussion included at the end of the article.
Plans for regulation of web content are summarized in two primary documents drawn up by the “Study group on the legal system for communications and broadcasting” under the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Somusho) and headed by Professor Emeritus at Hitotsubashi University Horibe Masao. The first document is an interim report released on June 19th, setting down basic guidelines for regulating web content through application of the existing Broadcast Law to the sphere of the Internet [1,4]. Incorporating the views of a reported 276 comments from 222 individuals and 56 organizations collected shortly after publication of the interim report, the final report, made public on December 6th, sets down steps to move ahead and submit a bill on the proposed regulations to the regular diet session in 2010 [2,5,6].
One of the key points of both reports is their emphasis on the blurring line between "information transmission" and "broadcasting", a distinction that becomes less and less meaningful as content-transfer shifts from the realm of traditional media to that of ubiquitous digital communication (so-called "all over IP"). The reports deal with this difficult problem in part through the creation of a new category, that of "open communication", broadly described as covering "communication content having openness [kouzensei/公然性] such as homepages and so on" [3].
The term "open communication" may itself be vaguely defined, but implications of the new category are in fact very real. While previously largely excluded from government regulation thanks to the limited scope of existing broadcast legislation, all online content, with the exception only of private messages used only between specific persons (i.e. email, etc.), will henceforth be targeted under the proposed policy. Notably included in this category are hugely popular bulletin board systems such as 2channel as well as personal blogs and webpages.
Online content judged to be "harmful" according to standards set down by an independent body (specifics of which are unclear) will be subject to law-enforced removal and/or correction. While the interim report did not specify whether penal regulations would be enforced against policy violations, the final report, in response to concerns voiced in public comments over the summer, moved toward excluding such regulations for the time being at least. Nonetheless, the final report also notes that, if there is a need for it, the "adequacy of punishment should also be investigated" (page 22 of the final report) [5]. It thus remains an open question as to whether, if eventually enacted, penal regulations will be applied and, if so, what form they will take.
As the number of elementary and high-school students with mobile phones in Japan has ballooned to over 7.5 million, the push for protecting young users from potentially dangerous content, such as online dating services and so-called "mobile filth", has gained momentum in recent years within Japan. The government responded to such concerns on December 10th by demanding that mobile carriers NTT Docomo, KDDI, Softbank, and Willcom implement filtering on all mobile phones issued to users under the age of 18. While optional filtering currently exists and can be implemented at the request of the mobile phone owner, few users make use of or even know of this service. The proposed regulation would heavily strengthen earlier policy by making filtering on mobile phones the default setting for minors; only in the case of an explicit request by the user's parent or guardian could such filtering be turned off by the carrier [7,8,9].
According to the new policy proposal, sites would be categorized on two lists, a "blacklist" of sites that would be blocked from mobile access by minors and a "whitelist" of sites that would not. The categorization of sites into each list will reportedly be carried out together with carriers through investigations involving each company targeted. The Telecommunications Carriers Association (TCA) of Japan is indicating that the new policy will be enforced with respect to new users by the end of 2007 and applied to existing users by the summer of 2008 [8].
While it is not yet entirely clear what content will be covered by the new policy, a look at existing filtering services promoted by NTT Docomo reveals the definition of "harmful" content to be very broad indeed. As noted by a number of Japanese bloggers, notably social activist Sakiyama Nobuo, current optional filtering services offered on NTT Docomo phones include categories as sweeping as "lifestyles" (gay, lesbian, etc.), "religion", and "political activity/party", as well as a category termed "communication" covering web forums, chat rooms, bulletin boards, and social networking services. The breadth of this last category in particular threatens to bankrupt youth-oriented services such as "Mobage", a social networking and gaming site for mobile phones, half of whose users are under the age of 18.
While the cases of Internet regulation and mobile phone filtering primarily revolve on concerns over content, the third government policy proposal advanced this month in the domain of online communication targets the area of content transfer. On December 18th, the Private Music and Video Recording Subcommittee of Japan's Agency for Cultural Affairs, an advisory body under the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (Monbukagakusho), held a meeting to re-examine Article 30 of Japan's Copyright Law. With respect to online file transfer, the existing law currently bans uploading of copyrighted material onto public websites, while permitting copies for personal use only [12,13,14].
At the December 18th meeting, Kawase Makoto, general manager of the agency's Copyrighted Work Circulation Promotion Department, remarked that revising article 30 was "inevitable" [11]. Kawase's comment came less than a month after the same agency received more than 7500 public comments on the topic of the plans, the majority of which reportedly opposed any change to the current Copyright Law [15,16,17]. Haeno Hidetoshi , senior director of the Recording Industry Association of Japan, meanwhile described the state of the recording industry as "spine-chilling", arguing that if illegal file sharing was not stopped the business would hit a dead end [12].
IT and music journalist Tsuda Daisuke on the other hand argued that he did not see any need for legal revision, observing that if users uploading copyrighted files are controlled, then there should be no need to outlaw illegal downloads or file sharing. In an earlier Nov. 28th meeting, addressing the divide in opions among public comments about the regulation, Tsuda noted that results evidenced a "deep gap" between the views of copyright holders and those of consumers. He further warned that to ignore the views of those opposing revision, and to not attempt to understand their arguments, would be to invite further deepening of this gap [16,17].
One of the key issues raised by opponents of the proposed revisions regards the murky definition of "download" itself. Critics argue that a user cannot determine whether a file is illegal before they actually download it, and even once the file is downloaded, such identification remains difficult. Moreover, it is difficult for users to judge whether, at the time of downloading a file, the site from which the file was downloaded was itself illegal or not. While proponents of the legal revision have argued in favour of a "mark" to identify approved sites, this approach brings with it many new problems; most critically, it would mean that every site not bearing the approved mark would be considered "illegal", a blanket policy many consider extreme [17].
The murkiness of the definition of "illegal" file sharing also manifests itself in the difficulties legislators will potentially face in distinguishing between "downloading" and "streaming", difficulties which some argue may ultimately lead to the regulation of sites such as YouTube and Nico Nico Douga. As there is no fundamental difference between downloaded content and streamed content, given that in both cases content is copied locally before viewing, commenters expressed anxiety about how judges with no specialized knowledge will handle this murky middle ground.
The various problems evident in the regulation policies described above are compacted by the fact that there is a lack of coordination between branches of government, the first two proposals being handled by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications while the last is being handled by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Without a coordinated approach to regulation, legal conflicts inherent in the switch to "all over IP" are guaranteed to arise.
Even with such a coordinated approach, however, policy remains ill-defined and extremely vague. The future of online communication within Japan hinges on attracting attention to these issues and on drawing as wide a range of voices into the debate as possible. While current activism by groups within Japan such as the recently formed Movements for Internet Active Users (MIAU) have made important first steps in this direction, international attention is needed to coordinate support and confront the many pressing issues facing open communication in the Japanese cyberspace.
Article title translations by gyaku.
Nov 17, 2007
By Ralph Lopez
Google has refused to run the following sponsored ad and link paid for by the Northeast Impeachment Coalition and YaliesForImpeachment.org:
Help Impeach Cheney NOW
Nonpartisan, the time is here.
House JC 202-225-3951 Demand ACTION
YaliesorImpeachment.org
Google's explanation is the following:
"At this time, Google policy does not permit ad text that advocates against an individual, group, or organization. In addition, this policy doe not permit the advertisement of websites that advocate against a group protected by law."
Protected by law? Since when is the Vice President of the United States protected from free speech? Political speech is protected speech. Cheney is a public figure. Google does run ads "against" the tobacco industry. We believe this is settled law in the print and TV worlds. Any legal beagles out there please weigh in. We'll be forwarding this to the ACLU and the general media Monday morning. Following is the full text of the email Google sent to our coordinator. An example of political speech Google DOES allow: if you type in keywords "support the president" the following ad comes up:
Elect More Republicans
The Party of Lincoln, Reagan and You. Support the RNC today.
www.gop.com
Also included is a list of impeachment-related advertising which Google allows. What's the difference between "Impeach Bush" and "Help Impeach Cheney Now?" Our feeling is the line is drawn at political advertising which might actually wake people up, is too effective. Please circulate widely, and in the meantime, use Yahoo for your search engine.
Ralph Lopez
http://YaliesForImpeachment.org
Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:31:14 -0000
From: "AdWords Support"
To: neimpeach@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [#214960338] My ad has had no activityHello Susan,
Thank you for your email. I understand you are concerned that your ad was
not running. I looked into your account and found that your ad was under
review therefore not running. Our specialist have reviewed your ad and have disapproved it.At this time, Google policy does not permit ad text that advocates against
an individual, group, or organization. In addition, this policy does not
permit the advertisement of websites that advocate against a group
protected by law. As noted in our advertising terms and conditions, we
reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the
advertising we accept on our site. Please note that both your ad and
keywords have been suspended at this time.If you have additional questions, please visit the AdWords Help Center
at https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/topic.py?topic=8336, where you
will find answers to many frequently asked questions about AdWords Starter Edition.We look forward to providing you with the most effective and
user-friendly advertising available.
------------
ADS GOOGLE PUBLISHES, do a google search of "impeach cheney impeach bush etc.etc.
Impeachment of Cheney
Better World Links
Informations & Resources
www.betterworldlinks.org
Should Bush Be Impeached?
Iraq, Torture, Wiretaps, Lies
Sign our Petition to Congress!
democrats.com/impeach
Progressive strategies
for progressive campaigns.
Boost your margin of victory.
www.ImpactPolitics.net
We hit first. And second.
Hard hitting communications for
hard-fought campaigns.
www.ImpactPolitics.net
Bush Cheney Apparel
Buy Bush Cheney apparel & gifts.
1000+ unique merchandise designs.
www.CafePress.com
Impeach the President
The Case Against
Bush and Cheney
www.sevenstories.com
Libby Pardoned WTF? Tees
Outraged that Libby was Pardoned?
Angry re: Bush illegal activities?
PoliticallyCorrectTradingCo.com
Impeach Bush
It's time! Make a statement w/ tees
hoodies, stickers, buttons, more.
www.CafePress.com
Hilarious Anti-Bush Gear
Shop the funniest, most outrageous
Bush-bashing gear on Earth!
whitehousegiftshop.org
Posted by CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS mparent7777
I. Powers and Rights Reserved To We the People, Never Delegated or Violated Without Consent
A. The People are expressly defined as human beings and does not refer to corporations or contractual relationships.
B. No contract, agreement, or promise may ever bind any human to refuse to enforce the law, or prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest.
C. We the People may believe anything, including the possible belief that this Constitution must be discarded and replaced with a superior document which defends the People and protects their power to enforce this Constitution against the Government.
D. The People are educated to apply the lessons of history to ensure rights are preserved, power asserted, and this Constitution is protected from domestic and foreign enemies.
E. The People have the enforceable right and power to review any public document and access any public official.
F. The People have the enforceable right to engage in any speech, communication, or discussion on issues of war crimes, government incompetence, or allegations of reckless government planning and maladministration.
G. Government officials, agencies, departments may not invoke any power or right they have denied to the People.
H. The People have the right to affordable housing. Where none is available, the government is denied the power to prosecute anyone for not living in a home, or residing in a public park, open forest, or public lands.
I. The People have the enforceable right to freely travel, without questions, and without delay. Any law enforcement officer, agents, or contacted security official who uses any ruse, scheme, or deception to engage in pretextual stops shall be enforced as a violation of this Constitution.
J. The People have the enforceable right to compel govenment officials, contractors, and securty personnel to identify themselves, disclose their policies and procedures, and respond to complaints about violations of this Constitution, the Supreme Law, or laws of war.
K. The People may not be subject to any electronic surveillance except on probable cause and a warrant before a judicial tribunal. The President, Congress and others are expressly denied the power to enact, create, use, or rely on quasi-judicial tribunals to self-certify warrants to conduct surveillance.
L. All denied powers to the US Government in this Constitution are reserved to the People to be used to defend the Constitution.
II. Powers and Rights Reserved to States
A. States shall have authority to enforce any law within their jurisdiction. Failure to enforce the laws of war shall be prosecuted as a war crime.
B. States shall, when the Federal Government refuses to enforce the Constitution or Supreme Law, enforce the national and international law against contractors, legal counsel, state or US government officials.
C. Any state may start impeachment investigations or proceedings against the President, Member of Congress, or US government official on issues of international laws of war, domestic rebellion, or violations of the Supreme Law oath of office, or Geneva Conventions. The States shall, upon receipt of an impeachment investigation or conviction from any other state, shall within 10 days debate that resolution. If convicted by 2/3 of the States, that US government official shall be removed from office. Any effort to thwart State efforts to enforce the US Constitution through impeachment investigations or impeachment proceedings at the State level may be construed as a subsequent violation of this Constitution and laws of war.
D. The States may, without notice, organize themselves to collectively defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the United States government. The States Governors have the standing power, right, and authority to use deadly combat force to enforce this Constitution against US government officials.
E. A failure of any State official to enforce the laws of war shall be subject to a war crimes trial within 90 days of discovering that evidence. Where there are credible allegations of war crimes, a failure to investigate shall be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty.
F. States have the power to enforce contract obligations between contractors and the US government which affect the rights of their State citizens. Failure to enforce these contractual obligations against the contractors or US government could be construed as a subsequent violation under the laws of war and US Constitution against legal counsel, state officials, or court officers.
III. Independent Branch
A. All US government, contractor-provided, and legal counsel data shall be retained in an independent branch.
B. The President, Congress, and Judicial branches have no power, right or claim to not fully fund this Independent Branch.
C. The Independent Branch conducts electronic surveillance of the US government, stores that data, and ensures there are independent, safe, retained records of all US government transaction, including conversations and memos between legal counsel and government officials. Once created for the government or connected with any legal or illegal activity, these records are public records.
D. The data may be seen only upon a showing of reasonable belief or suspicion by the United States Congress, Court, or Executive Branch that the information may be useful in enforcing the Constitution, Supreme Law, or Geneva Conventions.
E. Private citizens may view any data, unless the US government provides sufficient, detailed evidence why that request for information should not be met for bonafide, lawful secrets. Any effort to hide evidence behind a claim of "state secrets," where that claim is linked with an effort to bypass the Constitution, oath of office, Supreme Law, or laws of war may be punishable by the death penalty.
F. All government data belongs to the People. Any legal counsel working for the US government shall ensure that the People's right to reliable information is protected. A failure to protect this information could be construed as a war crime.
IV. Prosecutorial Branch
A. All prosecutorial options are denied of the President.
B. The Prosecutorial branch has the power to raise independent combat power, support them, and may lawfully use that deadly combat force to confront Members of Congress, the Judicial Branch Officers, or the Presidents upon showing of probable cause for war crimes.
C. The prosecutorial power is the exclusive power of the prosecution branch. However, anyone may make a claim of illegal activity, and enforce the laws of the United States and States respectively. Any effort to block anyone from unilaterally attempting to enforce the laws of war through discovery, investigation, and open discussion of those alleged war crimes shall be construed as a possible subsequent offense under the laws of war.
D. Legal counsel are subject to public review, audit, and can be required, with fair notice, of a requirement to demonstrate before any court their compliance with the laws of war.
E. Legal counsel may be denied authority to conduct discovery during any investigation when that discovery is linked with efforts that would thwart war crimes investigation, enforcement of the Supreme law or Geneva Conventions.
V. Judicial Branch
A. The Judicial Branch is above the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch only in order of precedence. The Judicial Branch is a co-equal branch, and closest to the People and Constitution. It is least responsive, and most slow to the People's daily interests to enforce the Constitution and Supreme Law or Geneva Conventions.
B. Where the Judicial Branch does not timely enforce the Constitution, Supreme Law, or laws of war, the States and People retain the power and right to investigate and prosecute allegations of US government illegal activity, war crimes, or violations of the Supreme law.
C. All precedents under the laws of war are binding on the Judicial Branch, US government, and the People through enforcement actions.
D. Any decision by any judicial officer not to fully enforce the laws of war, Supreme Law, or this Constitution may be construed as a war crime, subject to the death penalty.
VI. Legislative Branch
A. The Legislative Branch is listed after the Judicial Branch because it is less responsive to the People.
B. The Members of Congress may be stopped between sessions and held to account for their failure to enforce the laws of war.
C. Refusing to investigate or impeach the President, Judicial Officers, or any current or former US government official for alleged war crimes, maladministration, illegal warfare, or other crimes against the People, States, or US Government shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to not fully assert ones oath of office, and punishable by the death penalty under the laws of war.
D. There are three chambers to the Congress. The Senate and House have a legal duty to fully enforce the laws. Any decision to not timely review evidence of impeachable offenses, or not investigate war crimes or maladministration could be construed as subsequent offenses under the laws of war.
E. The Superior Chamber shall decide, before any debate, whether the proposed bill is or is not Constitutional. This determination is subject to approval, challenge, and rejection by the People, States, and Judicial Branch.
F. The Congress is denied the exclusive power to make rules. Any rule which prohibits any investigation into alleged malfeasance in re the laws of war, Supreme Law, or oath of office is illegal, and may be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.
G. The Congress shall comply with public audits, and timely provide within 45 days of an audit report a statement of remedy, and outline a plan within 90 days to fully comply with all legal obligations under the Statute, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
H. The Congress may raise and support an army, and independently order that army only against the President when the President refuses to enforce the laws of war, or comply with his legal obligations under this Constitution.
VII. Executive Branch
A. The Executive Branch is led by three Presidents, co-equal with non-overlapping jurisdictions. The Executive Branch has one power: Executive Power. All actions taken under that one power are lesser authorities not powers. The Executive Branch has no power to create new powers or assign itself broader power.
B. The Executive Branch is listed last because it is the least responsive to the People, and the greatest threat of tyranny to this Constitution. The President is a clerk, not a King or Emperor. The President only manages programs. The President has no power to ignore, rewrite, or refuse to enforce the law. Each of the three Presidents shall have an ongoing requirement to demonstrate to the People and States and Congress and Courts compliance with the Constitution, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
C. The Domestic Affairs President is responsive to the States and US Government on internal affairs.
D. The Foreign Affairs President shall have exclusive power to interact with foreign powers. The Foreign Affairs President is denied any power to violate the laws of war, or use covert activity against American citizens.
E. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs President are denied the power to thwart any lawful State action to organize with foreign powers and agents to defend the US Constitution, enforce the laws of war, or protect the rights and powers of the People and States against domestic encroachments by the US government, legal counsel, or other US government officials.
F. The Commander in Chief shall only have power to lead combat operations during war time. Congress shall conduct ongoing, public reviews whether the Commander in Chief is or is not competent in managing combat operations. The Presidents and Commander in Chief are denied the power to prohibit Congress from using electronic surveillance or use separately raised and supported armies to conduct this oversight during wartime and peacetime.
G. The Executive Branch is denied the power to block anyone from getting access to illegal activity related to the laws of war.
H. During Peacetime, the Commander in Chief shall periodically cooperate with ongoing Oversight of US combat forces to ensure they are combat ready, fully trained on the laws of war, and prepared to lawfully be used to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.
I. The Executive Branch and Presidents and officers, agents, contractors, and personnel are denied the power, right, or authority to order anyone to ignore any statute, law, legal requirement, or obligation under the Constitution.
J. The Executive Branch has no power or authority to directly contact the Legislative Branch by name. The President may only request, not order other branches of government. All Communications between the Executive and Legislative Branch shall pass through the Prosecutorial Branch, and retained in the National Archives. Those records are available for public inspection at any time. The People have the enforceable right to compel the Executive Branch, Legislature, and Judicial Branch to produce documents.
K. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judicial Branch, and Prosecutorial Branch, and States are denied the power to wage warfare, information warfare, or harass American civilians through his agents, combat troops, or third parties in the United states or from overseas. Any funds used for this illegal purpose belong to the People and States. Contracts used to enforce, compel, or organize this illegal activity are not enforceable, and contrary to public policy.
L. The Presidents are denied a presumption of competence until proven. The President shall always have the burden of proof, and is expressly denied a presumption of good faith until demonstrated with overwhelming evidence in public. An election result is not proof of competence nor does it satisfy a presumption of good faith, only of mastery to win an election through legal or illegal methods and deception.
M. The Executive Branch and Presidents and subordinate agency head, contractor, and employees are expressly denied any assurance any conversation he has related to illegal activity, war crimes, unlawful acts, or other threats to the US Constitution shall remain secret behind any shield, scheme, agreement, or technology. Any order a President or anyone gives to anyone to hide, destroy,not provide, or conceal evidence of illegal activity may be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty. This restriction against following illegal orders may not be bypassed by claiming the order was from a non-person, electronic device, or other non-Constitutionally recognized entity, database, policy, guide, or other document.
N. The Presidents are denied the power to use any combat force, technology, or other military weapon or plan against American civilians, except in cases of internal rebellion which only the Congress shall approve in writing. When the Congress fails to act, or abuses its authority, the State Governors may lawfully use deadly combat force to detain and enforce the laws of war prohibiting illegal use of force against American civilians.
O. The Presidents are denied the power to induce any civilian to take any action that might deny them on any Geneva protections as a civilian. Any order, ruse, scheme, propaganda, or unreliable information to induce anyone to wage war, information warfare, or any action to harass civilians is punishable by the death penalty, and may be enforced as a violation of the laws of war.
P. The President, when delegating any power to any agency head, agrees that that agency shall be organized as if it were a separate, lesser, and not coequal branch. Those agencies shall fully cooperate with the other branches of government to ensure power within the branch or department is divided. There is no single agency, division, or office in the Executive Branch that is beyond ongoing oversight by the other four branches.
Q. The President shall have no power to block the Congress, States, Judiciary, Prosecutorial, and Independent Branch from a having co-equal status to oversee, manage, and organize that lesser branch. If the President refuses to substantially comply with that requirement, Congress may not lawfully provide funding for that agency, and the funds return to the States and People.