Chinese Government Demands 250 Million
Internet Users Provide Real Identities
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, February 9, 2012
New web censorship assault stokes
fears of Communist repression
The Communist Chinese government has
demanded some 250 million users of the
Twitter-style micro-blogging platform
Weibo provide their real names, addresses
and identity numbers, marking a new era
of Internet censorship and one that the
likes of Joe Lieberman want to see
enforced in the United States.
From March 16, Weibo account holders
will be forced to provide their real names,
addresses, and passport or ID card numbers if they are to continue to use the service.
“This rule could mean more frequent real-world consequences for posters of messages
disapproved of by Party authorities,” reports NDT Television, noting how “Sina and other
microblog companies are also to soon have Chinese Communist Party monitoring units
established in their corporate structures.”
Fear that authorities could use the information to target those who make anti-Communist
statements or criticize government officials has led to a massive drop in people signing up for the
service. New sign-ups are down from 20 million to 2.5 million a month, a drop of 85 percent.
Weibo currently has around 250 million account holders.
Some 8 million foreign users of the service have expressed confusion about how they will be
affected by the demand for identification information, with Weibo representatives none the
wiser.
Weibo’s popularity has been aided by the fact that both Twitter and Facebook are banned in
China.
The ruling Communist Party routinely censors keywords and scrubs entire conversations from
Weibo over politically sensitive issues such as the wave of uprisings and demonstrations that
have swept the country in recent years. The recent controversy over a Chinese police chief who
tried to defect was hastily censored by Weibo by order of the state.
Indeed, the primary purpose behind China’s system of Internet censorship is to mute criticism of
the state and silence those who have been violently oppressed. The government shut down web
access in the south-western province of Sichuan last month after two Tibetans were shot dead by
Chinese troops during riots and unrest.
This makes Senator Joe Lieberman’s call for the U.S. government to be handed similar ‘kill
switch’ powers all the more chilling. “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of
its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman, who has been at the
forefront of the “cybersecurity” agenda, told CNN in 2010.
However, China’s vice-like grip over its Internet systems has very little to do with “war” and
everything to do with silencing all dissent against the state.
China has exercised its power to shut down the Internet, something that Lieberman wants to
introduce in the U.S., at politically sensitive times in order to stem the flow of information about
government abuse and atrocities. During the anti-government riots which occurred in July
2009, the Chinese government completely shut down the Internet across the entire northwestern
region of Xinjiang for days.
The push to end Internet anonymity once and for all and force web users to obtain a de facto
permission slip from the government to post content is the ultimate endgame of the Internet
censorship offensive that has gripped the United States in numerous different guises over the past
few years.
The so-called “National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace,” created by NIST
under the auspices of the U.S. Commerce Department and enthusiastically promoted by the
Obama administration, purports to offer an “identity ecosystem” under which Americans will be
able to protect their information not with passwords but with a “single credential” stored on a
smart card, a cell phone, a keychain fob or some other kind of gadget. This will then be used to
access a myriad of data, including tax returns, health information, bank accounts and more,
amounting to a passport for your entire life.
Satire: Anonymous Hacks DHS Video
Infowars.com
February 9, 2012
The mysterious hacktivist group Anonymous has
captured the following clip from a Department of
Homeland Security video feed. It shows King Dung
Beetle Napolitano and her minions during a DHS
feeding frenzy, eating their favorite dish.
African Dung Beetle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1RHmSm36aE
Of course, the above is obviously satire, but you get the point.
Everything Is Terrorism: Mike Adams on
Infowars Nightly News
1. Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 9, 2012
FBI: Using Cash for Coffee Now A Terrorist
Activity - Infowars Nightly News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnLlNoztI10
Mike Adams lists the innumerable different behaviors
the FBI has characterized as indicators of terrorism.
Group Forces Congressional Hearing On Big
Sis’ Twitter, Drudge Spying
Steve Watson
1. Prisonplanet.com
February 9, 2012
Homeland Security is monitoring the web for
anti-government sentiment and signs of social
unrest
A privacy advocacy group has swayed Congress
to hold a hearing next week into the Department
of Homeland Security’s practice of monitoring
social networks such as Twitter and Facebook,
as well as media reports and organizations,
including The Drudge Report.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) recently obtained close to 300 pages of
documents, as a result of a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit, detailing the federal
agency’s “intelligence gathering” practices on
the web.
Among the documents were guidelines from DHS instructing outside contractors to monitor the
web for media reports and comments that “reflect adversely” on the agency or the federal
government.
As Reuters reported last month, in early 2010 contractors
were asked to spend 24 hours monitoring news media
coverage on popular websites, including Facebook,
Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks, as well as news sites including
the Huffington Post and The Drudge Report.
The contractors were required to provide the DHS with
feedback on any potential “threats and hazards”, as well as
“any media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S.
Government and the Department of Homeland Security
(D.H.S.) ability to prevent, protect and respond, to
recovery efforts or activities related to any crisis or events
which impact National Planning Scenarios.”
The documents also state that the program should highlight
“both positive and negative reports on FEMA, C.I.A.,
C.B.P., ICE, etc., as well as organizations outside of
D.H.S.”
The documents obtained by EPIC indicate that following the exercise, a procurement official
awarded an $11.3 million contract to General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in order
to carry out the monitoring on a “24/7/365 basis”.
EPIC director Ginger McCall notes that monitoring what people are saying about government
policies goes too far and has a chilling effect on free speech.
“The Department of Homeland Security’s monitoring of political dissent has no legal basis and is
contrary to core First Amendment principles,” she said.
“The language in the documents makes it quite clear that they are looking for media reports that
are critical of the agency and the U.S. government more broadly,” said McCall. “This is entirely
outside of the bounds of the agency’s statutory duties.”
DHS officials have admitted that monitoring of social networks for negative opinion was
undertaken by the agency, but claim that the
operation was a one off test and was quickly
dropped as it did not meet “operational
requirements or privacy standards,” which
“expressly prohibit reporting on individuals’ First
Amendment activities.”
EPIC argues otherwise and has presented evidence
that suggests the practice is being held up by the
DHS an an example that should be emulated.
“They are completely out of bounds here,” McCall
said. “The idea that the government is constantly
peering over your shoulder and listening to what
you are saying creates a very chilling
effect to legitimate dissent.
The Congressional hearing, DHS
Monitoring of Social Networking and
Media: Enhancing Intelligence
Gathering and Ensuring Privacy, will
be held Thursday February 16th.
However, it is already apparent where
the House subcommittee for
intelligence and counter-terrorism
stands on the matter. As reported by
Reuters, the top two members of the
subcommittee, Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA) and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), wrote to DHS
Intelligence Chief Caryn Wagner last month, pressing her to more carefully monitor users’ posts
on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, in order to help detect “current or emerging threats.”
As we have also previously reported, The DHS has openly announced that it is actively
monitoring social media for signs of “social unrest”, in a bid to pre-empt any sign of social
dislocation within the United States.
DHS To Launch Insurgent-Tracking Drones
Inside America
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Technology used to hunt enemy combatants
in Afghanistan will be used for “non-
emergency incidents” within the U.S. The
Department of Homeland Security plans to
spend up to $50 million dollars on a spy
system that has been used to hunt insurgents
in Iraq and Afghanistan for the purposes of
“emergency and non-emergency incidents”
within the United States.
The DHS is seeking four contractors to provide “aerial remote sensing” services, using
LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) technology fitted to drones or manned aircraft that will
provide surveillance capability for “homeland security missions,” as well as “management of
emergency incidents by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regional offices, joint
field offices and by state and local government.”
“DHS believes these airborne
images are essential for
homeland defense missions, such
as planning for National Special
Security Events (Super Bowls or
a national political conventions
come to mind); enhancing
border, port and airport security;
as well as performing critical
infrastructure inventories and
assessments,” reports
Government Security News,
adding that the technology will
be used for “emergency and non-
emergency incidents nationwide.”
The DHS expects successful contractors to “ensure imagery can be acquired, processed and
delivered in 48 hours or less and the ability to support simultaneous missions in multiple
geographic locations.”
LIDAR spy technology, which uses ultraviolet, visible, or near infrared light to track objects or
people from the sky, has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan to track insurgents. The US military
has praised the technology for its proficiency in providing “battlefield surveillance” and being
able to easily locate enemy combatants due to it being “especially useful at seeing through
foliage.” LIDAR can be deployed using both manned and unmanned aircraft.
The U.S. Air Force “has already deployed an unknown number of LIDAR aircraft to map all of
Afghanistan,” reports MSNBC, with the 3-D laser mapping technology also being adapted to
work aboard U.S. Special Forces helicopters such as the Blackhawk or Chinook to help hunt
insurgents.
According to Raytheon, one of the companies that develops LIDAR, the technology is adept at
tracking “people in crowded environments for safety and security,” because unlike traditional
surveillance methods, LIDAR is honed to
measure characteristics of individuals and
keep them tracked within a “grid cell” so
they cannot evade detection.
Under the terms of the recently passed
National Defense Authorization Act, the
whole of America has been defined as a
battlefield, with the government reserving
the power to have “belligerents,” including
American citizens, arrested and detained
indefinitely without trial.
US law enforcement bodies are already
using drone technology to spy on Americans.
In December, a Predator B drone was called
in to
1. conduct surveillance over a family farm
in North Dakota as part of a SWAT raid
on the Brossart family, who were suspects in
the egregious crime of stealing six missing
cows. Local police in this one area have
already used the drone on two dozen
occasions since June last year.
Last summer, the Department of Homeland
Security gave the green light for police
departments in the United States to deploy the ShadowHawk mini drone drone helicopter that has
the ability to taze suspects from above as well as carrying 12-gauge shotguns and grenade
launchers. The drone, also used against insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, is already being
used by the Montgomery County Sheriff’s office in Texas.
The DHS has also provided drone surveillance for foreign countries, aiding Jamaican
authorities in a botched drug raid that led to the massacre of 73 civilians last year.
A bill passed in by Congress this week paves the way for the use of surveillance drones in US
skies on a widespread basis. The FAA predicts that by 2020 there could be up to 30,000 drones
in operation nationwide.
Americans Apparently Approve of Murder
Based on Political Party
1. Washington’s Blog
Thursday, February 9, 2012
By leading anti-war activist David
Swanson, author of Day Break and
War Is A Lie, who runs the websites
DavidSwanson.org and
WarIsACrime.org (formerly
AfterDowningStreet.org)
A poll published on Wednesday at the
Washington Post finds that a majority
of even “liberal Democrats” approves
of Obama killing US citizens. Of
course, this would almost certainly be
different if Obama were a Republican.
What if an organization with money but
no partisanship (are there some?) were
to commission a poll from a pollster
willing to face a firestorm of attacks
from the political parties (are there any
such pollsters?), a poll that would ask
people all their demographic info,
including politics and party
identification if any, and ask some of
them:
If President Obama had to kill a US
citizen to protect the nation, based
purely on the word of the President,
would you approve?
If President Obama had to imprison a US citizen with no trial to protect the nation, based purely
on the word of the President, would you approve?
If President Obama had to launch a war without congressional authorization in order to protect
the nation, based purely on the word of the President, would you approve?
If President Obama determined it to be necessary to deploy a nuclear bomb and did so, would
you approve?
The poll would ask those questions of a large enough sample to be well represented in each
demographic category. Then a similar sample would be asked the same questions with Romney
substituted for Obama. Then others would be asked the questions about a President Santorum,
and others with Gingrich.
The results would almost certainly show that
many in the United States do indeed place
loyalty to political parties or elected officials
above matters of life and death — at least the
lives and deaths of others.
This would, of course, be shameful, and if it
made it into the corporate news it would make
all types of partisanship look bad. It might,
very likely, however, make one brand of
partisanship look worst. I would predict that
Republicans would each be highly approving of
these abuses by at least one Republican
candidate, and that their approval would
diminish for the others, and especially for
Obama. Democrats, I expect, would be less
approving, but still strongly approving in the
case of Obama, but that there would
be a particularly significant drop off
in approval by Democrats of such
crimes if committed by any of the
Republicans.
What pollster would be willing to
test these assumptions?
Of course, in reality there is such a
thing as being too late. Opposing
abuses when Bush is president, but
limiting the opposition at the behest of the Democratic Party, was followed by support for
Obama’s protection of and continuation and expansion of the crimes. Now shady Bush policies
have become open “legal” practice. It is too late to take them back from the next Republican
president, or any president, without fundamental change to our government. If we continue down
the current path, eventually the partisanship will retreat on this issue and supporters of
presidential murder will tend to support it by any president and to imagine that no alternative to
that exists.
Outrageous: Agent Orange Maker Monsanto
Seeks Return to Vietnam for GMO Crops
Mike Barrett
Prisonplanet.com
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Vietnam here we come! At least that is
what biotech giant Monsanto is saying.
The multinational agricultural
corporation most known for creating
the hazardous chemical Agent Orange,
which led to thousands of deaths and
birth defects due to its widespread use
within the country, is now attempting
to begin providing Vietnam with their
genetically modified foods.
During the Vietnam War, Monsanto’s Agent Orange was used as a part of the United States’
‘herbicidal warfare program’. Having killed an estimated 400,000, deforming 500,00, and
sickening 2 million, even 30 years after the war people are still suffering from the health effects
induced by the chemical. Agent Orange has been shown to cause cancer, birth defects, live
damage, and other major health problems. Although the damage is great, US courts have
protected both Monsanto and Dow Chemical from liability and criminal prosecution. The
US government has shielded Monsanto and Dow from the
massive cost of medical treatment for victims and
environmental remediation cleanup costs that would spell
out bankruptcy for the corporations.
Despite enormous opposition, now Monsanto is making
further attempts to profit from Vietnam by selling their
genetically modified creations. It would be completely
outrageous to see Vietnam accept Monsanto’s GMO’s, as
they have already ruined hundreds of thousands of lives
with their toxic Agent Orange. Given the well-known
human and environmental destruction behind GMOs,
Vietnam would only be inviting back tragic health
complications.
The Thanh Nienn News in Ho Chi Minh City reports:
No biotech company has yet got the official green light for selling genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), but it does not assuage the fears that Vietnam could end up with
another tragic legacy from a company that once caused many deaths in the country,
environmental activists say.
The alleged purpose of using Agent Orange was to deny the enemy cover in forested areas
through defoliation. However, the US Army did contract studies in 1943 of the effects of 2,4,5-T
and 2,4-D (the other ingredient of Agent Orange) on cereal grains, including rice, and developed
the concept of using aerial herbicide spraying to destroy enemy crops to disrupt the food supply.
It seems that poisoning the enemy, farmland and civilians was a chemical warfare strategy.
The Global Post reports:
Monsanto is, of course, highly aware of Agent Orange’s reputation and has fought
numerous lawsuits filed by chemical’s victims both Vietnamese and American. The
chemical, commissioned by the U.S. military, was dumped over jungles to kill vegetation
and rout communist forces. In Monsanto’s own primer on the Agent Orange era, it casts
the chemical as patriotic — it was meant “to save the lives of U.S. and allied soldiers,”
Monsanto says — and contends that the matter “should be resolved by the governments
that were involved.”
We will see if Vietnam allows for Monsanto or any other biotech corporation to provide them
with genetically modified foods, but the decision not to allow such measures seems clear as
crystal to many. This article first appeared at Natural Society
The World According to Monsanto VIDEO BELOW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH6wqCC5wQo