http://youtu.be/2zM_2DrAkxY


http://www.republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ID=4e07eada-5c58-4214-8081-a594ecebb92b


That is why Bitcoin and Stealth organizations on the internet is more important now than ever. Don't forget those tools will turn over against the very people using them now, in the future.

• Optic Nerve program collected Yahoo webcam images in bulk
• 1.8m users targeted by UK agency in six-month period alone
• Yahoo: 'A whole new level of violation of our users' privacy'
• Material included large quantity of sexually explicit images


Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.

GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.

In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.

Yahoo reacted furiously to the webcam interception when approached by the Guardian. The company denied any prior knowledge of the program, accusing the agencies of "a whole new level of violation of our users' privacy".

GCHQ does not have the technical means to make sure no images of UK or US citizens are collected and stored by the system, and there are no restrictions under UK law to prevent Americans' images being accessed by British analysts without an individual warrant.

The documents also chronicle GCHQ's sustained struggle to keep the large store of sexually explicit imagery collected by Optic Nerve away from the eyes of its staff, though there is little discussion about the privacy implications of storing this material in the first place.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are obviously among us.

http://youtu.be/kBTd9--9VMI


Can't wait...

No wonder he is more popular than obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qbf4i3afoE

In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758), and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in the Big Apple, according to a report by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/nyc-more-black-babies-killed-abortion-born#sthash.JXeqk144.dpuf

Why is the agency studying 'perceived station bias' and asking about coverage choices?



News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.

But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of "critical information" such as the "environment" and "economic opportunities," that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their "news philosophy" and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.

The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary—in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC's queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

This is not the first time the agency has meddled in news coverage. Before Critical Information Needs, there was the FCC's now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. Though the Fairness Doctrine ostensibly aimed to increase the diversity of thought on the airwaves, many stations simply chose to ignore controversial topics altogether, rather than air unwanted content that might cause listeners to change the channel.

The Fairness Doctrine was controversial and led to lawsuits throughout the 1960s and '70s that argued it infringed upon the freedom of the press. The FCC finally stopped enforcing the policy in 1987, acknowledging that it did not serve the public interest. In 2011 the agency officially took it off the books. But the demise of the Fairness Doctrine has not deterred proponents of newsroom policing, and the CIN study is a first step down the same dangerous path.

The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry.

This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?

Should all stations follow MSNBC's example and cut away from a discussion with a former congresswoman about the National Security Agency's collection of phone records to offer live coverage of Justin Bieber's bond hearing? As a consumer of news, I have an opinion. But my opinion shouldn't matter more than anyone else's merely because I happen to work at the FCC.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 days later, no mainstream media picked up on the news about that Stasi like move.

http://www.artemis.com/

http://youtu.be/4eMBBVG-MNY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGG_GHYzSLs&feature=share

Coinbase, Blockchain.info and Electrum on Android's best news...?



Forget the Internet - soon there will be the OUTERNET: Company plans to beam free Wi-fi to every person on Earth from space
An ambitious project known as Outernet is aiming to launch hundreds of miniature satellites into low Earth orbit by June 2015
Each satellite will broadcast the Internet to phones and computers giving billions of people across the globe free online access
Citizens of countries like China and North Korea that have censored online activity could be given free and unrestricted cyberspace
'There's really nothing that is technically impossible to this'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2552177/Forget-Internet-soon-OUTERNET-Company-plans-beam-free-wi-fi-person-Earth-space.html

As a former combat commander, I can tell you that fear is difficult to avoid on the battlefield. But on today’s battlefields, a new fear haunts our troops: the fear of persecution by their own government. That fear leads to internal hesitation. And that leads to death.

Billy and Karen Vaughn, parents who know the pain of having their warrior son betrayed write on Breitbart.com “U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are now forced to fight a two-fronted war. Before each deployment, these soldiers understand fully that day after day they will do battle against relentless terrorists with shifting loyalties and unspeakable hatred. But what none of them could have foreseen was the killing field that would open from their rear: the Continental United States.

Our government’s incessant tightening of already restrictive ROE (Rules of Engagement), compounded by the failed COIN (Counterinsurgency) strategy—also known as “winning hearts and minds”—has made an otherwise primitive enemy formidable.”

http://allenbwest.com/2014/02/us-military-deaths-afghanistan-skyrocket-obama/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The saddest part is none of those so called anti war people or the media will call on obama and point to those numbers. Because first black DEMOCRAT president. Because Hillary 2016. Because Bush's fault.

http://youtu.be/0UUn2KGMnnU

On May 12, 1992, Stan Greenberg and Celinda Lake, top pollsters for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, issued a confidential memo. The memo’s subject was “Research on Hillary Clinton.”

Voters admired the strength of the Arkansas first couple, the pollsters wrote. However, “they also fear that only someone too politically ambitious, too strong, and too ruthless could survive such controversy so well.”

Their conclusion: “What voters find slick in Bill Clinton, they find ruthless in Hillary.”

The full memo is one of many previously unpublished documents contained in the archive of one of Hillary Clinton’s best friends and advisers, documents that portray the former first lady, secretary of State, and potential 2016 presidential candidate as a strong, ambitious, and ruthless Democratic operative.

The papers of Diane Blair, a political science professor Hillary Clinton described as her “closest friend” before Blair’s death in 2000, record years of candid conversations with the Clintons on issues ranging from single-payer health care to Monica Lewinsky.

The archive includes correspondence, diaries, interviews, strategy memos, and contemporaneous accounts of conversations with the Clintons ranging from the mid-1970s to the turn of the millennium.

Diane Blair’s husband, Jim Blair, a former chief counsel at Tyson Foods Inc. who was at the center of “Cattlegate,” a 1994 controversy involving the unusually large returns Hillary Clinton made while trading cattle futures contracts in the 1970s, donated his wife’s papers to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library in Fayetteville after her death.

The full contents of the archive, which before 2010 was closed to the public, have not previously been reported on and shed new light on Clinton’s three decades in public life. The records paint a complex portrait of Hillary Clinton, revealing her to be a loyal friend, devoted mother, and a cutthroat strategist who relished revenge against her adversaries and complained in private that nobody in the White House was “tough and mean enough.”

THE SEX FILES

On July 28, 1997, President Clinton was facing yet another wave of allegations from yet another woman. Kathleen Willey had accused Clinton of sexually assaulting her, and Blair faxed a Drudge Report item about her claims to one of the president’s aides.

Blair’s handwritten note attached to the story: “Do we take Matt Drudge seriously?”

Six months later, Drudge would break the story of an affair between Clinton and 22-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky, setting in motion the events that would lead to the president’s impeachment.

http://freebeacon.com/the-hillary-papers/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have a president who was not only smoking weed but was "rich" enough to buy cocaine while he was studying at Columbia, in the 80's, according to his own biography. Everything will be pushed to downplay all of this. The media will make sure to say how of a strong woman she was and still is. More reason to vote for her in 2016 than ever.

They will also remind us at the same time that bill Clinton is an amazing husband and dad:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/bill-clinton-father-of-the-year.html

Question #4



Question #5



Question #9




Etc, etc.... Enjoy!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-from-creationists-to-people-who-believe-in-evolutio?sub=2976539_2391851

New leader wants Silk Road to publish gov't secrets; calls old DPR a "fraud."

- Ars Technica: You've said that, contrary to popular belief, your site "does not represent drugs." What does it represent?

Dread Pirate Roberts: We represent a right for the individual to choose what they would or wouldn't like to put into their own bodies. The state is no longer a protector of the people in many ways. It has chosen to limit the choice of individuals, and it feels almost compelled to "educate" people about what they think is best. Just like many institutions, the state is no better than a private corporation, and indeed there are times when you could mistake some governments for a board of directors who have nothing but power and wealth on their minds.

- Even the use of legal drugs like alcohol has negative social consequences; what do you think about the distribution of more dangerous substances?

The role government plays should not be to infringe upon individual rights but to protect them. If a person was to lose control of themselves and cause harm or issue to others, then they are acting outside of their individual rights and infringing upon the rights of another—in which case there is reasonable ground to detain a person.

Did prohibition at all stop people drinking? No. Did prohibition stop people seeking help? Yes, and many people paid with their lives for it. Does prohibition take otherwise productive citizens who've done no harm to others out of society and let them sit in a jail cell to drain resources? I'll let you consider that.

Now we can say how alcohol does affect society, but we are then talking about what people do to others and not what the drug itself is doing. DoctorX [a user on the Silk Road message boards who claims to be a Spanish medical doctor specializing in cocaine, cannabis, and synthetic drugs] pointed out that if you leave a drug on the table, it will not get up and hurt you. The individual is responsible for looking after themselves and not damaging others. If they do so, then perhaps prison is a solution for the protection of society, but putting millions of people behind bars for being responsible drug users—not harming others—is a disgrace.

- You've said, "I believe that right now, we are living in a society where our enemy is no longer foreign but domestic." Could you elaborate on this?

After 9/11, there was a vast amount of scaremongering over terrorism, and the higher echelons of society saw fit to strip the rights of everyone in the process. This is not to say that, of course, there aren't terrorists, but so many times we hear in religion, money, and nationality that we must not judge many by the actions of the few—yet we can see such hypocrisy from the US government where everyone must surrender their rights for the actions of a few. Is the government any better than the people?

- You’re a libertarian. Do your views differ at all from those of the previous “Dread Pirate Roberts?"

A person can hold any school of libertarian view they would like to, but do they actually support their views through action? A person screaming their libertarian principles who then has those around him brought down with him for his own gain is not a person with any morality in them and in my view is a fraud of a genuinely good cause...

- You've said, "Silk Road while under my watch will never harm a soul. If we did, then we are no better than the thugs on the street." I take it you thought it was wrong of the previous DPR to—allegedly—order multiple hits on people in the course of doing business.

I think at this time it is inappropriate for me to comment on too many specifics as there is a lot that still is not public that I hold in gross contempt. There are probably actions I have done for which the community will hold me in contempt, which will not come to light just yet or maybe ever, if I am lucky. I do not say they are as foolish as hiring an online hitman, but I cannot excuse myself for having human moments. We are all still human, and I do make mistakes. Fortunately, they are limited to simple policy issues so far.

What is more important to me is ensuring I am not a single point of failure and any mistake I do make will only compromise my own freedom without hurting others.

- You've said, "With enough time and data, identifying our servers would actually be a trivial task for the NSA." How much does this worry you?

It is of course a credible threat. People like the FBI do their job in finding people through non-technical measures, such as when somebody has poor OPSEC [operational security], but the NSA wants to break the very foundations we stand on.

The NSA also has a huge budget, and anything they can do against Silk Road they can do against all Tor users, so we have to assemble some of the greatest minds in the world to defend our cause. When it comes to some kind of cyberwarfare, the NSA is undoubtedly the heavyweight, but they still have us to contend with.

- Can the new Silk Road site be taken down as easily as the previous incarnation?

There is only one person in the world that knows who [my second in command] “Defcon” is—me. So unless the feds have me they can never take down the Road, because as soon as I am missing he knows to just move servers and hit the killswitch on my access. Just think how much the FBI will be squirming in their seats and red-faced again if they could arrest the Dread Pirate Roberts and the Road continues to function in their face.

- How long did it take to build the new Silk Road—and did you do so from scratch or from existing code?

The initial build took several days, but testing and ensuring no security leaks are present takes weeks for every feature. No comment regarding what part of our source code comes from the original market.

- You were involved in an incident involving a competitor named TorMarket, in which you managed to hack and subsequently leak TorMarket’s database code. You said later that this attack was undertaken to prove that TorMarket’s promises of “secure codebase, competent operators, and common sense” were falsehoods. Do you stand by your actions?

That began as a private affair between myself and the TorMarket leaders and raged out of control when they sought to attack the wider community. We hope this serves as a warning for those wishing to take their anger out at people who are innocent, and I stand by my actions. At the time, reddit in particular gave me a hard time for striking back at TorMarket in the way I did, but if I let them stand any longer, then more bitcoins would have been lost to TorMarket’s greed.

If my actions seem unreasonable to people, then it is not because I am ignorant of the consequences or on some emotionally charged knee-jerk reaction; it is more likely that there is information the public is not aware of, as in almost every part of my work.
Nobody complains to me when they know I am breathing down the neck of would-be infiltrators and have already locked down over 15 law enforcement honeypot vendors or when our team is busy fighting off an armada of hackers. I do, however, confess it was quite boring the third time law enforcement decided to use the “SuperTrips” moniker and claiming to be him as a free man, when I know just as well as ICE where he is now.

- Thanks to Edward Snowden and other, leaks have been in the news quite a bit, and there’s been some discussion on Silk Road about having the site host leaks of government secrets. Is that something you’re considering?

"Government secrets" is a very broad term and one I don't want to let there be confusion over. You can say there would be government secrets to cover up human rights abuses or to protect corrupt officials, in which case I wouldn't hesitate to let the world know them at the right time. An inescapable fact is that even with my own ideology and what I represent, there must still be some secrets to protect people, and so each "government secret" must be judged upon whatever individual merit it carries—though the sale of such things will never be permitted on Silk Road. A person must release the information for the right moral reasons and not for profit or gain.

- Most of your competitor sites' discussion boards are all business; yours is one of the only sites to have things like a “philosophy and politics” section. Why is that?

I hope recent events highlight why we are the only market who discusses and openly allows people to challenge our beliefs.

Some still have the audacity to call my ideology "fake" and [say] that I am here just for the profit, then support some new market that swiftly closes the door (and runs with their money). I've had the opportunity to run off with more than 10 times the annual salary of Obama, but I have returned—at my own risk, if you knew the circumstances—to give the money to the rightful owners.

- Any final thoughts?

I knew the risk when I took this position, and I am never going to be a truly free man/woman now. All I now seek to ensure is that if I do go down that I don't take Silk Road down with me. Having a single point of failure is no longer acceptable simply because we believe it will protect our users from internal threats.

I have brought Silk Road back to life this time around, but the future of free markets is in the hands of those who are willing to step up after Silk Road falls. There is a revolution coming that is larger than Silk Road has been or will ever be.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/dread-pirate-roberts-2-0-an-interview-with-silk-roads-new-boss/

http://youtu.be/waEeJJVZ5P8

--------------------------------------

don't bring your main bitcoin wallet with you...

Two years after Gibson factories in Tennessee were raided by government agents, the venerable guitar manufacturer has released a special Government Series II Les Paul. As the press release explains:

Great Gibson electric guitars have long been a means of fighting the establishment, so when the powers that be confiscated stocks of tonewoods from the Gibson factory in Nashville—only to return them once there was a resolution and the investigation ended—it was an event worth celebrating. Introducing the Government Series II Les Paul, a striking new guitar from Gibson USA for 2014 that suitably marks this infamous time in Gibson’s history.
...Each Government Series II Les Paul also includes a genuine piece of Gibson USA history in its solid rosewood fingerboard, which is made from wood returned to Gibson by the US government after the resolution.
Reason TV reported on the Gibson case back in 2012. Original text from February 23, 2012 video is below.

"They...come in with weapons, they seized a half-million dollars worth of property, they shut our factory down, and they have not charged us with anything," says Gibson Guitars CEO Henry Juszkiewicz, referring to the August 2011 raid on his Nashville and Memphis factories by agents from the Departments of Homeland Security and Fish & Wildlife.
The feds raided Gibson for using an inappropriate tariff code on wood from India, which is a violation of the anti-trafficking statute known as The Lacey Act. At issue is not whether the wood in question was endangered, but whether the wood was the correct level of thickness and finish before being exported from India. "India is wanting to ensure that raw wood is not exported without some labor content from India," says Juskiewicz.
Andrea Johnson of the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) counters that "it's not up to Gibson to decide which laws...they want to respect." She points out that Gibson had previously been raided under The Lacey Act for imports from Madagascar.
This much is clear: The government has yet to file any charges or allow Gibson a day in court to makes its case, much less retrieve its materials. "This is not about responsible forestry and sustainable wood or illegal logging, this is about a bureaucratic law," argues Juszkiewicz, who testified last year before a congressional hearing convened by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). It is, he says, "a blank check for abuse."

http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/01/gibson-commemorate-fed-raid-with-governm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5IYGroW1nA

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They should start accepting Bitcoin...

Some HSBC customers have been prevented from withdrawing large amounts of cash because they could not provide evidence of why they wanted it, the BBC has learnt.

Listeners have told Radio 4's Money Box they were stopped from withdrawing amounts ranging from £5,000 to £10,000.

HSBC admitted it has not informed customers of the change in policy, which was implemented in November.

The bank says it has now changed its guidance to staff.

New rules
Stephen Cotton went to his local HSBC branch this month to withdraw £7,000 from his instant access savings account to pay back a loan from his mother.

A year before, he had withdrawn a larger sum in cash from HSBC without a problem.

But this time it was different, as he told Money Box: "When we presented them with the withdrawal slip, they declined to give us the money because we could not provide them with a satisfactory explanation for what the money was for. They wanted a letter from the person involved."

Mr Cotton says the staff refused to tell him how much he could have: "So I wrote out a few slips. I said, 'Can I have £5,000?' They said no. I said, 'Can I have £4,000?' They said no. And then I wrote one out for £3,000 and they said, 'OK, we'll give you that.' "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25861717
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This. From the bank of the Mexican drug Cartel.

http://thekronies.com/

Very well done!

A former high-ranking San Francisco government employee convicted of felony possession of child pornography will continue to receive his government pension because, according to city regulations, evidence of “moral turpitude” is required to revoke a pension yet viewing violent kiddie porn does not qualify as moral turpitude.

As reported here in the Tatler, Larry Brinkin, a prominent San Francisco Human Rights Commissioner and nationally known gay rights advocate, was arrested in 2012 for possessing and possibly distributing videos and images of babies being raped by adult men. Because of Brinkin’s “iconic” stature in the community as the person who pioneered “domestic partnership” laws nationwide, supporters at the time accused the police of framing him with false charges. [...]

Knox said he did not believe Brinkin’s city pension would be affected by the plea because his conviction doesn’t fall under “moral turpitude.” Under Proposition C, approved by voters in 2008, a city employee convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude – usually theft, fraud or a breach of the public trust – cannot collect employer-funded retirement benefits.

In case you’re thinking that perhaps this is just an over-reaction to Brinkin possessing some pornography which, unbeknownst to him, just happened to depict minors under the age of 18: Nope. The details of what type of imagery he enjoyed (and what he said about it) are so horrifying and so unimaginably vile that to even describe it feels like a crime. But the exact nature of his conviction is necessary for the reader to assess whether or not Brinkin’s actions should count as “moral turpitude.”


http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/01/23/kiddie-porn-does-not-count-as-moral-turpitude-to-s-f-govt/?singlepage=true