Censoring Indian Blogs – Monumental Stupidity

by Bhagwad Jal Park, EXPRESSIONS – BHAGWAD JAL PARK

I was shocked when IHM sent out a mail the other day informing people that the Indian government was drafting a law on monitoring Indian blogs. I really thought we were beyond this. I mean after all the progress Indian civil society has made in the past few years, with all the Supreme Court’s observations about the importance of freedom of speech even if it offends people, we’re still hit with this kind of crap.

Gagging Indian Bloggers

Well, I can understand certain restrictions. If I were to blog about the locations of secret nuclear installations, that would be an issue. If I were to put up pictures of child porn, I can see why the government should hold me responsible. The real problem is the reasons for which a blog can be taken down. Just look at the proposals:

You’re not allowed to “annoy” people :D – A lot of people annoy me on the web. I put up with it.

You can’t indulge in “blasphemy”: Or what – I get shot like those poor guys in Pakistan?

Your blog can’t “incovenience” people – Someone’s delicate feelings are hurt on my site which they choose to visit and that’s my problem?

You can’t “disparage” someone – What exactly does that mean? If I feel a guy’s an asshole I can’t call him that?

To cap it all, it says anything “otherwise objectionable” can land me in jail for 2 years (!) or a fine of a few lakhs.

On reading the draft proposal, it seems the government wants to put my humble blog on par with a telecom company by calling it an “intermediary.” They want me to run it like a business, with ISO certifications! The only phrase I can find which describes this move is “monumentally stupid” and is a symptom of a government which is badly out of touch with reality and just doesn’t “get” what the Internet is all about.

On the other hand, I’m happy there’s hell being raised. Three years ago when the govt. implemented the draconian IT amendment bill, there was no outcry at all. No one knew about it and no one cared. I had to get the news from a US tech site called Slashdot which was stunned that India “Sleepwalked into a surveillance state.” Looks like things are very different now than just a few years back. The government won’t have the balls to push this bullshit law now that it’s kicked up such a shitstorm. In any case, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will strike it down as soon as someone challenges it.

My blog is my personal space. I’m not forcing anyone to visit. You come here at your own peril. As an adult, you’re qualified to make the choice to either leave or stay. If you stay, it’s my rules and my content. If you get offended, that’s your tough luck. Deal with it. Don’t go crying to the authorities that I offended your precious sensibilities. The Indian government’s attempt to tell me what I can and cannot say is insulting. It has no business being the arbitrator of what is acceptable or not. Especially when no one is forced to visit any web page on the Internet.

Govt proposal to muzzle bloggers sparks outcry

by Atul Thakur, The Times of India

NEW DELHI: A government proposal seeking to police blogs has come in for severe criticism from legal experts and outraged the online community. The draft rules, drawn up by the government under the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, deal with due diligence to be observed by an intermediary.

Under the Act, an 'intermediary' is defined as any entity which on behalf of another receives, stores or transmits any electronic record. Hence, telecom networks, web-hosting and internet service providers, search engines, online payment and auction sites as well as cyber cafes are identified as intermediaries. The draft has strangely included bloggers in the category of intermediaries, setting off the online outcry.

Blogs are clubbed with network service providers as most of them facilitate comment and online discussion and preserve the traffic as an electronic record, but equating them with other intermediaries is like comparing apples with oranges, says Pavan Duggal, advocate in the Supreme Court and an eminent cyber law expert.

'This will curtail the freedom of expression of individual bloggers because as an intermediary they will become responsible for the readers' comments. It technically means that any comment or a reader-posted link on a blog which according to the government is threatening, abusive, objectionable, defamatory, vulgar, racial, among other omnibus categories, will now be considered as the legal responsibility of the blogger," he explains.

Even Google, the host of Blogger, among India's most popular blogging sites, expressed displeasure at the proposal. "Blogs are platforms that empower people to communicate with one another, and we don't believe that an internet middlemen should be held unreasonably liable for content posted by users," a spokesperson told TOI.

Blogs, which are typically maintained and updated by individuals, have showcased their political importance in recent times and the internet community views these rules as a lopsided attempt to curtail an individual's right to expression.

"If individual blogs are an intermediary, then why can't Facebook and Twitter also be classified as such, as they too receive, store and transmit electronic records and facilitate online discussions," retorts the spokesperson of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based organization, which works on digital pluralism. "These rules will not only bring bloggers and the ISP provider on the same platform, but the due diligence clause will also result in higher power of censorship to the larger player. Imagine your ISP provider blocking your blog because it finds that certain user-comments fit these omnibus terms," the CIS spokesperson added.

Most experts, including Duggal, see these rules as the outcome of the government's one-size-fits-all approach — at least in regulating online activities — and ask for an amendment to the IT Act.

Govt may regulate your blogs

by Srividya Iyer, The Times of India, Mar 9, 2011

BANGALORE: A proposed government move to regulate content on blogs has ignited a firestorm of protests from the blogging community, which is accusing the government of restricting free speech and acting like guardians of a police state.

At the heart of the issue is the Indian IT Act, which was amended in 2008 to incorporate much-needed changes to clarify the legal position of intermediaries, or those who provide web-hosting services, internet service providers (ISPs), and online auction sites.

However, the term intermediaries , for some reason, was also broadened to include blogs, though they neither provide the same kind of services as ISPs nor do they have large-scale commercial interests.

The law stated the government should clarify rules under which intermediaries should function, and the list of prohibitions applicable to them. The list was published last month and comments were invited from the public, bloggers and other members of the intermediaries group.

Intermediaries include web-hosting providers, which would include companies like Amazon, cyber cafes, payment sites like Paypal, online auction sites, ISPs like BSNL, Airtel, etc. Blogs also fall in this category as networked service providers. The due diligence specifies intermediaries should not display, upload, modify or publish any information that is 'harmful' , 'threatening' , 'abusive' , 'harassing' , 'blasphemous' , 'objectionable' , 'defamatory' , 'vulgar' , 'obscene' , 'pornographic' , 'paedophilic' , 'libellous' , 'invasive of another's privacy' , 'hateful' , 'disparaging' , 'racially , ethnically or otherwise objectionable' , 'relating to money laundering or gambling' . "It's a fundamentally flawed exercise.

One has to keep in mind the nuanced role of bloggers. The government needs to understand the power of the blogging community," said Pavan Duggal, senior advocate in Supreme Court, and cyber law expert. "The blogosphere has to align themselves to the changes in the norm. But since the term 'intermediaries' is vaguely and loosely used, the bloggers are right when they express agitation," he added.

Angry Protests on Twitter

A senior government official defended the govt's response. "We are in the process of finalising it. We welcome positive feedback and constructive criticism. We might have made a mistake in understanding the public aspect. The public could have a different viewpoint," the official said.

Bloggers fear the government will use these omnibus terms to charge writers with almost anything. On Twitter, online users have expressed their anger and frustration in equal measure. "We cannot let the government to play the judge, jury and the executioner in this. Our entire audience is Indian. If our site is blocked, we are gone. I am a small player, everything we have built goes away in one shot," said Nikhil Pahwa, founder and editor of Medianama, a digital business news site.

The penalty under this law is of two kinds. Under the civil penalty, the intermediary could be sued for damage by compensation up to Rs 5 crore per contravention. The criminal penalty is imprisonment ranging from three years to life imprisonment for the top management of the intermediary, if it is a company.

There are no exceptions to the due diligence. The law can be a potential threat to online businesses. Players in this space believe the guidelines are very broad and vague and there is no apparent recourse. "Why is the draft obsessed with bloggers, I don't know. The rules are so vast that they cause annoyance. Who defines that the content is objectionable?" asks Shivam Vij, who is a regular contributor to Kafila, a blog that comments on media and politics.

Blogs in India are slowly gaining traction. According to the Vizisense, an online audience measurement site, Indian blogs attracted traffic close to 31 million unique users in January.

US Gov. Software Creates 'Fake People' on Social Networks

by Sean Kerrigan, Social Media Examiner

The US government is offering private intelligence companies contracts to create software to manage "fake people" on social media sites. Private security firms employeed by the government have used the accounts to create the illusion of consensus on controversial issues.

The contract calls for the development of "Persona Management Software" which would help the user create and manage a variety of distinct fake profiles online. The job listing was discussed in recently leaked emails from the private security firm HBGary after an attack by internet activist last week.

Click here to view the government contract (PDF) (original)

(UPDATE 3/5/11: The official web listing seems to have been removed. PDF copy is still available though)

According to the contract, the software would "protect the identity of government agencies" by employing a number of false signals to convince users that the poster is in fact a real person. A single user could manage unique background information and status updates for up to 10 fake people from a single computer.

The software enables the government to shield its identity through a number of different methods including the ability to assign unique IP addresses to each persona and the ability to make it appear as though the user is posting from other locations around the world.

Included in HBGary's leaked emails was a government proposal for the government contract. The document describes how they would 'friend' real people on Facebook as a way to convey government messages. The document reads:

• "Those names can be cross-referenced across Facebook, twitter, MySpace, and other social media services to collect information on each individual. Once enough information is collected this information can be used to gain access to these individuals social circles.
• Even the most restrictive and security conscious of persons can be exploited. Through the targeting and information reconnaissance phase, a person’s hometown and high school will be revealed. An adversary can create a classmates.com account at the same high school and year and find out people you went to high school with that do not have Facebook accounts, then create the account and send a friend request. Under the mutual friend decision, which is where most people can be exploited, an adversary can look at a targets friend list if it is exposed and find a targets most socially promiscuous friends, the ones that have over 300-500 friends, friend them to develop mutual friends before sending a friend request to the target. To that end friend’s accounts can be compromised and used to post malicious material to a targets wall. When choosing to participate in social media an individual is only as protected as his/her weakest friend."

Other documents in the leaked emails include quotes from HBGary CEO Aaron Barr saying, "There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to all fictitious personas... Using hashtags and gaming some location based check-in services we can make it appear as if a persona was actually at a conference and introduce himself/herself to key individuals as part of the exercise, as one example."

Additional emails between HBGary employees, usually originating from Barr, discuss the vulnerability social networking causes.

One employee wrote, "and now social networks are closing the gap between attacker and victim, to the point I just found (via linked-in) 112 females, wives of service men, all stationed at Hurlbert Field FL - in case you don't know this is where the CIA flies all their "private" airlines out of. What a damn joke - the U.S. is no longer the super power in cyber, and probably won't be in other areas soon."

Barr also predicted a steady rise in clandestine or secret government operations to stem the flow of sensitive information. "I would say there is going to be a resurgence of black ops in the coming year as decision makers settle with our inadequacies... Critical infrastructure, finance, defense industrial base, and government have rivers of unauthorized communications flowing from them and there are no real efforts to stop it."

The creation of internet propoganda software is only one of HBGary's controversial activities. According to Wikileaks competetor and occasional collaborator Cryptome.org, several other progressive organizations were intended to be targeted including anti-war activist, anti-torture organizations and groups opposed to the US Chamber of Commerce.

The emails also include a number of other embarrasing entries including the purchase of the book "The Multi-Orgasmic Man: Sexual Secrets Every Man Should Know" from Amazon for $6.76.

For more information on this and other stories click here.

Terror threats rising as FEMA orders $1 Billion in dehydrated food

examinor.com, Feb 24, 2011

FEMA Logo

Photo: Courtesy of FEMA

Terror threats appear to be on the rise as FEMA has rushed a $1 Billion order of dehydrated food in the event of attacks on domestic targets in the US.

This is also coming on the heels of one of the largest terror drills performed by the US Navy on American soil, as Operation Solid Curtain is taking place this week.

In an article Tuesday from the Beaufort Observer, many of the largest suppliers of dehydrated foods in the country are dropping their distributors and customers to dedicate their resources to supplying a billion dollar FEMA request and purchase.

One of the nation's largest suppliers of dehydrated food has cut loose 99% of their dealers and distributors. And it's not because of the poor economy. It's because this particular industry leader can no longer supply their regular distribution channels. Why not? Because they're using every bit of manufacturing capacity they have to fulfill massive new government contracts. Look, the government has always been a customer of the industry to some extent. But according to our sources, this latest development doesn't represent simply a change of vendor on the government's part. It's a whole new magnitude of business.

And that's not all.

Apparently, even though they've cut off their regular consumer markets, the industry leader I've just mentioned still can't produce enough survival food to meet the government's vast requirements. How do we know? Earlier this month, FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) put out a Request for Proposal, or RFP, for even more dehydrated food. The RFP called for a 10-day supply of meals - for 14 million people. That's 420 million meals. Typically, FEMA maintains a stockpile of about 6 million meals. Why the sudden need to increase the stockpile by 420 million more? (And that's in addition to whatever our aforementioned industry leader is supplying.) It almost seems like they're trying to stock a modern day "Noah's Ark," doesn't it?

Single functions or events such as FEMA requesting a purchase of survival food might not stand out as peculiar when it is their responsibility to ensure they are mission ready for unforseen events in the US, but couple this with other pieces of the puzzle, such as the Navy drill of Solid Curtain, which is intended for:

...nationwide "drill" involving all military, and it's a drill based on a severe terrorist attack.

and the public had best be aware of something major potentially occurring on our soil in the near future. Global events across the world such as the revolutions and protests, the rising spike in oil, the falling dollar, food shortages, and unrest in Wisconsin and Ohio, are bringing us to the point where crisis may take place, whether from domestic or foreign sources.

Terror alerts have been raised by FEMA in the past month, and this new special order of dehydrated food, at the magnitude of $1 Billion dollars in taxpayer money, should be a call for everyone to prepare on your own for any potential crisis.

Source: www.examinor.com

Parallels between US 9/11 and India's 9/11: Say No to UIDs

Recently, the Unique ID (UID) Project that’s being pushed through the National Identification Authority bill, currently in the Indian Parliament, came under criticism by civil society groups under the banner of ‘Campaign for No UID’. The UID Project led by Mr. Nandan Nilekani, former CEO of IT major Infosys, is being pushed as a landmark initiative for ushering in ‘good governance’ and providing basic services to the poor. What follows is a piece that I wrote in response to an article titled UID Not In The Public Interest in a different forum. My urge for writing this piece stems from looking at the scenarios or circumstances that led to the call for UIDs in India rather than the UID itself.

I wish the campaign against the UID project wins the battle and the beast be killed in the womb itself. The push for this new ID comes on top of other existing IDs such as the Passport, Driver's Licence, Ration Card, Electoral ID, PAN Card etc. The administration seems to be taking advantage of the political ignorance of the people in the name of 'technological advancement' & 'progress'. Even the mainstream media (The Hindu) has raised some concerns about this issue before. As far as I understand, the UID project is part of a global initiative and is probably the reason why this Unique ID (UID) is also sometimes called the Universal ID.

By undertaking ambitious UID plan, knowingly or unknowingly Nandan Nilekani is simply advancing a global agenda, locally in India, backed by the global elites and that is to microchip the entire global population eventually. This has nothing to do with the safety, security or welfare of the public but has everything to do with total control of the people and every aspect of their lives. The push for Universal ID in India or for that reason the National Security ID in US, are only the first steps to a larger agenda of implanting RFID chips in human beings. Once it's in place, every human being can be tracked on the globe (using GPS) and all money is to be in these chips as there won't be any paper currency. When all the money is in the chip, they can take out whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted (e.g. tax, fees, fines etc), says Aaron Russo. Further, if you protest against the authority, they can simply turn off your chip, which leaves you with nothing. So, no matter what stories they tell you to sell you their 'advanced technology', the ultimate goal is the global enslavement through control of each individual.

The claims that this one ID would replace the need to submit so many other documents imply that several of your personal information including medical, banking etc. could some day in future be merged into this one little piece of ID. Please watch this 10 min excerpt from the historic interview with Aaron Russo or at least the first 2 minutes to see what he has to say about this technology and its ultimate goal. An updated version of the full interview is also available and is certainly worth watching.

The following are my observations and I might be wrong in stretching certain things a bit too far, but I felt compelled to write it down. So, here we go..

Remember the scenarios or events that led to the call for UIDs in India?

Immediately after India's 9/11 (Mumbai attack), the Govt. invoked the Draconian UAPA Law and shortly after that they called for an Universal ID (UID). This was very much in line with what happened in US after 9/11, which gave their Govt. the excuse to invoke the Patriot Act (a draconian law) and subsequently call for the enforcement of a National Security ID. However, since US is one step ahead of the rest of the world and thousands of people know where the US is going with their National ID plan, we can very well forecast where India is going with its UID plan, simply because there's so much parallels between what's unfolding in both countries/continents.

Undeniably, there's quite a bit of parallelism between what happened in US after 9/11 and what's unfolding in India after India's 9/11. Both used false-flag terror attacks as a pretext to invoke draconian laws and enforce National Security IDs; as if these were the standard procedures (or the only measures) to be adopted in the aftermath of a terror attack. To understand it, I think, you may have to go back to an year before the general elections of May 2009. Back in April/May 2008, both parties of India came up with their major agendas for the election campaign. I was startled to see that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had 'Terrorism' as one of their main agenda.

As of 2006, about 40% of Americans did not believe in the official story of 9/11 anymore [This was only 2nd to the number of people who did not believe in the official story of JFK assassination (70%)]. This number has increased by the day ever since and this movement has crossed the N. American continent, to Britain and now sweeping across Europe. So when you know that much of what's called terrorism today is a phony issue or a giant hoax, I had a reason to suspect why "terrorism" was picked as one of the major agendas in 2008. A basic understanding of political philosophy tells that you cannot go campaigning for an election with an issue that doesn't really exist (I believe, terrorism was not as much as a menace to be campaigned as a major agenda for election by any party). If it doesn't exist, then it has to be created. So, is it a coincidence that we had a series of terror attacks in the months that followed? Look at the number of terror attacks that rocked India between May 2008 and Nov. 2008 and the frequency with which it happened (Jaipur, Bangalore, Ahmadabad, Malegaon, Assam, Delhi and finally culminating in the Mumbai attack). We had 6 or 7 attacks happening in a row in just a matter of 6 months and all being hyped. Compare that with the number & frequency with which terror attacks happened in the 4 yrs prior to that. Does that ring any bell? And interestingly we didn't have any terror attacks since then (India's 9/11) for more than a year. Did the terrorists take a long break from their bombing spree or did they reconcile with the Indian people or did someone else accomplish something by staging these terror attacks?

Often what happens after a crisis is what needs to be followed in order to understand why that crisis happened in the first place.

In the US, the 9/11provided the perfect excuse to invoke the Patriot Act. Compare this with Hitler's German Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz) of 1933 and how it was enacted. The Patriot Act, a 300 plus pages document, drafted over a period of several years was waiting for the right crisis to be invoked. It takes away a lot of the people's rights & freedom. According to it, now they can arrest or detain you without a warrant, raid or break into your house without your permission, seize properties, trace or tap any forms of communications (telephone, emails etc.) and if arrested on supposed 'terror' charges "you are guilty until proven innocent" which is against the civilized law that states "you are innocent until proven guilty". In other words, more & more powers are being taken away from the people and vested with the Govt. or President. Subsequently, they called for a National Security ID, which if not for the 9/11 attack, would have never been accepted by the people. The next step in their plan was to merge these IDs with the driver's licence so that you are forced to carry it. They do it one-step-at-a-time and eventually these chips are to contain all your personal information (including medical, banking etc.). It's only a matter of time before these chips would jump from your cards to your body. The point here is that 9/11 gave the perfect excuse to implement these agendas.

Could India be following the same footsteps; invoking the UAPA Law and pushing the UID project, both in the wake of staged terror attacks?

My suspicion grew stronger particularly after the Bangalore and Ahmadabad bombings that happened on consecutive days in late July 2008. Interestingly both were BJP ruled states. What better place to stage a false-flag attack than to stage it in their own states! The news media like Times of India (TOI) was quick to respond with articles like "BJP ruled states under attack", "BJP ruled Madhya Pradesh under high alert", etc. Though it sounds true at prima facie, why would someone bring BJP into the equation while addressing terrorism? I wondered if those titles were aimed at unsuspecting people to gain their sympathy in favour of BJP because it was the only party campaigning for election with combating terrorism as one of their major agenda? Even more interesting was that within 24 hrs of this incident, L. K. Advani (then the leader of opposition and the Prime Ministerial candidate) came on stage bashing the central Govt. for repealing the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA), as if it was because of the lack of POTA that terror attacks happened. This, to me, sounded more like the classic case of the Hegelian dialectic: PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION. They created a Problem, hyped it using the media for the public to React and then they came up with their own Solution, without giving any time for the people to think. It was one or two months after this attack that the head of the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Hemant Karkare exposed the Hindutva terror network within India linked to the Indian Army official, Hindutva cadre and other factions of BJP. The whole of India was taken by surprise and shocked while there was nothing really to be surprised at all.

In several cases, the BJP leadership in these states itself pose the biggest obstacle to any unbiased investigation. To cite a recent example, a thorough investigation by the Rajasthan ATS, after the ouster of BJP from power in the state, revealed that the RSS activists were actually involved in the Ajmer bomb attack of October 2007, which was earlier blamed on HuJI, LeT and such Muslim terrorist groups. In fact, a Rajasthan police team had even cracked the Ajmer blast way back in 2007 but because of political pressure the findings were kept under the wrap, reports Gatade.

Another example I could remember was the controversy surrounding a photograph that appeared in almost all the mainstream media after the Delhi terror attacks in September 2008. At least eight mainstream English newspapers (including The Times of India, The Indian and The New Indian Express, The Hindu, the Hindustan Times, The Deccan Chronicle) and many more in the regional language papers uncritically published almost identical photographs on their front pages. It was a picture of the three suspected terrorists arrested in connection with the Delhi serial blasts. However, there was something strange about this photograph. A critique, titled "The uses and misuses of photographs" by Sadanand Menon addresses it and described this incident as one of those where the Indian media collectively displayed a herd-like mentality.

Finally, there came the Mumbai attacks. When all the other attacks until then were mostly covered only locally, Mumbai terror attacks received global coverage. This brought India to the status of a global ally in the phony ‘War on Terror’. So is there any wonder why it follows the exact footsteps of US? Despite the number of controversies (lies, fabrications) surrounding the official story of Mumbai attacks (see [1], [2]), it formed the basis for launching the draconian UAPA Law and the subsequent call for UIDs. Further, India's 9/11 also took some obstacles out of the way like I.P.S Officer Karkare and his associates, just as US 9/11 took down John O'Neil along with the WTC towers. [The Fed blocked his investigation who almost tipped off the connection between CIA and Bin Laden]. The mystery surrounding the death of the ATS chief Karkare and his associates alone [3], [4] is enough to suggest that some elements in India certainly had prior knowledge of the oncoming attacks. To me, the only thing right about Mumbai attack was that they rightly termed it as 'India's 9/11' because it had all the fingerprints of a false-flag attack like the US 9/11.

In essence, by invoking the UAPA Law, Congress did what BJP wanted. However, BJP is not the sole beneficiary from this deal. The ever-expanding definition of the term 'Terrorist' in these draconian laws can be extended to anyone who voices dissent against the authority and is a threat to the very democratic rights. Today, the Union Minister of Home Affairs Mr. Chidambaram and his cronies have already extended it to their fight against Naxalites & Maoists where they are grabbing tribal land by force under 'Operation Green Hunt' and turning it over to corporate criminals offshore. Any dissenting voices from social activists, human rights activists or protesters can be silenced under these laws (e.g. See what happened to Dr. Sen). Tomorrow, any form of dissent or resistance to the state could be labelled as a threat to the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India and hence the dissenter be branded as a Terrorist. In short, these laws are ultimately going to be used against the very people they promised to protect. Terrorists & terror attacks were simply a means to the end. Remember the saying, "Terrorists & dictators are two sides of the same coin and they have always done business with the rich".

For Nilekani, UID project may be a business venture, but for the Govt. it's certainly a tool to control and spy on its citizens; and sadly for the people, it's the first step to total enslavement.

Notes:
1. India's Terror Dossier: Further Evidence Of A Conspiracy
(http://countercurrents.org/hansa050209.htm)
2. Unanswered Questions About Mumbai Terror Attacks
(http://countercurrents.org/hansa130510.htm)
3. Who Killed Karkare? The Real Face of Terrorism in India by S. M. Mushrif, Former I. G. Police, MH (A Review)
4. To the last bullet by Vinita Kamate

Is there Freedom of Choice in America?

It appears that Americans hardly have any choice over matters of real concern. Recently, there was a news that appeared in the

It's ironic that in a country that's supposedly free, you are not free to work on your own backyard. Sounds ridiculous !. For every silly thing that you may want to do in America (the land of the free) today, you need a licence or Right. In that context, some of the questions raised by the author and others are very sensible:

Even though you paid 100s of thousands to buy your house/land, you still don't own it if you stop paying your property taxes..
You don't own the water that falls in your backyard or roof top..
You don't 've rights to sell raw milk even if there are people ready to take it..
You don't 've rights to rear animal farms without registering it or tagging your animals..
You don't 've rights to take out to the streets to express dissent or demonstrate a peaceful protest (the essence of democracy) without first getting a permission from the authority.. (what if the authority denies?)..
You don't 've choice over which public school you want to send your child to but the govt. chooses it for you.. (the one down the lane in ur community)..
You don't 've rights to punish/discipline your own children for correction. If you do, you may stand the chance of losing your child to foster homes..
You 've little to no choice when it comes to vaccinating your child. If you don't, your child may be denied admission to schools. In certain other cases, you may even be charged with child-abuse & send to jail..

The list goes on...These are certainly not the marks of a free society or a democracy.

And finally, they are going to tag you..

Yes, even if one chooses to ignore all the points listed above, there's still evidence to prove that the Big Brother is closing in on its peolpe. One of the most compelling source of evidence is the Historic Interview which Aaron Russo gave a few yrs ago. It's been very popular on the internet and is widely known among activists, independent researchers/journalists and whistle-blowers. The entire interview is about 70 min but this 10 min excerpt from the same is as good as watching the whole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

If this is not Big Govt.'s encroachment on personal rights and freedom, then I don't know what is..

We don't 've to go too far to find out how dangerously close America is to a fascist dictatorship today. See how much rights & liberties have been taken away from Americans just in the last 8 or 9 years alone. It's the closing down of a democrary. America is following the exact footsteps of Nazi Germany. Look at the striking similarities between the Patriot Act of 2001 and Hitler's German Enabling Act and see how they were enforced. It also warns about the 10 Key Dangers of The Patriot Act That Every American Should Know. If that's not enough, see Naomi Wolf's documentary 'End of America' where she neatly lays out the steps that every dictatorship (Italy, Germany, Russia etc.) has taken in the past to close down an open society. It's shocking to see how much of these draconian laws have been put in to effect already in America. If that doesn't wake up Americans, nothing will...

Further, it's not necessarily the ultra-conservatives who always drums up mass hysteria. A few weeks ago we saw how undercover agents (Police) were involved in the G-20 Riot Fraud in Toronto. Well, the American counterparts are pioneers of this art. There has been reports that the milita raids are a Govt. effort to provoke violence. Here's a very recent case where FBI Undercover agents were involved in provoking extremist groups to attack law-enforcement. See the article titled:

As Predicted, FBI Agent Discovered at Center of Alleged Hutaree Conspiracy

The so-called ultra-conservativism, right-wing extremism, militia group opertions etc., that's picking up momentum in the recent years (particularly after Obama came to power) are likely to be hyped more in the coming days. It is part of an ongoing effort to shift the focus of the 'war on terror' from external terrorists to internal homegrown American terrorists and we know where they are going with it. One of the ultimate goals (if not THE ultimate goal) in provoking these internal violence is to provide the country with the right kind of crisis so that the Govt. could step in and enforce gun control. Yes, Gun-Confiscation or Abolition of private fire-arms is the goal. YOU CAN BET ON IT. The criminals who run the government knows that in order to control the public and suppress any sort of resistance that may possibly arise from them, the civilians have to be disarmed first. Hitler said: "the most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow citizens to carry arms." In this scenario, the millions of people possessing guns in America are a threat to the sustenance of criminals in power. Hence, the civilians should be completely stripped of their arms; a Right granted by the US Constitution. It can't be any simpler than that when Attorney General, Janet Reno says: "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Thus, prohibition of private firearms is the ultimate goal of the administration, and therefore the escalation of firearm related crisis (such as that in the above article) is an essential evil for them. There's a method to the madness.

Though a section of the public is waking up to this reality, much of the sheeple are still in the fantasy world in pursuit of the great 'American Dream'. As George Carlin puts it, the owners of this country know the truth and it's called the 'American Dream', because you have to be asleep to believe it.. It appears that Americans hardly have any choice over matters of real concern and the only choice Americans are left with is the choice over 24 different kind of bagels or the choice between a window seat or aisle seat in an airplane.

Reflections and Warnings: An Interview with Aaron Russo [Updated Version]

This is an updated version of Alex Jones' Historic Interview with Aaron Russo that has been very popular on the Internet for more than 3 years now. The actual interview that surfaced in 2007 was about 70 min. long, but this new version has updated the original with some behind the scenes footages, documents and commentaries.

Reflections And Warnings:
An Interview With Aaron Russo {Full Film}

This information-packed presentation is a MUST watch for all Americans if they need to understand who the real enemy is and want to take back their country. This is also a good whistle-blower to other nations that are blindly following the footsteps of America (For eg., India).

Aaron Russo states that the ultimate goal of the Global elites is to create a One World Government run by the International Bankers who also wants to depopulate the world and microchip every person. The microchips were to contain all information including banking and money so that the elites can take out whatever money they wanted and whenever they wanted, in the name of taxes, fines etc. This is total control of human beings. Aaron also explains how the elite created the women's liberation movement to break up the family and tax working women. Russo breaks down the deception of democracy-- which is nothing more than mobocracy or mob rule guaranteed to produce tyranny. Russo also exposes the IRS & Federal Reserve. He blasts the unconstitutional and predatory institutions that have crippled the American Republic and crushed the people with bogus taxes, inflation and loss of privacy.

Brzezinski Decries “Global Political Awakening” During CFR Speech

Trilateral Commission co-founder says infighting amongst elite, combined with awakening of humanity worldwide, is hampering move towards one world government

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, May 19, 2010

At a recent Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal, co-founder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission and regular Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that a “global political awakening,” in combination with infighting amongst the elite, was threatening to derail the move towards a one world government.

Brzezinski explained that global political leadership had become “much more diversified unlike what it was until relatively recently,” noting the rise of China as a geopolitical power, and that global leadership in the context of the G20 was “lacking internal unity with many of its members in bilateral antagonisms.”

In other words, the global elite is infighting amongst itself and this is hampering efforts to rescue the agenda for global government, which seems to be failing on almost every front.

Brzezinski then explained another significant factor in that, “For the first time in all of human history mankind is politically awakened – that’s a total new reality – it has not been so for most of human history.”

Watch the clip.

Brzezinski continued, “The whole world has become politically awakened,” adding that all over the world people were aware of what was happening politically and were “consciously aware of global inequities, inequalities, lack of respect, exploitation.”

“Mankind is now politically awakened and stirring,” said Brzezinski, adding that this in combination with a fractured elite “makes it a much more difficult context for any major power, including currently the leading world power, the United States.”

During a subsequent question and answer session, Brzezinski was asked if he thought another organization should replace the United Nations as the de facto “one world government,” to which Brzezinski responded, “There should be such an organization,” before pointing out that the UN was not it in its current role.

As the text at the end of the video makes clear, Brzezinski’s admission that humanity has undergone a political awakening is not a positive development in the eyes of the elite.

In his 1970 book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, Brzezinski wrote the following.

“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”

The “elite” to which Brzezinski refers included many of those who were in attendance for his speech at the CFR meeting. The global political awakening which Brzezinski discussed represents part of the resistance to that very elite dominated society and the systems of control, subjugation and surveillance that they have imposed upon the human race in pursuit of a “more controlled society” and a one world government.

Patriot Act vs. German Enabling Act: The Decrees of 1933

by Wes Penre, May 27, 2005

1) How the Patriot Act Compares to Hitler's Erm�chtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act)

On March 23, 1933, the newly elected members of the Reichstag met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's "Erm�chtigungsgesetz". The "Enabling Act" was officially called the 'Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.'

Opponents to the bill argued that if it was passed, it would end democracy in Germany and establish a legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. To soften resistance to the passing of the Enabling Act, the Nazis secretly caused confusion in order to create an atmosphere in which the law seem necessary to restore order.

On February 27, 1933, Nazis burned the Reichstag building, and a seat of the German government, causing frenzy and outrage. They successfully blamed the fire on the Communists, and claimed it marked the beginning of a widespread terrorism and unrest threatening the safety of the German "Homeland." On the day of the vote, Nazi storm troopers gathered around the opera house chanting, "Full powers - or else! We want the bill - or fire and murder!"

The Nazis used the opportunity to arrest 4,000 communists. Not only did the Nazis use the incident as a propaganda against communists but they also arrested additional 40,000 members of the opposition. Consequently, the Nazis had achieved their objective of eliminating democracy and ensuring their majority in the parliament.

After the fire on February 28, 1933, president Hindenburg and Hitler invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permitted the suspension of civil liberties during national emergencies. Some examples of this Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State abrogated the following constitutional protections: Freedom of the press, free expression of opinion, individual property rights, right of assembly and association, right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, states� rights of self-government, and protection against unlawful searches and seizures.

Before the vote, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint. He also promised to end unemployment and promote multilateral peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union.

In order to accomplish all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act. Since this act would alter the German constitution, a two-thirds majority was necessary. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. The Center Party provided these votes after Hitler made a false promise to them. Four hundred and forty votes were registered for the Enabling Act, while a mere 84 votes were opposed � the social Democrats. In glory the Nazi Party stood to their feet and sang the Nazi anthem, the H�rst Wessel song. The German Democratic party had finally been eliminated, and Hitler�s dream for Nazi command became closer to reality.

The Enabling Act granted Hitler the power he craved and could use without objection from the Reichstag. Shortly after the passing of The Enabling Act all other political parties were dissolved. Trade unions were liquidated and opposition clergy were arrested. The Nazi party had, as Hitler said, become the state. By August 1934, Hitler became commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This was in addition to being President and F�hrer of the German Reich, to whom every individual in the armed forces pledged unconditional obedience. The Reichstag was no longer a place for debate, but rather a cheering squad in favor of whatever Hitler might say.

2) A 21st Century Comparison of The Enabling Act and The Patriot Act

Last September, German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin pointed out that George Bush is using Iraq to distract the American public from his failed domestic policies. She capped her statement by reminding her audience: "That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that." What was lost in the reactions to Ms. Daeubler-Gmelin's comments was that she wasn't comparing Bush to the Hitler of the late 1930s and early 1940s; but to the Hitler of the late 1920s and early 1930s.

Most Americans have forgotten that Hitler came to power legally. He and the Nazi Party were elected democratically in a time of great national turmoil and crisis. They themselves had done much to cause the turmoil, of course, but that's what makes the Bush comparison so compelling.

Similar to the Bush administration, the Nazis were funded and ultimately ushered into power by wealthy industrialists looking for government favors in the form of tax breaks, big subsidies, and laws to weaken the rights of workers. When the Reichstag (Germany's Parliament building) was set ablaze in 1933 (probably by Nazis), the Nazis framed their political rivals for it. In the general panic that followed, the German Parliament was purged of all left-wing representatives who might be soft on communists and foreigners, and the few who remained then VOTED to grant Chancellor Hitler dictatorial powers. A long, hideous nightmare had begun.

History teaches us that it is shockingly easy to separate reasonable and intelligent people from their rights. A legally elected leader and party can easily manipulate national events to whip up fear, crucify scapegoats, gag dissenters, and convince the masses that their liberties must be suspended (temporarily, of course) in the name of restoring order. Consider the following two statements, and see if you can identify the authors.

Statement Number One: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Statement Number Two: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."

The first statement is a quote from Hitler's right hand man, Hermann Goering, explaining at his war crimes trial how easily he and his fellow Nazis hijacked Germany's democratic government. The second statement is a quote from Bush's right hand man, John Ashcroft, defending the Patriot Act and explaining why dissent will no longer be tolerated in the age of terrorism. If that doesn't send chills down your spine, nothing will.

When the shooting started at Lexington Green in 1775, those calling themselves patriots were the men and women who refused to yield their rights to an increasingly oppressive government. Today, according to John Ashcroft and his Patriot Act of 2001, a patriot is someone who kneels down in fear, and hands over his or her rights to the government in the name of fighting terrorism. Isn't the hypocrisy of this all too obvious? The Bush administration wants us to fight in Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq, and to fight wherever terrorists may be hiding. And what, pray tell, are we fighting for? Well, according to the White House, we're fighting for freedom. Yet freedom is exactly what the White House is demanding that we now SURRENDER in the name of fighting terrorism.

So what's really going on? Well, it's all a lie, of course. The Bush administration isn't any more interested in protecting our freedom from terrorists than Hitler was in protecting Germans from communists, Jews, and all the other groups he scapegoated. The Bush administration is fighting only to protect itself and its corporate sponsors. It hides behind a veil of national security and behind non-stop war headlines of its own creation. And behind that smokescreen, Bush, Inc. is pursuing Hitler�s old agenda from the 1920s and 1930s: serving the interests of the corporate industrialists who brought it to power.

There is a name for governments that serve the interests of Big Business at the expense of their own citizens: fascist. Here's a short list of the rights we've already surrendered since the September 11 attacks. Most of these abuses are from a single piece of legislation called the Patriot Act of 2001, which was rushed through Congress with no debate in the aftermath of the attacks. Many of the Congressmen who voted for it later admitted that they hadn't even read it at the time.


3) Ten Key Dangers of The Patriot Act That Every American Should Know

No. 1: The government can conduct "sneak and peek" searches in which agents enter your home or business and search your belongings without informing you until long after.

No. 2: Government agents can force libraries and bookstores to hand over the titles of books that you1ve purchased or borrowed and can demand the identity of anyone who has purchased or borrowed certain books. The government can also prosecute libraries and bookstores for informing you that the search occurred or even for informing you that an inquiry was made. According to ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer, such "searches could extend to doctors offices, banks and other institutions which, like libraries, were previously off-limits under the law." Chris Finan, President of the American Booksellers group adds: "The refusal of the Justice Department to tell Congress how many times it has used its powers is even more unsettling because it naturally leads to the suspicion that it is using them a lot."

No. 3: Federal agents are authorized to use hidden devices to trace the telephone calls or emails of people who are not even suspected of a crime. The FBI is also permitted to use its Magic Lantern technology to monitor everything you do on your computer--recording not just the websites you visit but EVERY SINGLE KEYSTROKE as well.

No. 4: Government agents are permitted to arrest and detain individuals "suspected" of terrorist activities and to hold them INDEFINITELY, WITHOUT CHARGE, and WITHOUT an ATTORNEY. (That could be you or me for sending or receiving this Email, by the way)

No. 5: Federal agents are permitted to conduct full investigations of American citizens and permanent legal residents simply because they have participated in activities protected by the First Amendment, such as writing a letter to the editor or attending a peaceful rally.

No. 6: Law enforcement agents are permitted to listen in on discussions between prisoners and their attorneys, thus denying them their Constitutional right to confidential legal counsel.

No. 7: Terrorism suspects may be tried in secret military tribunals where defendants have no right to a public trial, no right to trial by jury, no right to confront the evidence, and no right to appeal to an independent court. In short, the Constitution does not apply.

No. 8: The CIA is granted authority to spy on American citizens, a power that has previously been denied to this international espionage organization.

No. 9: In addition to the Patriot Act, the Bush administration has given us Operations TIPS, a government program that encourages citizens to spy on each other and to report their neighbors activities to the authorities. It's EXACTLY the kind of thing for which we used to fault East Germany and the Soviet Union, and for which we currently fault Red China and North Korea. Fortunately, Operation TIPS (or AmeriSnitch, as it's known to its many detractors) seems to have been recalled to the factory--at least for now. (Incidentally, in a clever variation of "two-can-play-at-that-game�, Brad Templeton has set up a website at http://www.all-the-other-names-were-taken.com/tipstips.html where you can report people you suspect of being informants for Operation TIPS. It's an interesting and amusing site, well worth a look.)

No. 10: In the wake of Operation TIPS came something even worse: Total Information Awareness. TIA is a program of the Defense Department that when fully operational will link commercial and government databases so that the DOD can immediately put its finger on any piece of information about you that it wants. New York Times columnist William Safire writes: "Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as a virtual, centralized grand database." And that's not all. Who did our president appoint to head the TIA? Who gets to be Big Brother himself? Why it's none other than John Poindexter, a man convicted in 1990 on five counts of lying to Congress, destroying official documents, and obstructing congressional inquiries into the Iran-contra affair. Another Hermann Goering, if there ever was one.


4) BILL MOYERS' NOW COMMENTS ON THE PATRIOT ACT

At the same time the Bush administration is probing into your private life, it is shielding itself from all public scrutiny. It has shredded the Freedom of Information Act; it has locked away presidential records not only of the current administration but of administrations going all the way back to Reagan as well; and it has even locked up George W. Bush's gubernatorial records so that the people of Texas can't see what he did to them while serving as their governor.

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration is also using anti-terror legislation and executive orders to protect its corporate sponsors from scrutiny and from prosecution. The drug company Eli Lilly, for instance, was recently granted immunity from all cases brought against it-�even those initiated long before the war on terrorism--related to a vaccine it manufactured that turned out to cause autism in many children. (Eli Lilly contributed over $3 million in the last two election campaigns.) The Bush administration also protected the Bayer Corporation1s patent on the antibiotic Cipro throughout the anthrax scare, whereas other countries, such as Canada, broke that patent so that other companies could make cheaper versions of the drug in case of emergency.

It is interesting to note that during WWII Bayer was part of the I.G. Farben conglomerate, the top financial contributor to the Nazi Party. I.G. Farben produced petrol and rubber for the Nazi war machine and it manufactured the Zyklon B gas that was used to exterminate millions of Jews and other "enemies of the state." In exchange for these services, the Nazis provided Farben (and Bayer) with lucrative government contracts and with slave labor from concentration camps.

Under George W. Bush's kinder, gentler fascism, U.S. corporations are now allowed to do business with the Homeland Security Department even if they cheat the government out of vast amounts of tax revenues by setting up offshore business fronts in the Caribbean Islands. It used to be that tax-evaders were tracked down and punished. Now they're rewarded with fat government contracts. Could the slave labor be far behind?

If only this were the extent of the Bush administration's ramble down the road to fascism. Way back in November of 2001, William Safire accused the Bush administration of "seizing dictatorial power." Well, Mr. Safire, you ain't seen nothing yet. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, just when you thought we can't lose any more of our liberties and still call ourselves a "free society," we learn that the Bush administration wants to take away even more of our rights. A secret document was just leaked out of John Ashcroft's Justice Department and turned over to the Center for Public Integrity. Titled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, this document turns out to be a draft of new anti-terrorism legislation, a vastly more muscular sequel to Patriot Act. If passed, it would grant the executive branch sweeping new powers of domestic surveillance, and it would eliminate most of the few remaining checks and balances that protect us from tyranny.

It's the Patriot Act on steroids. Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity shared this document with Bill Moyers, who examined it on NOW, his weekly PBS program. That episode aired Friday, February 7, yet even now no mainstream news broadcaster has picked up this incredible story. Read the NOW transcript and see the document itself online at http://www.pbs.org/now/. You can also read the Center for Public Integrity's analysis of the document at http://www.publicintegrity.org/.

Dr. David Cole, a Law professor at Georgetown University and author of Terrorism and the Constitution assessed the document, saying, "I think this is a quite radical proposal. It authorizes secret arrests. It would give the Attorney General essentially unchecked authority to deport anyone who he thought was a danger to our economic interests. It would strip citizenship from people for lawful political associations."

"Secret arrests�? Did we hear that right? It seems that the Homeland Security Department (HSD) is about to become the KGB. The first Patriot Act already allows for people to be locked up indefinitely without a lawyer and without being charged with a crime. If Patriot Act II passes, then arrests would also be secret. That means that dissenters (or anyone else, for that matter) could disappear without a trace, just as they did in Nazi Germany, in Stalinist Russia, and in Pinochet's Chile.

Patriot Act II would also grant even more immunity to Big Business. A corporation could pour toxins into your local river, for instance, and you wouldn't know about it until all the fish died and your neighbor�s kids were born with missing limbs. And then when you went to court and demanded to know what the company was dumping in your river, the company could deny you that information on the grounds that it's a national security secret. Jim Hightower put it this way: "All a company has to do to shield anything it wants to keep from the public eye--say, an embarrassing chemical spill--is give the documents to the Homeland Security Department and call them "critical infrastructure information."

Ah, but there's even more to be concerned about here. The document was created back in early January, but so far it appears that the only members of Congress who even know of its existence are House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Vice-president Dick Cheney. (The Vice-president presides over the Senate, which makes him a member of the legislative branch as well as the executive branch.) This raises a troubling question: Why has the White House been sitting on this bill for a month? If the CEOs down at Bush, Inc. really believe that they need these broad new powers to protect us from terrorists, why not roll out that bill and start the debate? The answer is all too plain. In all likelihood, the Bush administration was planning to avoid debate entirely by springing this bill on the American people in the midst of a perceived national crisis. Perhaps during the war with Iraq, for instance. Or perhaps in the aftermath of the next terrorist attack. Or perhaps right after the Reichstag fire.

Had some courageous soul not leaked this document out of the Justice Department, the White House might easily have succeeded in passing it through Congress without debate in the midst of our next perceived national crisis, much as it did with the first Patriot Act in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. A thorough debate of this bill right now, under fairly stable circumstances, would defuse it and prevent its passage even under more frightening circumstances later on. There's just one problem. The debate can't begin until more Americans know about this bill, but so far the Washington Post is the only major news outlet to even MENTION this story since Bill Moyers broke it on Friday night.

Here's what you can do to help
First, forward this email to everyone you know. Second, send an email to the Center for Public Integrity and to the producers of NOW thanking them for breaking this story. Here's a sample message that you can use or modify:

I am writing to express my heartfelt thanks and admiration to the Center for Public Integrity, to Bill Moyers, to the producers of NOW, and especially to the brave unnamed patriot who valued the Bill of Rights over his or her own personal well-being and, at great personal risk, leaked a draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 out of the Justice Department.