This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Image by William Banzai
The privacy-shredding Internet spying bill - CISPA - has passed the House.
Our only chance is to stop it in the Senate. Background here and here.
Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian also urges us to contact Google, Facebook and Twitter and demand that they stand up to defeat CISPA:
- advertisements -
Contact Information:
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Suggested Reading:
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure. Here's our Cookie Policy.
Don't you know the only right that needs protecting is our 2nd Amendment right? And isn't it ironic the bills that really do affect us are quietly passed by both parties without so much as a sound?
Like Congress gutting the STOCK Act via unanimous consent, with no trace of who voted which way? http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/04/obama-secretly-signs-bill-killing-anti-corruption-pro-transparency-stock-act-provisions-2623330.html
Remember seeing a bumper sticker that said "If the 1st amendment fails, try the 2nd". Seemed humorous at the time. Not so much now.
I wonder where 2A would have been where it not for NRA and alike? Or put another way, If each amendment would have had an organized support group, would such crap even be considered?
The MSM sure as hell was quick on rolling over and playing dead, yet, they did have the microphone. Too bad the mic's owners would not allow true debate, and fair reporting of news, allowing us, the unwashed to draw our own conclusions. The reaction of most MSM outlets to yesterday's anti-self defense (aka anti-gun) was appalling. The couple I could stomach watching were reacting as if the passage of all proposals was a given and etched in stone. Damn fools.
Where is the indignation about the theft of savings, export of jobs, decay on all levels, entire families living in the streets, and on and on and on???
How is this for proof if ignorance (and worse) at the highest levels:
"Napolitano: Drudge Report is not credible"
grrrrr ....!!! </rant>
Most significantly: where was the discussion of Pharmaceuticals ??? They seem to have forgotten that virtually ALL those mass murders were committed by patients on, or withdrawing from, psychotropic pharmaceuticals. FOX covered the story years ago but it got lost in the cutting room (after complaints by their Big Pharma sponsors?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S-7aNPf33A
Note the date on this report.
the illusion of democracy laid bare... welcome to the matrix.
Representative Democracy.
Mob rule (pure democracy) or rule by elite, pick yer poison... Anarchism, it might be dirty water but at least it's not poison... (and nothing like creating an environment where one cannot push one's responsibility off on others)
The decay of a democratic republic: the collective powers of We the People are almost totally privatized, so that the banksters can legally defraud and rob those People.
A democratic republic continues to be the best possible political theory that I am aware of. However, it could not survive unless the People did not believe in bullshit about what government IS!
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."
Attributed to President George Washington.
P.S. As in my reply to Boris, above, whether or not that is an apocryphal quotation is disuputed: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington But nevertheless, the concepts presented there are valid.
The problem with government is that people are easily brainwashed to believe in lies that they want to believe in.
Government is based on power to rob and to kill.
The runaway privatization of those powers was how the international banksters were able to take control over the Government of the USA, to the degree that it has become the worst enemy of the majority of the American people.
The majority of Americans have become the victims of the best brainwashing that money could buy, which has gradually succeeded in making them believe in bullshit, which is their own worst internalized enemy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rnJEdDNDsI#!
HUMAN RESOURCES
Social Engineering In The 20th Century
This is a good two hour long documentary to set up what fake education was meant to accomplish, and so, largely has done so!
I repeat the basic metaphors for that situation:
Social pyramid systems (as Neolithic civilizations), have a small group of Vicious Wolves, supervising relatively more domesticated Dogs, to control the many others who behave like Zombie Sheeple, while almost all the "opposition" are controlled Black Sheep, whose "solutions" are to parrot that everyone should become better Sheeple, & especially the Vicious Wolves, in Sheep's clothing, should become better Sheeple. HOWEVER, that is the bullshit morality that Wolves have taught the Sheeple to bleat, and is how the Wolves in Sheep's clothing talk, which is generally the same old bullshit that the Black Sheep are also repeating.
The social realities were actually controlled by the "Wolves" (the banksters), and the only genuinely better solutions to chronic problems are everyone becoming better Wolves, not better Sheeple.
While the THEORY of a democratic republic is the best possible one, the actual PRACTICE has resulted in the best organized crime gang, the biggest gangsters, the banksters, being able to more and more legalize lies, and have those lies be backed up with legalized violence, so that, today, more than 99% of the powers of governments have been effectively privatized, and controlled to benefit tiny minorities, while they are used to screw everyone else ...
Disgusting- Hope they wll spy on JP Morgan and Goldman Scahs and watch what these crime centers are doing to distroy our economy.
The banksters are probably at the helm of CISPA.
Brahahaha! You are naive Amerikan! JPM and GS is not destroy Amerikan Economy, IS AMERIKAN ECONOMY! After last factory is shutter closed, only financial service is economy. War is over, you are invite communism into White House and now live in aftermath of decline!
Atlas Shrugged....and then farted and out came obama and John Gault yelled, "Who the fuck is barack obama?"
It is spellt Galt.
Thanks; my error. Ayn would forgive me.
I think that was <sarc> dear Boris.
(If not, God save that poor soul...)
Please to explain <sarc>!?
Sarcasm. The word 'mockery' and expression 'tongue-in-cheek' could also apply. It means joking or kidding, usually by saying the opposite of what you really believe.
"saying the opposite of what you really believe"
Oh, so is language of politician and central banker?
I think you've got it Boris - except they're serious and sarcastic people are saying it in a more biting humor sort of way.
WB7, are you depicting the well-known nationalistic leader of the manly Germans back to 1930s... der Führer ;)
WHAT A GREAT ART !! :)
That's his modern analogue, Mein FEMA
The people who are obsessed with passing this garbage, are the same people who said they were absolutely terrified by Occupy Wall Street.
Meanwhile, if you take a cursory glance at the OWS litigation, you will see that the arrests are all being tossed and the Great City of Blooomfuckingstan is being forced to settle out of court claims totalling millions. Some law enforcers have perjured themselves and most just don't bother to show up at the hearings.
CISPA my fucking ass.
You know who terrifies me?
Congress
I'm not ready to throw in the towel. Worked on a friend's campaign the better part of last spring, knocked on a lot of doors, spoke to a lot of folks at the primary polling stations, etc. She lost, but very narrowly, scaring the incumbent, and resulting in some policy changes.
Love the following video. May not see eye to eye on many things with this fellow, he is spot on with his message here - http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html
My apologies if I am late to the party with this video, but I don't have the time to keep up with all the good info.
Lessig is a shill for the Corpocracy. For all his double-talk, his actions support the status quo. Read and listen carefully.
But it seems to me that his concept of taking big donors out of the picture, or greatly minimizing their influence, would be a step in the right direction in ending our current iteration of the Gilded Age.
I know, it sounds great. But read the amendment he's endorsing. It actually gives corporations moar power than they already have. Sorry, I don't believe it until I see it in the fine print. His fine print takes back everything he says. Really , read carefully; where is he taking his flock? This is what MoveToAmend proposes and Lessig supports:
We The People AmendmentSection 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
A remarkable statement of the obvious. This changes nothing; it was already understood to apply to natural persons. To say “only” just means fictitious persons will no longer be protected by the Constitution. It doesn't mean that fictitious persons will no longer have inordinate privileges under case law and precedent.
Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.
Again: corporations' privileges never were constitutionally guaranteed rights, they were privileges granted as a legal convenience (and because corporations lobbied real hard to get them) And they've always been subject to regulation “by the People” (on K St.) through the appropriate jurisdiction, said jurisdiction being blatantly corrupted by the regulated - for the regulated . This changes nothing, but re-states the status quo.
The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
Once again, nothing new: simply a third re-statement of the status quo. Corporate privileges are determined by what corporate attorneys can get away with in court. Whether those privileges are construed to be inherent or inalienable is irrelevant.
Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]
Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
All citizens already have access to the “political process”; that's nothing new. Having access to the media is a completely different thing. Regulating the expenditures of candidates doesn't alter the outcome of elections if corporate-sponsored media are allowed to control public opinion in any way. There are so many ways for corporations, by means of content-control over sponsored media, to influence elections that limiting direct contributions or expenditures is almost irrelevant. When this phrase says : “...,and that no person gains, .....” , it should be noted that it's not “persons” we're talking about in an amendment to end corporate personhood. Perhaps they meant: “..., and that no corporation gains, etc...” . Once again, it doesn't change a thing.
Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.
This is my favorite ! Corporations don't have to disclose illegal, impermissible, or shady contributions and expenditures – just the permissible ones ! ROFL !
The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
So, then, what IS the spending of money to influence elections? It's not speech; OK. So it's not protected under the First Amendment; OK. Is there some other restriction, not mentioned in this amendment, that would prohibit a corporation from rigging elections with money and media power?
It's rare you find so many words with so little meaning; and in this sense, the MTA amendment is a masterpiece of corporate legaleze: absolutely no change whatever in a hundred words of legal horsepucky ! Nothing to see here folks........................move on.
When I look at the list of MTA alliance members, I see plenty of reasons to be concerned, regardless of how great it sounds at first blush.
However, our current election funding situation, and revolving doors, most definitely favors K St. over Main St., and has corrupted all branches of government. It's as though the economic hitmen, having been shown the door in previously compliant "3rd" world countries [who decided that if economic robbery were going to be done, have it done by the locals instead of foreigners], have come home to roost, plying their trade from whence they came, and ignoring the old maxim about not fouling your own nest.
The status quo is a failure and getting worse. What do you propose, if anything?
I propose an amendment with "teeth", that the common man can understand, without ambiguity, that declares in no uncertain terms that corporations exist as public utilities only. They serve only by consent of the People, for the benefit of the People. It is meant to erect a firewall between corporation and state similar to the separation of church and state; at every level. I call it : The Constitutional Emergency Amendment
28th Amendment
Corporations are not persons and shall be granted only those rights and privileges that Congress deems necessary for the well-being of the People. Congress shall provide legislation defining the terms and conditions of corporate charters according to their purpose; which shall include, but are not limited to:
1, prohibitions against any corporation;
a, owning another corporation,
b, becoming economically indispensable or monopolistic, or
c, otherwise distorting the general economy;
2, prohibitions against any form of intervention in the affairs of government by means of;
a, congressional lobbying
b, electoral sponsorship or advocacy
c, educational sponsorship or publication
d, media news reporting
3, provisions for;
a, the auditing of standardized, current, and transparent account books
b, closing the FRB and the establishment of state-owned banks
c, civil and criminal penalties to be suffered by corporate executives et al for violation of the terms of a corporate charter.
And: as a possible option, the following (maybe 29th? Amendment)
The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution is hereby repealed and Congress shall re-write the U.S. Code to reflect the changes embodied herein.
One other thought that I forgot to include in the earlier response - if one were to pursue the 28th Amendment idea, I would reserve/leave it to the states, not Congress, to define corporate charters.
Good questions; keep it up.
By all means, the states would still be the authors and grantors of corporate charters; this is just the federal constitutional basis (enumerated power) for them to do so: "according to their purpose". (Like I said, there's a lot in there to take in.) I imagine, if a mom 'n pop shop in Centerville wanted to incorporate (here again; take away the corporate tax privileges and mom n pop wouldn't even want or need to incorporate) they wouldn't even know the 28th existed.
I, too, am aware of unintended consequences and tried to prevent them by isolating the kind of transgressions only big corporations are capable of.
Size, in and of itself, is not the problem: it's the power that size *can* bestow that becomes a threat to national security.
"...you can't run a successful constitutional Republic without an informed public with access to full and un-biased news to make these policy decisions..." Spot on.
Re felony charges when a charter is broken, but you need a system willing to enforce that. Felonies galore have been comitted on Wall St. and by lenders, and our gov't keeps trying to sweep it under the rug, or legalize it. I have hope that we will get back to having the common sense laws of the land enforced (i.e where one's actions truly harm another) - but it's depressing to see how far we have gone off course.
Yes, it's a lot to digest, but appreciate the effort to share what is, to me anyway, a very different concept and approach. Very interesting ideas for those of us who have wandered off the reservation, and try to set ego aside (not always successfully) and look at things with an "empty mind".
Like the carpenter who measures twice and cuts once, thinking is very helpful before the "cutting" begins.
Funny you should mention carpenters; I was a building contractor before I got into building bandsaws, and I've lived by that rule most of my life -measure twice, cut once.
In regard to "felonies galore" ; the result of on-going regulatory capture is a set of business laws that virtually legalize whatever the regulated business wants to do. Have you seen those movies where the gov tries to prosecute a corporation and a semi-truck rolls up in front of the courthouse loaded with ten years of receipts and memos demanding the prosecutor search through every bit of it to find incriminating evidence. That's what they do - overwhelm the system with minutia and claim their Constitutional rights to tie things up in court until everyone forgets what the original problem was; in the end to find only that they've wasted a good part of their lives winning a paltry fine that doesn't even begin to justify the public's expense. With this amendment it becomes a felony to "fudge" the books, fail to properly manage, etc. Take civil rights out of the picture entirely: it's a matter of charter compliance, plain and simple. No "5th amendments", or "I don't recall" or "we'll have to go through a truck load of paperwork to find that memo" . I think it's time to call "bullshit" on corporate attorneys. Common sense should guide us to re-write common law and I'd like to see jury trials whenever there's a cultural value to be determined or a slippery slope involved. Incorporation is a cultural issue that we must come to terms with or there won't be a culture to preserve.
The "SkyNet" is falling ! The "SkyNet" is falling ! !! (Joking)
My dad always used to say "measure twice, cut once" when I was helping him out with the frequent household project or repair. It stuck. We could have used your expertise on a few occassions!
I run across a lot of people who have, or are getting, a clue. However, it seems like our current situation is akin to one where some passengers on a train are aware that the track is out further ahead. They raise the alarm, but most of the other passengers are more irked at having their quiet reverie interrupted, than inclined to look out the window. I think more people are starting to look out the window, but a lot more aren't there yet.
That's what we're up against, all right. I've been posting that amendment for almost a year now and find very few willing to think critically about sufferage and jurisdiction in regard to incorporated entities. They touched on it in the Federalist Papers but couldn't agree, beyond the separation of church and state and the enumerated power to grant letters of marque. We have all the evidence we need, now, to truly fear the reckless incorporation of multi-national trading companies but SCOTUS can't find a public mandate to correct the problem. Because it's not there. We'll have to put it there in an amendment. What I don't understand is how so many academics with so much more education and letters behind their name can't see the simple truth of it. What ever happened to common sense and basic political philosophy? Is everybody being paid to keep quiet?
For the last 16 plus years, I've had people along the way who have encouraged me to read the Federalist Papers. I'm a voracious reader, but something else was always a higher priority. Will have to change that before the next few weeks are out, since it's long overdue and might provide more context to your 28th A concept.
"Is everybody being paid to keep quiet?" In some cases, I think, with so much research funded by corporations these days. But where there used to be more tolerance for differring views, more willingness to consider differing views, and more educational institutions willing to let cats and dogs cohabitate, I find a lot more overbearing intellectual rigidity these days. Even the ZH comment sections are not immune. We have morphed from a society where the thinking on privacy was "It's none of your business" to "If you've got nothing to hide, then why the reluctance to..." I think that the shift was largely brought about by people who had good intentions [feel free to call me naive, delusional, etc.], but they have led to a horrible outcome.
Before turning my attention to cleaning and stowing the camping gear, thanks for sharing and providing plenty of food for thought. Both are a rare commodity, even in the Internet age.
Interesting ideas. I'm on board with repeal of the 16th Amendment as it led to additional funding/taking to feed the beast. Ditto for deficit spending, as people could take and take, and not feel the effects in their pocketbook, and gov't as a percent of GDP [using real criteria, not our current tortured definitions].
However, much as the failed Brown-Kaufman [non-constitutional] amendment went to some of the causes vs. symptoms of banking excesses, perhaps limiting the size of corporations instead of regulating the manner they are run would better level the power playing field, without tip-toeing inadvertently into fascist territory (which I see as a possible outcome in your proposed 28th - nevermind that a good argument could be made that we are already there).
My amendment wouldn't so much regulate the manner they are run as *define what they are* and you'll notice the absolute no-no's are specified in the amendment itself, leaving the matter of micro-management up to corporate officers. It took a lot of time and thought to write this and it's hard to imagine anyone taking it all in at a single reading.
Pay particular attention to items 2,b and 2,c. This has become a cultural issue because you can't run a successful constitutional Republic without an informed public with access to full and un-biased news to make these policy decisions (through their representatives) .
When you think of election reform, remember where voters get their opinions: it's not from PAC ads, it's from the corporate-sponsored evening news and it's carefully orchestrated to keep us divided. The big corps sponsor both sides simultaneously.
When you get to thinking about regulation, bear in mind the realities of "regulatory capture".
When you get to thinking about collusion and corruption remember: there's no law against contacting your congressional representative. There's no law against (at least nothing meaningful) having conflicts of interest with "fictitious persons". There's no law that can put a corporation in jail. (Fines merely go into "cost of operation" and passed on to the consumer)
Violating the terms of a corporate charter has never been a felony before. I suspect that might fundamentally changre the way business is conducted in America. It won't affect the guys on Main Street; but Wall Street exec's will probably find a conscience at some point.
Political action is the problem, not the solution. All your efforts do is to support the system of plunder (a.k.a. "The Welfare/Warfare State"). You can never defeat evil, except by becoming even more evil, undermining any legitimacy you may believe in as you seek to artificially impose it upon others.
Is minding your own damn business really that hard? Did you ever consider that stopping yourself from being so evil is the best action to take when faced with the idea that "we have to do SOMETHING!"
You have no right to choose who holds a gun to my head, regardless of the incoherent rhetoric you spew to support such actions. You are no different than any other criminal.
"If you dance with the devil
then you haven't got a clue
'Cause you think you'll change the devil
But the devil changes you..."
-illyia off of 8mm.
There are multiple paths that help make people with curiosity aware of alternatives to the existing nanny state. Political action is one such path.
From my perspective, the electoral process is not inherently evil. However, where it has been hijacked by big-moneyed special interest, along with regulatory and judicial capture, it has caused and perpetuates soft (but hardening) tyranny, as GW documents so well. I choose not to not believe/accept that this situation is irrepairable, and act accordingly, in my own way.
"Every man builds his world in his own image...He has the power to choose, but no power to escape the necessity of choice..."
If they're settling claims for millions it seems likely someone will soon being getting those judges back in line.
None of the claims are millions, but there are so many they add up to millions. Two weeks ago they had to settle over the OWS library that they destroyed. Remember that? Well they had to pay $350,000.
Remember, when you settle like that, it means you are worried a jury will award more.
Dear Mr. Bonzai:
Boris is like post image, too. Please to teach?
Sincerely,
Boris
Boris, you put picture on web somewhere and then post link.
Boris is gratitude of two up arrow (sad of down arrow), but is sincere to know instructional of post image, please.
You need to become a contributor (since images are needed in many contributed essays).
The last thing we need here is for everyone to be posting images of their....... (It's bad enough already with Hedgeless Horseman posting his family snapshots!).
Ditto, Banzai - but I would also add the Executive Branch. (I know you agree, a small omission there...).
Maybe, just maybe, the Supremes will stand for the Bill of Rights, but I ain't holdin' my breath.
Lead is becoming a PM.
This is revenge for gun control not passing. They need to do something, anything. If a right isn't taken away each week, they are not doing their job.
No, it's not revenge. It's pure ole incrementalism, the exact same thing they've been doing FOREVER.
Idiots celebrate every initial defeat, wholly ignorant that these monsters never truly go away, but will reappear time and time again until the apathetic masses lose interest (or grow too weary to fight).
Eternal vigilance is kinda hard to pull off when carbon-based forms have finite life-spans, while "the system" outlasts them all.
correct; since the front door got shut go around to the back and propose registration(next) - bloom/ny/nanny style because we really just don't know where they are and who has what and where the fuck that is. 500 million, by my estimate. they were not really thinking properly. how can we get 500 million objects when we really have a fragmented trail to about 200 million of them. gold is a similar situation. how ironic. armslist my friends-trades, sales and no trail...and still legal, at least in my state. but they want them all eventually. last line in the sand...