Censorship Alert: Obama Deception Illegally Removed from You Tube

Made to look like a hack, Thought Police Block Mega-Viral Anti-Establishment Documentary After More than a Year of Dominating Viewcounts, Ranking #1 in Search Engines and Waking Up Millions to the False Left-Right Paradigm Perpetuated by Obama

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
July 18, 2010

The Obama Deception Censored

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alex Jones is on high-alert after someone managed to compromise the“ChangeDaChannel” You Tube account  and criminally remove the most-viewed version of “The Obama Deception” available online, which had more than 6.5 million views and whose URL link ranked among the top of all “Obama” related searches.

The channel’s owner was tipped-off about the breach, and was subsequently able to change the password and prevent further deletions of Alex Jones and other patriot documentaries. Both he and members of the Infowars staff believe the video could have only been pulled from behind the scenes at Google or by a government-level cybersecurity admin with access to YouTube records, as the passwords were carefully guarded and unlikely to be guessed at.

The film, which has been attacked before, was censored at a critical time. Just one day before on Friday’s broadcast, Alex challenged activists to drive “Obama Deception” up in the search engines. Only a few hours later, Google trends rankings revealed that it was the #1 search term, above Lindsay Lohan, the BP Oil Spill or the death of George Steinbrenner. What’s more, the viewcount grew by nearly 100,000 in that same single day, demonstrating the accelerated attention the film has been receiving. Further, as a result of topping the online trends charts, dozens of fresh reviews in online papers and blogs were published, including Blue Star Chronicles, Mahoo News and Live Street Journal.

“This was a criminal act, and You Tube needs to investigate, track the IP and find out who did it,” Alex Jones said. “The Obama Deception was getting more and more popular, and the establishment doesn’t like the fact that it exposes the Left-Right paradigm and identifies Obama as a puppet,” he added.

Fighting back against the censorship of The Obama Deception and other patriot works is in your hands. Already, your hard work to promote and propagate this information has resulted in tremendous success. You are equally capable of responding to this negative act with a positive outpouring of numbers in the way of spreading the video, searching for the term and a million other ways of promoting the truth out there. Once again, it is up to you.

The Obama Deception has drawn fierce attacks since its release in March 2009– not only strong words attempting to discredit the powerful information the film puts forward, but in attempts to limit and block the film online. Nevertheless, an estimated 25 million have seen the film worldwide, thanks to hundreds of online versions and DVDs handed out by dedicated activists.

The Obama Deception tops Google Trends on July 16, 2010Even so, Google merchant and other shopping carts have blocked its sale after labeling the film as “anti,” “hate” or otherwise “inappropriate.” Before the film was even released, FBI officials asked suspiciously about the film during a visit to Alex’s office, where they attempted to gather information about the documentary, office employees and other information. Earlier in the film’s release,YouTube was caught fudging the viewcount and other statistics for the film. This past week, Alex Jones’ Facebook was blocked for displaying a “Gadsden flag”– a key icon of the Revolutionary War–which drew ire. The Obama Deceptionwas taken down only a few months ago after a false copyright complaint blocked it for several weeks, but was later restored. Even a “Christian” version of YouTube has censored an upload of the film.

Images of President Obama as “the Joker” created a stir obama_as_joker last year as well– and it was clear from interference that free speech did not apply to those holding signs with the image at rallies or putting up posters around town or on social networking sites.

21ST CENTURY THOUGHT POLICE: INTERNET CENSORSHIP ALERT

A cadre of White House Intelligensia as well as a new breed of “Cyber Security” at the Pentagon have taken it upon themselves to regulate the Internet, conform “free speech” to their gated-and-streamlined Internet 2 model and “offensively” take on offending web entities. This action has been boldly led by the likes of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who in support of cyber security bill, stated that it might have been “better if we’d never invented the Internet.”

More dramatically, Joe Lieberman and others have called for Chinese-style censorship and enabling a “kill switch” at the behest of President Obama or his successors.

Capture

Further, a literal information war has been declared 060508cyberwar

in the online space, a veritable frontier battleground for freedom in the 21st Century virtual world. CENTCOM announced its intention to “engage bloggers” Centcom email

and counter errors or “disinformation.” The Air Force

090109plan

has a similar operation, as does the Pentagon311006pentagon .

Likewise, Obama’s Information “Czar” Cass Sunstein outlined a report 140110top for the Journal of Political Philosophy recommending engagement on the part of the government to infiltrate conspiracy groups in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks sites. Even more outrageously, he has envisioned a scheme to censor conspiracy theories or tax those who disseminate them.140110top2 Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has also advocated regulating political speech110510top2 and even banning books.60406225

The flag@whitehouse.gov program even asked supporters to identify “fishy” blogs

or websites that might be promoting “disinformation” about health care or other aspects of the White House agenda. The same concept took place during the 2008 campaign where Missouri ran an add threatening to arrest critics who “told a lie” about Obama

or promoted ‘disinformation’ such as claims that Obama was born in Kenya.

The web has become the most important public space for political discussion in the 21st Century, as has been very “democratic” in its access to blogs, alternative news, individual and even unpopular opinions, the promotion of ideas and candidates (regardless of budgets or notoriety), audio-visual and printed archives and other vital material that should be protected under Constitutional and democratic principles, but are instead being bullied.

Blocking information is not new, but will only accelerate in the realm of the 21st Century Internet. Opponents of freedom would like to silence widespread online dissent, and will only find justification for moving forward to shut it down and censor its content. The Constitution and Bill of Rights put in place strong protection for expression and personal belief, and a high-tolerance for free speech for a reason– especially when criticizing or questioning high officials and leaders.

OBAMA’S “CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE” IS ELECTION DILEMMA FOR DEMOCRATS

Cadres of angry Obama supporters have been attacking The Obama Deception since its released less than 2 months after Barack Obama’s inauguration. Despite attempts to label the film as “racist” or “anti-government,” The Obama Deception has reached many people, and unnerved the establishment so much, that Alex Jones reportedly made the supposedly leaked White House enemies list, proving that the film has undermined Obama’s effectiveness.globe

Instead of being able to easily ram-through legislation with the aid of Democratic majorities in BOTH houses, Obama has been forced to fight for issues that are simultaneously gaining in their unpopularity with the public daily. Carbon taxes, the bailout for bankers, health care legislation, amnesty for illegal aliens– alongside the collapsing ecomony– have driven massive fury. All these issues and more have been covered in Alex Jones’ controversial documentary since the dawn of the Obama Administration. The Fall of the Republic further expands that analyze and goes even deeper.

Top news pundits are now saying that the Democrats may likely lose control of not only the House, but the Senate as well 

Daschle and Gephardt crying after losing house in 1994

in the November 2010 elections. Rahm Emanuel is fleeing his Chief of Staff position;

Rahm Emanuel expected to quit White House

former Clinton Aides are speculating that only a terror attack like 9/11 or the Oklahoma City bombing save the Obama Administration, and bolster a political rescue from the angry uprising that has been unseating incumbents, supporters of Health Care and other unpopular legislation, but especially the Congressional Democrats.

With the upcoming midterm elections, the Obama White House is more desperate than ever to regain their credibility, silence those calling the Emperor “naked” and reign in the destruction of America to fit the schedule of his social-engineering masters.

SOLUTIONS: FIGHTING BACK FOR FREE SPEECH AND ON-LINE LIBERTY — A CALL TO ACTION!

As Paul Joseph Watson has recently observed,

The Lights Are Going Out For Free Speech On The Internet 060710top2

 the lights are going out for free speech on the Internet. But the best defense against such strong attempts to censor and control the web, is to fight back with a full offensive. The same activists who’ve made The Obama Deception one of the most viewed online films of all time, and who’ve driven its name into the top of search trends can once again demonstrate to the powers to be that we are a force of significant numbers. Make it clear that we will never stop fighting and that we will see that this powerful film– and so many other activist tools– aren’t shut down, and instead are spread everywhere into the physical and virtual world.

Fight back against criminal sabotage and outright censorship:

– by spending 5 minutes or so every time you go online to send “The Obama Deception” or “Police State 4″ or “Endgame” into the top of Google, Yahoo, Bing and StartPage’s search engines.

– break apart marketing for mindless celebrities or government “propaganda placement” and use the hype to bring attention to real issues of the day or powerful documentaries that tell the truth

– by spreading other links to The Obama Deception to your friends, family, coworkers and everyone else you know. Spreading these links will, in turn, make them more dominant in search engine results, and help drive the trend as well

– by sending out the new upload of The Obama Deception on Change Da Channel, featuring a warning by Alex Jones about how dire the need is to spread the film and stop the Internet policing

– using Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and other social networking sites to virally share “The Obama Deception” as well as key news articles

-pass out DVDs, pamphlets and flyers in the physical world to people you encounter, and keeping physical and offline archives of vital information that can survive outside of the increasingly-regulated Internet

-wherever it seems relevant, let your Congressman, city representatives, etc know that you support a free Internet; urge them to vote against a “kill switch” and to carefully guard against “cyber security” that is really surveillance and censorship.

– Get The Obama Deception on DVD and make copies forevermore or download the film in high-quality on PrisonPlanet.tv and share it with your familiars.

Share these working links to The Obama Deception:
MrV1420 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrpRocaEfQE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756#
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1250419
http://www.vidoemo.com/yvideo.php?i=ZUFhUU5BcWuRpQ3dhTHc&the-obama-deception-hq-full-length-version=
fearblocke – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8pKq9FzmtQ
jh4t3d – (Spanish Subtitles) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtAdmaXuaA0&feature=related
bedoboy – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP_AdVVKFdM
Hashstarr – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85IEs4nCgfo&feature=related
stopcenzurze – (Czech Subtitles) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVhRafT4AkA&feature=related
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f6_1237453305
http://www.viddler.com/explore/Bootlead/videos/20/
http://vimeo.com/3676634
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4706364/obama_deception/

Support youtube.com/ChangeDaChannel
Support youtube.com/TheAlexJonesChannel

Please continue to support Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com– we cannot do it without you.

 

Alex Jones exposes Google ban on ‘hate’ merchants

Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
February 18, 2010

Google and other powerful forces are testing the limits of Internet censorship on all conceivable fronts. Not only is content filtering taking place at a national and regional level, first in places like China, and now Australia, but policies limiting individual speech agreed upon at the corporate level and above are placed upon individuals, who have no say in the matter.

Thus web participation is subject to a set of criteria. Google’s merchant policies have blacklisted Alex Jones and other outlets like him for unjustified reasons and selectively blocked his DVDs from being sold through their venue.

Vague terms like “anti” and “violence” have been used to block Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com, The Obama Deception, the Fall of the Republic, and other entities critical of policies on the part of governments, NGOs, world institutions, etc. Yet no specific complaint or ‘charge’ has been declared.

Its abuses may be partially cloaked behind its distinctions as a private business, but Google, expanding its domination of the web every day, has spread out and now controls many actions of individuals. Watch the video, and join Alex in fighting back against the incremental approach to control and censor the Internet. Keep the Internet free, and support the websites dedicated to exposing abuses and working towards free access, privacy and the uncontrolled flow of information, alternative news and communication.

 

YouTube Caught Censoring Obama Deception Video

Infowars
March 23, 2009

YouTube has deleted ChangeDaChannel’s honors formerly attached to Alex Jones’ high quality encode of The Obama Deception in a crass effort to knock the film’s ratings down, an obvious effort by Google’s YouTube to make sure people remain unaware of and do not watch the video. In essence — and not unlike the old Soviet Union — YouTube is acting as a political police goon squad for the establishment, attempting to make sure as few people as possible see this important documentary.

YouTube and Google Video are notorious for censoring and fudging view results on Alex Jones films and other films including Loose Change and NufffRespect’s hugely popular Question Your Reality video. For more on the mechanics behind Google’s censorship, see Google Censorship — How It Works.

It is important that The Obama Deception get out to as many people as possible and that is why Alex has allowed the film to be posted on the internet. ChangeDaChannel has the best high quality encode of the film and this needs to go viral.

Please watch the film below and order your copy of the DVD today. Now that Obama’s drones are on the street and going door-to-door in order to high pressure you into supporting the banker scam that will indenture our former republic to the international bankers for generations to come, it is vitally important you get a copy of this film, make copies, and pass them out to your family and neighbors so they will be ready to respond when Obama’s little Maoists come knocking on your door.

Here the proof of the removed video below

This video was not removed by user rather it was removed illegally by You Tube

 

You Tube Censors Hugely Popular “Question Your Reality” Video

Prison Planet
Friday, March 7, 2008

After receiving over 50,000 views in a few hours and on its way to shoot to the top of the most viewed chart, You Tube brazenly pulled a popular video from their rankings system Friday in an act of wanton censorship.

“Question Your Reality,” a stirring and well put together video montage featuring talk show host Alex Jones was rocketing up the charts, already having reached number 2 most viewed on News and Politics and soaring up the general most discussed and most viewed categories.

A moment later, it was nowhere to be seen as You Tube cleared the slate and prevented the clip from going completely viral.

You Tube is owned by Google, who have pulled this trick many times before, but by spreading the video far and wide you can help offset their censorship and wake people up.

 

Google Censorship – How It Works

An anticensorware investigation by Seth Finkelstein

Abstract: This report describes the system by which results in the Google search engine are suppressed.

Google Exclusion, introduction

Google is arguably the world’s most popular search engine. However, contrary perhaps to a naive impression, in some cases the results of a search are affected by various government-related factors. That is, search results which may otherwise be shown, are deliberately excluded. The suppression may be local to a country, or global to all Google results.

This removal of results was first documented in a report Localized Google search result exclusions by Benjamin Edelman and Jonathan Zittrain , which investigated certain web material banned in various countries. Later, this author Seth Finkelstein discussed a global removal arising from intimidation generated from the United Kingdom town of Chester, in Chester’s Guide to Molesting Google .

My discussion here is not meant to criticize Google’s behavior in any way. Much of it is in reaction to government law or government-backed pressure, where accommodation is an understandable reaction if nothing else. Rather, documenting and explaining what happens, can inform public understanding, and lead to more informed resistance against the distortion of search results created by censorship campaigns.

How it works

A Google search is not simply a raw dump of a database query to the user’s screen. The retrieval of the data is just one step. There is much post-processing afterwards, in terms of presentation and customization.

When Google "removes" material, often it is still in the Google index itself. But the post-processing has removed it from any results shown to the user. This system can be applied, for quality reasons, to remove sites which "spam" the search engine. And that is, by volume, certainly the overwhelming application of the mechanism. But it can also be directed against sites which have been prohibited for government-based reasons.

Sometimes the fact that the "removed" material is still in the index can be inferred.

Global censorship

For the case of Chester , which concerned a single "removed" page, the internal indexing of the target page could be established by comparison with a search for the same material on another search engine.

Consider a Google search for the word "lesbian" on the site torkyarkisto.marhost.com . It returns a page titled "The Kurt Cobain Quiz", with a count of

Results 1 - 1 of about 2

The "about" qualifier there represents many factors, but sometimes encompasses blacklisted pages. This can be seen here by comparing to an AltaVistasearch for the word "lesbian" on the site torkyarkisto.marhost.com

There are two pages visible in that case, the "Quiz" page, and the "Chester" page which caused all the trouble in the first place.

Since we know the "Chester" page was once in the Google index, it must be the other page referred to in "about 2". QED.

Local censorship

In this situation, comparing results from the different Country Google searches, is often revealing. The tests are often best done using the "allinurl:" syntax of Google, which searches for URLs which have the given components (note the separate components can appear anywhere in the URL, so "allinurl:stormfront.org" is "stormfront" and "org" in the URL, not just the string "stormfront.org" as might be naively thought). Stormfront.org is a notorious racist site, often banned in various contexts.

Consider the following US search:
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=allinurl%3Astormfront.org
This returned: Results 1 - 27 of about 50,700.

Now compare with the German counterpart (Google.DE):
http://www.google.de/search?num=100&hl=en&q=allinurl%3Astormfront.org
This returned: Results 1 - 9 about 50,700.

Immediate observation: The rightmost (total) number is identical. So identical results are in the Google database. It’s simply not displaying them. How is it determining which domain results to display?

Note the hosts of which "stormfront.org" URLs are visible on the German page:

irc.stormfront.org:8000/
www4.stormfront.org:81/
lists.stormfront.org:81/

What do these all have in common?
They all have a port number after the host name.
The exclusion pattern obviously isn’t matching the ":number" part of the URL.
It’s matching a pattern of "*.stormfront.org/" in the host, as in the following which are displayed the US search, but not the German search.

http://www.stormfront.org/
kids.stormfront.org/
women.stormfront.org/
nna.stormfront.org/
www4.stormfront.org/

Even more interesting, the German page has a broken URL listed at the bottom: http/www.stormfront.org/quotes.htm . That’s not a valid URL, so it seems to escape the host check.

Thus, the suppression again appears to be implemented as a post-processing step using very simple patterns of prohibited results.

The same behavior is observed in a German "stormfront.org" images search
This returned: Results 1 - 6 about 1,410.
Versus a US "stormfront.org" images search
This returned: Results 1 - 18 about 1,410.
(note identical right-hand numbers, and hosts matching "*.stormfront.org/" pattern are suppressed in the German results)

And also in a German "stormfront.org" directory search
This returned: Results 1 - 8 about 15.
Versus a US "stormfront.org" directory search
This returned: Results 1 - 10 about 15.
(note again identical right-hand numbers, and hosts matching "*.stormfront.org/" pattern are suppressed in the German results)

Conclusion

Contrary to earlier utopian theories of the Internet, it takes very little effort for governments to cause certain information simply to vanish for a huge number of people.


Version 1.0 Mar 10 2003

Support

This work was not funded by anyone, and has no connection to any organization. In fact, if anyone is providing financial support for such projects, the author would like to know.

Note: Some of this material appeared earlier in the author’s Infothought blog


Mail comments to: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@sethf.com>
For future information:   subscribe    to   Seth Finkelstein’s Infothought list    or read the    Infothought blog

(if you subscribed a few months ago, please resubscribe due to a crash)

See more of Seth Finkelstein ‘s Censorware Investigations

 

Facebook Deletes Official Alex Jones Page Over Gadsden Flag

Social networking giant has embarked on a move to ban Tea Party material as part of wider cybersecurity agenda for web censorship and political oppression

Facebook Deletes Official Alex Jones Page Over Gadsden Flag 160710top2

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, July 16, 2010

Facebook has sensationally banned the official Alex Jones Facebook page after a customer services representative admitted that all material containing images of the famous Gadsden flag was being deleted by the social networking giant.

While some fan pages remain up,  the official Alex Jones Facebook page athttp://www.facebook.com/realalexjones has been terminated. Other Alex Jones pages run by Infowars readers have also been deleted, such as the page that was formerly athttp://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Real-Alex-Jones/.

If Facebook has embarked on a policy of banning political expression and images it deems offensive then the company should be more open about the fact. While Facebook didn’t consider it necessary to delete a fan page dedicated to the British murderer Raoul Moat, it is now purging all material related to the Tea Party movement, states’ rights and the Gadsden flag, which is a symbol of resistance against tyranny and was originally used by the United States Marine Corps.

It’s unsurprising that Facebook has nailed its political colors to the mast in serving the establishment by targeting grass roots Facebook pages that display the Gadsden flag. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has denounced privacy as a ‘social norm’ of the past, an apt excuse given the fact that his website is little more than a vast intelligence database used by spy agencies to dig up information on people. Even more alarmingly, IM’s from Zuckerberg’s early Facebook days reveal his total disregard for privacy. In the IM’s, Zuckerberg insults Facebook users as “dumb fucks” for trusting him with their private information.

The move to ban Tea Party-related material is just one example of the wider move to censor the Internet as part of the cybersecurity agenda.

During an appearance on CNN last month, Senator Joe Lieberman, the sponsor of a bill that would give President Obama the power to shut down parts of the Internet, admitted that cybersecurity was all about seizing the same policing power over the world wide web employed by the Communist Chinese government.

As we have documented, Chinese censorship of the Internet has nothing to do with security and is almost exclusively focused around covering up government atrocities and abuse by silencing whistle blowers and blocking the free flow of information. The system that Lieberman wants America to adopt is all about political oppression and preventing people from becoming organized and active in standing up against big government.

We are continuing to investigate Facebook’s move to ban the official Alex Jones page and we encourage everyone to contact Facebook and let them know that you will boycott their services if the page is not re-instated.

 

“Christian” You Tube Censors Obama Deception

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Censored

A site that brands itself as a kind of ‘You Tube for Christians’ – Tangle.com, which was formally known as Godtube.com, has censored Alex Jones’ new film The Obama Deception after claiming the documentary contained “slander and libel”.

One of our readers tried to upload The Obama Deception to the Tangle website in four parts, but two of the sections never made it and the reader was subsequently contacted by Caitlin Reynolds, ‘Community Care’ administrator for Tangle.

“Hello and thank you for using tangle!,” stated the e mail. “Your video contains slander and liable (sic). We cannot allow this content on our site with out documented proof of the accusations. Please refer to our Terms of Use for additional information. http://www.tangle.com/support/legal Please let us know if you have any other questions or concerns!”

Firstly, we would advise Tangle.com to try and learn to spell the word “libel” before they attempt to interpret it.

Secondly, Obama’s lies are exhaustively documented at every step of the way throughout the film. The content of the documentary itself disproves any claim of “libel” or “slander”.

 

Naturally, Tangle.com failed to cite a single example of defamation in the film but immediately banned it anyway, which is even more bizarre considering the fact that Obama has already put into action policies that should abhor Christians, some of which are touched upon in the film.

Perhaps Tangle.com is run by the same kind of phony ‘Christians’ as those that staff the Assembly of God church in Ohio, who recently released a pamphlet encouraging their congregation to all but obey Obama and not criticize his policies, citing a perversion of Romans 13.

This is the second example of large networking websites attempting to censor the Obama Deception within a week of its release.

Yesterday, we featured a story about how a user had his account terminated by Facebook for merely posting links to The Obama Deception video.

You can watch The Obama Deception for free at You Tube or subscribe to prison planet.tvand see the movie in high quality along with a plethora of other videos.

 

Social Networks Censoring Obama Joker Images

Social Networks Censoring Obama Joker Images 200809joker censorship2

“Jokerbama” deemed to be in same category as “nude/sexually explicit/violence” by Myspace Safety & Security team

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, August 20, 2009

Infowars has received word that social networking website Myspace is removing the now iconic image of Obama as The Joker from users’ pages and photo albums, citing it as “offensive”.

Several people have contacted us to complain that Myspace is effectively censoring their political views by removing their images.

The following comment comes to us from Myspace user xthemonsterx:

I just attempted to post the Obama Fascism picture on myspace, as well as the image used in his campaign with the word hype instead of hope. I got sent back a message saying the pictures wouldn’t be posted because they were “offensive”.

Another Myspace user, Adam, sent us details of how myspace had deleted some of his Obama Joker images, but not others. Two of Adam’s Joker images that were deleted carried the overtly political messages “Don’t think, be quiet” and “Don’t drink tea, drink Kool Aid”.

Yet, according to Adam, the same image of Obama as The Joker, with the apolitical message “Quit clowning around!!!!!” was left untouched by Myspace.

Adam sent us the following screenshot of a message Myspace sent to his inbox explaining why his images had been pulled and threatening to completely delete his account:

Social Networks Censoring Obama Joker Images 200809joker censorship

Related Reading: Obama as Joker Explained

More people have complained of the same clampdown on the images by the Rupert Murdoch owned company.

“its in your photo album thats getting jacked.” writes another Myspace user, ‘Eternal Vigilance’.

“For example, they keep changing my display pic from my ‘two jokers’ picture (Obama and Bush as the Joker) to my very 1st pic in my 1st photo album.”

‘Eternal Vigilance’ sent us a screen shot of the same message from Myspace Safety & Security:

Social Networks Censoring Obama Joker Images 200809joker censorship3

Another user with the moniker ‘HappySunshineRaysOfDeath’ sent us the following screenshot of the message he received from myspace when attempting to upload the Obama Joker image to his photo album:

Social Networks Censoring Obama Joker Images 200809joker censorship5

Judging by these messages it would seem that Myspace has deemed the “Jokerbama” image adorned with political messages to be in some way dangerous, grouping it in the same category as “nude/sexually explicit/violence” images.

At this time attempts to contact Myspace on this issue have gone unanswered.

The news comes in the wake of the revelation that the original source of the image was also censored.

The designer of the image, 20-year-old college student Firas Alkhateeb from Chicago, found that after his image was viewed over 20,000 times on Yahoo owned picture networking site Flickr, it was removed along with every comment posted under the image by Flickr users.

Flickr previously censored criticism of Obama when they deleted the entire account and photostream of user Shepherd Johnson owing to comments he posted on the official White House photostream. The comments were in no way offensive, were polite and well written, and merely criticised the president’s decision to withhold photographs of detainee prison abuse. TheSan Francisco Chronicle also picked up the story.

Flickr originally responded by implying that Johnson had been flagged by other Flickr users and had infringed their guidelines for “safe” viewing. Later the company also suggested that Johnson had been removed from the community for posting a photo of prisoner detainee abuse and “spamming” the website.

As we detailed in our report earlier this week, the revelation that the creator of the Jokerbama is a politically independent Muslim-American, and not a Republican white supremacist as the establishment left had hoped, puts the final nail in the coffin of the smear that the poster is in any way intended as racist.

This chilling of free speech and political parody emphasizes the importance of our continuing effort to bring awareness to the Jokerbama image through Alex Jones’ poster competition.

Has Myspace or any other social network site removed your Jokerbama images? If so please email all the details to admin@infowars.net.

 

Censorship or Copyright Infringement? Flickr Takes Down "Obama as Joker" Photo

Written by Sarah Perez / August 19, 2009 6:43 AM

Los Angeles residents recently began seeing a new sort of Obama poster plastered across their city. Instead of promoting "hope," these posters feature U.S. President Barack Obama wearing the Joker’s clown makeup from the Batman movie "The Dark Knight." Even those outside of L.A. have likely seen this image somewhere as it soon took on a viral nature, appearing both online and in other cities across the country. The politically charged (and rather disturbing) photo serves as a counterpoint to the prolific and iconic "hope" posters that became popular during Obama’s campaign. Regardless of which side you favor, one thing can be said about this photo: it definitely grabs your attention.

But now, according to the photo’s creator, Firas Alkhateeb, a 20-year-old college student from Chicago, the image has been removed from photo-sharing website Flickr due to "copyright infringement concerns." Really? Is that why? Or is Flickr engaging in political censorship?

About the Photo

The posters that popped up across the country were based on Alkhateeb’s photo, but had the TIME magazine logo and branding removed and had added the word "socialism" at the bottom. Alkhateeb wasn’t responsible for these changes – a yet-to-be-identified person is behind the posters’ creation.

In fact, you may be surprised to hear that the Obama/Joker image wasn’t even meant to be political commentary, according to Alkhateeb. That’s quite ironic given that it has now embroiled him in this intense political debate. Instead, says the college student, he was just messing around after discovering an online tutorial that explained how to "Jokerize" photographs using Adobe Photoshop. It seems that Alkhateeb doesn’t particularly care about politics himself, having chosen to abstain from voting in November since he felt his state (Illinois) was already sewn up and decided before the polls opened. His views on Obama aren’t particularly one-sided either. Alkhateeb favors the democratic viewpoint on foreign relations but tends to side with Republicans on domestic issues.

In a recent L.A. Times profile on Alkhateeb, it’s reported that the photo generated over 20,000 page views during the time it was hosted on the photo-sharing website Flickr.com. However, as of last Friday, Flickr removed the photo from their site. Why? Alkhateeb says he received an email from the company stating it had to be taken down due to "copyright infringement concerns."(Apparently, TIME magazine wasn’t too happy seeing their brand associated with this sort of political commentary.)

What About Free Speech?

But isn’t this sort of political commentary, political parody in fact, protected as a form of free speech? Noted photographer and blogger Thomas Hawk thinks it is, citing a precedent for fair use (Folsom v Marsh) which states "if you produce something that is transformative, and not derivative, then it’s fair use." Although Hawk isn’t a lawyer, he may be right on this one. Says Corynne McSherry, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit that defends digital rights, Alkhateeb has a strong fair use defense if he was ever sued. "You really want to think twice about going after a political commenter," she noted.

This wouldn’t be the first time Flickr got involved with political censorship. Hawk also blogged about how the site deleted the account of a user named Shepherd Johnson after he made critical comments about Obama in the Official White House Photostream back in June.

So is this yet another case of Flickr engaging in censorship? Or are they legitimately protecting themselves from these "copyright infringement" claims? (Flickr won’t comment on this since a company policy prohibits them from discussing issues surrounding one particular user.)

Pentagon Will "Catapult the Propaganda" Via U.S. Media
Military, government indoctrination wing formally declares psychological warfare on the American people

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 31 2006

The Pentagon has formally declared psychological warfare on the American people by announcing it will engage in propaganda and indoctrination by using the Internet and media to "set the record straight" on the war on terror. Recent history clearly indicates this is just the latest outreach of an insipid brainwashing agenda that is totally unlawful and anathema to the U.S. Constitution.

In the past, the military or the government did not announce that they were planting surreptitious propaganda to target U.S. audiences, they did it secretly and for a very good reason – because it was and still is illegal.

But since George W. Bush, backed by his renegade legal advisors, officially announced the end of the Republic and the birth of the "decidership," he can arbitrarily create out of thin air, ignore, or amend any law he likes and to all intents and purposes is above the Constitution and has ascribed to himself total dictator power. The only thing that remains is, in his own words, to "catapult the propaganda," in an attempt to legitimize his absolute rule and assure the blind obedience of the American people to his junta’s future desecrations of foreign lands and the bill of rights at home.

The new program is simply another wing of the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence, publicly announced after 9/11 but simply the latest incarnation of a PR brainwashing scam that spans back decades. The OSI exploited legal loopholes by planting its propaganda in foreign newspapers that would later be picked up by U.S. newswires. In today’s environment even that seems quaint, with the Pentagon openly and proudly shouting from the rooftops that they will knowingly violate the law to indoctrinate the American people.

Perhaps the most alarming case of the military’s information tentacles burrowing their influence deep into media circles in recent years was in February 2000, when another branch of the same Pentagon propaganda bureau, Psychological Operations Command (PSYOPS), had placed their operatives "in the news division at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters as part of an “internship” program starting in the final days of the Kosovo War."

FAIR speculated that the purpose was twofold, one to directly propagandize the American people via CNN and also potentially to allow the "military to conduct an intelligence-gathering mission against the network itself," because the "military needed to find ways to "gain control" over commercial news satellites to help bring down an "informational cone of silence" over regions where special operations were taking place."

With the knowledge that government propagandists were utilizing U.S. news network hubs at CNN to run what was described as a "vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in enemy territory," and that this took place over six years ago – just imagine how infested today’s networks and newsrooms are with paid agent provocateur propagandists whose sole job specification is to orchestrate methods of mind control over the population of the United States.

In October 2005 Government Accountability Office investigators concludedthat the Bush administration’s secret policy to pay off influential journalists to plant fake news and positive spin on Bush’s policies was illegal and that the "administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban."

The consequences were not the drafting of new legislation that would clearly outlaw such actions in future, nor any form of criminal proceedings against the protagonists. The upshot of it all was a slap on the wrist for Armstrong Williams and a request that he pay back part of the money that the government had given him – not even all of it.

"Armstrong Williams is going to pay back $34,000 to the government for work he failed to deliver, but who’s going to pay the taxpayers for the rest of the quarter million dollars Williams was paid for his propaganda services to the administration?," asked Congressman George Miller, as the Justice Department hurried a settlement and swept the whole sordid affair under the rug.

Impromptu mass e mail circulations and talking points spread around messageboards and social networking websites that triumph the moral virtues of the war on terror have been rife for years and are clearly part of a gargantuan propaganda campaign that has been insipid for years but is only just being announced now.

Here are a couple you’ll probably remember from the past few months.

A recent diatribe that was forwarded more times than an annoying "meet the love of your life" chain letter concerned a visit to the White House by a man who was overwhelmed by the intensely warm and gracious personality of George W. Bush, and astounded by the negative media stereotype of his nature. The man just felt the need to share his tear-jerking story of how the President shook him by the hand, looked in his eyes and made him feel like the most important person in the room – and by a miracle it just happened to bypass our spam guards and end up in tens of millions of Americans’ inboxes.

Another example that similarly wormed its way through MySpace bulletin boards was an attempt at bolstering the credibility of the flagging war on terror and countering the progress of the 9/11 truth movement by simply listing terror attacks over the last three decades and their alleged perpetrators. A modified version of this was used in a speech by Bush propaganda architect Karl Rove just a week ago where he referenced terror attacks that had occurredbefore the invasion of Iraq, therefore attempting to absolve charges that the Iraq invasion provoked an increase in terrorism. So under that twisted logic, drug dealers shouldn’t worry about creating more addicts by selling drugs because there were always drug addicts before them!

In both cases, as soon as you read the first paragraph of these screeds, the big fat stinking rat of covert government propaganda scuttled across the computer screen.

Now the modern day gang of Goebbels wannabees seek to sink their teeth even further into the last outpost of free speech – the Internet – and impose a blackout on any dissent under the auspices of "disseminating enemy propaganda."

The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Bush’s own strategy document for "winning the war on terror" identifies "conspiracy theorists," meaning anyone who exposes government corruption and its lies about major domestic and world events, as "terrorists recruiters," and vows to eliminate their influence in society.

In a speech given last Monday, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoffidentified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills."

Chertoff has pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.

A program on behalf of CENTCOM is also underway to infiltrate blogs and message boards to ensure people, "have the opportunity to read positive stories,"presumably about how Iraq is a wonderful liberated democracy and the war on terror really is about protecting Americans from Al-CIAda.

The eminently hypocritical tenet of the Pentagon’s justification for the propaganda program – that they need to correct "inaccurate statements" and "set the record straight" is borne out by the fact that they participated in the dissemination of the most lurid and damaging propaganda since Hitler’s final speech – a deliberately fomented lie about weapons of mass destruction that killed 655,000 Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers.

How dare this gaggle of criminals lecture us about how the insurgents control the media while equating anyone who even mildly criticizes their bloodlust with being a terrorist?

They are the liars, they are the crooks, they are the propagandists and it is we the alternative media – the fifth estate – that should mobilize like never before to counter their spurious deception.

 

Air Force Creates "Counter Blog" Response Plan To Quell Online Dissent
Detailed flow chart orders officers to respond to negative material

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, Jan 9th, 2009

The US Air Force has announced a “counter-blog” response plan aimed at fielding and reacting to material from bloggers who have “negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force.”

The plan, created by the public affairs arm of the Air Force, includes a detailed twelve-point "counter blogging" flow-chart that dictates how officers should tackle what are described as "trolls," "ragers," and "misguided" online writers.

Wired blog Danger Room summarizes how the chart lays out a range of possible responses to a blog post:

Airmen can offer a "factual and well-cited response [that] is not factually erroneous, a rant or rage, bashing or negative in nature." They can "let the post stand — no response." Or they can "fix the facts," offering up fresh perspective. No matter what, the chart says, airmen should "disclose your Air Force connection," "respond in a tone that reflects high on the rich heritage of the Air Force," and "focus on the most-used sites related to the Air Force."

Another option offered by the chart is to "monitor the site for relevant information and comments" while reporting back to HQ.

Of course, the type of bloggers that Air Force officers will be able to respond to may be limited due to the fact that the Air Force actively blocks access to just about any independent site with the word "blog" in its web address.

No doubt the Web Posting Response Assessment plan is an offshoot of the Air Force’s "national cybersecurity initiative", an ongoing $11 million project which is also seeking the capability to hack into, fully control and even destroy any form of computer or network in existence.

We have previously reported on similar efforts on behalf of the military and the government to quell online dissent, as well as more broadly control the information available to the American public.

Multiple programs are currently being rolled out by the Pentagon and its offshoot agencies such as DARPA, in a secret war with the internet that has been described as a $30 billion "electronic Manhattan Project".

Such ongoing efforts to infiltrate the Internet and propagandize for the war on terror are well documented.

CENTCOM has programs underway to infiltrate blogs and message boards to ensure people, "have the opportunity to read positive stories,"presumably about how Iraq is a wonderful liberated democracy and the war on terror really is about protecting Americans from Al-CIAda.

In May 2008, it was revealed that the Pentagon was expanding "Information Operations" on the Internet with purposefully set up foreign news websites, designed to look like independent media sources but in reality carrying direct military propaganda.

More recently the New York Times published an expose on privately hired operatives who have been appearing on all major US news networks promoting the interests and operations of the Pentagon and generating favorable news coverage of the Bush administration while posing as independent military analysts.

This operation was formally announced In 2006 when the Pentagon set up a unit to "better promote its message across 24-hour rolling news outlets, and particularly on the internet".
Again, the Pentagon said the move would boost its ability to counter "inaccurate" news stories and exploit new media.

The program represents another wing of the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence, publicly announced after 9/11 but simply the latest incarnation of a PR brainwashing scam that spans back decades. The OSI exploited legal loopholes by planting its propaganda in foreign newspapers that would later be picked up by U.S. newswires. In today’s environment even that seems quaint, with the Pentagon openly and proudly shouting from the rooftops that they will knowingly violate the law to indoctrinate the American people.

Perhaps the most alarming case of the military’s information tentacles burrowing their influence deep into media circles in recent years was in February 2000, when another branch of the same Pentagon propaganda bureau, Psychological Operations Command (PSYOPS), had placed their operatives "in the news division at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters as part of an “internship” program starting in the final days of the Kosovo War."

FAIR speculated that the purpose was twofold, one to directly propagandize the American people via CNN and also potentially to allow the "military to conduct an intelligence-gathering mission against the network itself," because the "military needed to find ways to "gain control" over commercial news satellites to help bring down an "informational cone of silence" over regions where special operations were taking place."

With the knowledge that government propagandists were utilizing U.S. news network hubs at CNN to run what was described as a "vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in enemy territory," and that this took place almost eight years ago – just imagine how infested today’s networks and newsrooms are with paid agent provocateur propagandists whose sole job specification is to orchestrate methods of mind control over the population of the United States.

In October 2005 Government Accountability Office investigators concluded that the Bush administration’s secret policy to pay off influential journalists to plant fake news and positive spin on Bush’s policies was illegal and that the "administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban."

A study by media watchdog Center for Media and Democracy revealed that, over a ten month span, 77 television stations from all across the nation aired video news releases without informing their viewers even once that the reports were actually sponsored content.

Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted specific companies’ products.

The consequences were not the drafting of new legislation that would clearly outlaw such actions in future, nor any form of criminal proceedings against the protagonists. The upshot of it all was a slap on the wrist for conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and a request that he pay back part of the money that the government had given him – not even all of it.

"Armstrong Williams is going to pay back $34,000 to the government for work he failed to deliver, but who’s going to pay the taxpayers for the rest of the quarter million dollars Williams was paid for his propaganda services to the administration?," asked Congressman George Miller, as the Justice Department hurried a settlement and swept the whole sordid affair under the rug.

See the Prisonplanet archive on Government Use Of Fake News for more examples of these practices.

These operations equate to a formal declaration of psychological warfare on the American people. The military is engaging in direct propaganda and indoctrination.

Recent history clearly indicates this is just the latest outreach of an insipid brainwashing agenda that is totally unlawful and anathema to the U.S. Constitution.

The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Bush’s own strategy document for "winning the war on terror" identifies "conspiracy theorists," meaning anyone who exposes government corruption and its lies about major domestic and world events, as "terrorists recruiters," and vows to eliminate their influence in society.

We have even seen the proposal of legislation that would require bloggers to register with and regularly report their activities to Congress or face prison.

The eminently hypocritical tenet of the suggestion that the military and the Air Force need to "Fix the facts", correct "inaccurate statements" and "set the record straight" is borne out by the fact that they participated in the dissemination of the most lurid and damaging propaganda since Hitler’s final speech – a deliberately fomented lie about weapons of mass destruction that has killed over one million Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers.

It is they who constitute the "ragers" and "trolls" and it is we the alternative media – the fifth estate – that should mobilize in the infowar to counter their spurious deception.

 

Pentagon Secretly Goes To War With The Internet
New $30 Billion "electronic Manhattan Project" underway to prepare military and federal government for all out cyberwar

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, May 6, 2008

The Pentagon is to spend $30 Billion building a super secret "National Cyber Range" in order to prepare for all out cyber warfare by using it to conduct mock online battles with realistic info-warriors.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), previously responsible for the development of electronic surveillance programs such as Total Information Awareness and MATRIX, LifeLog and the Brain Machine Interfaces enterprise, has been ordered by Congress to create what is essentially a new internet as a cyberspace battleground.

Wired.com has reported "According to a defense official familiar with the program: ‘Congress has given DARPA a direct order; that’s only happened once before — with the Sputnik program in the ’50s’"

The NCR will not only allow for defense from electronic attack, but will also allow offensive strikes against "adversaries online". It is rumored to be the keystone of a so called "Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative", created via a secret presidential orderin January.

A request for proposals, released by DARPA yesterday outlined how the agency wants the NCR to be able to "realistically replicate human behavior and frailties," and feature "realistic, sophisticated, nation-state quality offensive and defensive opposition forces".

(Article continues below)

The NCR’s operators should be able to "integrate, replicate, or simulate" military satellite and digital radio communications, mobile ad-hoc networks, physical access control systems, U.S. and foreign "unmanned aerial vehicles, weapons, [and] radar systems" — even "cyber cafes" and "personal digital assistances [sic]." the proposal states.

A previous notice outlined that the NCR would allow the Pentagon to:

• Conduct unbiased, quantitative and qualitative assessment of information assurance and survivability tools in a representative network environment.
• Replicate complex, large-scale, heterogeneous networks and users in current and future Department of Defense (DoD) weapon systems and operations.
• Enable multiple, independent, simultaneous experiments on the same infrastructure.
• Enable realistic testing of Internet/Global-Information-Grid (GIG) scale research.
• Develop and deploy revolutionary cyber testing capabilities.
• Enable the use of the scientific method for rigorous cyber testing.

The project is so secret that it has been referred to as an electronic"Manhattan Project". The Senate Homeland Security committee, a key Senate oversight panel has cited concerns about the secrecy around the project and has been forced to write to the DHS to request basic information on the project.

Commentators have speculated that the entire project may be a huge new part of the federal government’s so called "terrorist surveillance program", which has so far only been shown to constitute cyberwarfare against everyday Americans via warrantless wiretapping and interception of communications.

Wired.com comments:

"Why might citizens be worried about privacy and civil liberties? Consider that the whole initiative appears to have been launched after the Director of National Intelligence told the President Bush that a cyber attack might wreak as much economic havoc as 9/11 did. Consider that the NSA, which currently protects classified networks, wants to expand into protecting all non-classified federal government networks. Consider that Congress is set to legalize the NSA’s monitoring rooms in the nation’s phone and internet infrastructure. For its part, the FBI says it also needs access to the internet’s backbone, while the Air Force is hyping its own efforts at cyber defense and offense. […]

Now it seems the only question is whether the government will be able to turn the net into a controllable, monitorable and trackable pre-internet AOL-type service or whether the chaotic net will live on as just another frontier for the military-industrial complex to start an arm’s race and rake in billions of government dollars."

Could this be the Pentagon’s ultimate "solution" to counter the internet, an arena of freedom and progress that military strategists now view as a bastard child they let slip from their grasp some twenty or so years ago?

While Homeland Security head Chertoff has denied that the project is part of a vast effort to restrict or "sit on the internet", the Pentagon has previously made it clear that the internet, free of restriction and holding such potential for free speech, is in direct opposition to their goals.

The Pentagon has stressed that the internet needs to be dealt with as if it were an enemy "weapons system".

Recently, a document entitled Information Operation Roadmap (PDF) was declassified by the Pentagon due to a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

One portion of the document states:

“Information, always important in warfare, is now critical to military success and will only become more so in the foreseeable future….. Information operations should be centralized under the Office of the Secretary of Defence and made a core military competency."

"Objective: IO [information operations] becomes a core competency. The importance of dominating the information spectrum explains the objective of transforming IO into a core military competency on a par with air, ground, maritime and special operations. The charge to the IO Roadmap oversight panel was to develop as concrete a set of action recommendations as possible to make IO a core competency, which in turn required identifying the essential prerequisites to become a core military competency."

Another section of the document focuses on what is referred to as "Computer Network Attack":

"When implemented the recommendations of this report will effectively jumpstart a rapid improvement of CNA [Computer Network Attack] capability." – 7

"Enhanced IO [information operations] capabilities for the warfighter, including: … A robust offensive suite of capabilities to include full-range electronic and computer network attack…" – 7

While other sections urge the Department of Defense to "Fight the Net":

"We Must Fight the Net. DoD [Department of Defense] is building an information-centric force. Networks are increasingly the operational center of gravity, and the Department must be prepared to "fight the net." " – 6

"DoD’s "Defense in Depth" strategy should operate on the premise that the Department will "fight the net" as it would a weapons system." – 13

A previous document that echoes such sentiments is the now infamous Rebuilding America’s Defences by The Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In this 2000 document those that would go on to become the nucleus of the Bush administration stated:

"It is now commonly understood that information and other new technologies… are creating a dynamic that may threaten America’s ability to exercise its dominant military power." – 4

"Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new "international commons" be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the "infosphere" will find it difficult to exert global political leadership." – 51

"Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and "combat" likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, "cyber-space," and perhaps the world of microbes." – 60

The importance of information warfare is clearly laid out in both these documents. Brent Jessop, a regular contributor to Infowars.net and Prisonplanet.com has exhaustively documented the phenomenon of “Full Spectrum Information Warfare” in a four part series of articles.

We have also previously documented the existing moves to kill off the internet as we know it today by the federal government.

Note that the enemy is never specifically named, it is merely whoever uses the net, because the enemy IS the net. The enemy is the freedom the net provides to billions around the globe and the threat to militaristic dominance of information and the ultimate power that affords.

 

Obama Information Czar Outlined Plan For Government To Infiltrate Conspiracy Groups

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, January 14, 2010

Obama Information Czar Outlined Plan For Government To Infiltrate Conspiracy Groups 140110top

Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, outlined a plan for the government to infiltrate conspiracy groups in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks, as well as real meetings, according to a recently uncovered article Sunstein wrote for the Journal of Political Philosophy.

As we have often warned, chat rooms, social networks and particularly article comment sections are routinely “gamed” by trolls, many of whom pose as numerous different people in order to create a fake consensus, who attempt to debunk whatever information is being discussed, no matter how credible and well documented. We have seen this on our own websites for years and although some of those individuals were acting of their own accord, a significant number appeared to be working in shifts, routinely posting the same talking points over and over again.

It is a firmly established fact that the military-industrial complex which also owns the corporate media networks in the United States has numerous programs aimed at infiltrating prominent Internet sites and spreading propaganda to counter the truth about the misdeeds of the government and the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2006 CENTCOM, the United States Central Command, announced that a team of employees would be hired to engage “bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information,” about the so-called war on terror.

In May 2008, it was revealed that the Pentagon was expanding “Information Operations” on the Internet by setting up fake foreign news websites, designed to look like independent media sources but in reality carrying direct military propaganda.

Countries like Israel have also admitted to creating an army of online trolls whose job it is to infiltrate anti-war websites and act as apologists for the Zionist state’s war crimes.

In January last year, the US Air Force announced a “counter-blog” response plan aimed at fielding and reacting to material from bloggers who have “negative opinions about the US government and the Air Force.”

The plan, created by the public affairs arm of the Air Force, includes a detailed twelve-point “counter blogging” flow-chart that dictates how officers should tackle what are described as “trolls,” “ragers,” and “misguided” online writers.

New revelations highlight the fact that the Obama administration is deliberately targeting “conspiracy groups” as part of a Cointelpro style effort to silence what have become the government’s most vociferous and influential critics.

 

In a 2008 article published in the Journal of Political Philosophy, Obama information czar Cass Sunstein outlined a plan for the government to stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.

The aim of the program would be to “(break) up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories,” wrote Sunstein, with particular reference to 9/11 truth organizations.

Sunstein pointed out that simply having people in government refute conspiracy theories wouldn’t work because they are inherently untrustworthy, making it necessary to “Enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts,” he wrote.

“Put into English, what Sunstein is proposing is government infiltration of groups opposing prevailing policy,” writes Marc Estrin.

“It’s easy to destroy groups with “cognitive diversity.” You just take up meeting time with arguments to the point where people don’t come back. You make protest signs which alienate 90% of colleagues. You demand revolutionary violence from pacifist groups.”

This is what Sunstein is advocating when he writes of the need to infiltrate conspiracy groups and sow seeds of distrust amongst members in order to stifle the number of new recruits. This is classic “provocateur” style infiltration that came to the fore during the Cointelpro years, an FBI program from 1956-1971 that was focused around disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents.

“Sunstein argued that “government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories.” He suggested that “government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action,” reports Raw Story.

Sunstein has also called for making websites liable for comments posted in response to articles. His book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, was criticized by some as “a blueprint for online censorship.”

The Infowars office has been visited on numerous occasions by the FBI as a result of people posting violent comments in response to articles. Since the government now employs people to post such comments in an attempt to undermine conspiracy websites, if a law were passed making websites accountable, Sunstein’s program would allow the government to obliterate such sites from the web merely by having their own hired goons post threats against public figures.

The fact that the government is being forced to hire armies of trolls in an effort to silence the truth shows how worried they are about the effect we are having in waking up millions of people to their tyranny.

 

Obama Information Czar Calls For Banning Free Speech

Sunstein: Taxation and censorship of dissenting opinions “will have a place” under thought police program advocated in 2008 white paper

Obama Information Czar Calls For Banning Free Speech 140110top2

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, January 14, 2010

The controversy surrounding White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein’s blueprint for the government to infiltrate political activist groups has deepened, with the revelation that in the same 2008 dossier he also called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved.

Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency within the Executive Office of the President.

On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the man who is now Obama’s head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures “will have a place under imaginable conditions” according to the strategy detailed in the essay.

1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.

2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.

That’s right, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn’t approve of. To where would this be extended? A tax or a shut down order on newspapers that print stories critical of our illustrious leaders?

And what does Sunstein define as “conspiracy theories” that should potentially be taxed or outlawed by the government? Opinions held by the majority of Americans, no less.

The notion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing JFK, a view shared by the vast majority of Americans in every major poll over the last ten years, is an example of a “conspiracy theory” that the federal government should consider censoring, according to Sunstein.

A 1998 CBS poll found that just 10 per cent of Americans believed that Oswald acted alone, so apparently the other 90 per cent of Americans could be committing some form of thought crime by thinking otherwise under Sunstein’s definition.

Sunstein also cites the belief that “global warming is a deliberate fraud” as another marginal conspiracy theory to be countered by government action. In reality, the majority of Americans now believe that the man-made explanation of global warming is not true, and that global warming is natural, according to the latest polls.

But Sunstein saves his most ludicrous example until last. On page 5 he characterizes as “false and dangerous” the idea that exposure to sunlight is healthy, despite the fact that top medical experts agree prolonged exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of developing certain cancers.

To claim that encouraging people to get out in the sun is to peddle a dangerous conspiracy theory is like saying that promoting the breathing of fresh air is also a thought crime. One can only presume that Sunstein is deliberately framing the debate by going to such absurd extremes so as to make any belief whatsoever into a conspiracy theory unless it’s specifically approved by the kind of government thought police system he is pushing for.

Despite highlighting the fact that repressive societies go hand in hand with an increase in “conspiracy theories,” Sunstein’s ’solution’ to stamp out such thought crimes is to ban free speech, fulfilling the precise characteristic of the “repressive society” he warns against elsewhere in the paper.

“We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable,” he writes on page 20. Remember that Sunstein is not just talking about censoring Holocaust denial or anything that’s even debatable in the context of free speech, he’s talking about widely accepted beliefs shared by the majority of Americans but ones viewed as distasteful by the government, which would seek to either marginalize by means of taxation or outright censor such views.

No surprise therefore that Sunstein has called for re-writing the First Amendment as well asadvocating Internet censorship and even proposing that Americans should celebrate tax day and be thankful that the state takes a huge chunk of their income.

The government has made it clear that growing suspicion towards authority is a direct threat to their political agenda and indeed Sunstein admits this on page 3 of his paper.

That is why they are now engaging in full on information warfare in an effort to undermine, disrupt and eventually outlaw organized peaceful resistance to their growing tyranny.

 

Kagan: ‘Disappear’ Free Speech If The Government Deems It Offensive

Obama’s Supreme Court nominee agrees with Cass Sunstein – wants the state to regulate the First Amendment

Kagan: Disappear Free Speech If The Government Deems It Offensive 110510top2

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, May 11, 2010

President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is perfect in every way – perfect that is if you think the role of the highest judicial body in the United States is to ban free speech, indefinitely detain Americans without trial, resurrect command and control socialism, while urinating on everything the Constitution stands for.

We already discovered Kagan’s penchant for treating Americans as guilty until proven innocent, or in fact just plain guilty without even the chance to be proven innocent, when she was quoted as saying, “That someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”

So under that definition, if you send money to a charity later linked with some nebulous terrorist group then you are financing Al-Qaeda and could be thrown in Gitmo or some other CIA black site never to be seen again. And this is the woman being forwarded to sit on a body that is supposed to safeguard civil liberties? That would be like hiring Charles Manson to coach the high school basketball team.

But it gets worse. Now we learn that Kagan thinks certain expressions of free speech should be ‘disappeared’ if the government deems them to be offensive. On the surface that’s any opinion on racial, sexuality or gender issues, but since criticizing Obama is now deemed racist, where will it all end?

In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” (emphasis mine).

“In a 1996 paper, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government,” reports World Net Daily.

Kagan also argued as recently as September that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to engage in free speech, and that the government can censor things like newspaper editorials, as well as the political opinions of radio talk show hosts or television reporters.

Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument at the time, reports Newsmax.

“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.

Kagan’s standpoint on free speech, that it is subject to regulation and definition by the government, has no place in America, completely violates the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, that even unpopular speech should be protected, and would be better suited for countries like Iran, Zimbabwe or North Korea.

Little surprise therefore when we learn that in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton, Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the U.S. as “sad” for those who still hope to “change America.”

If Kagan is approved she is going to find an eager ally in White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” called for the government to tax and outright censor political viewpoints it deemed unsavory.

Senator: Kagan Argued Government Could Ban Books

McConnell highlights yet more evidence of Supreme Court nominee’s alarming disdain for the First Amendment

Senator: Kagan Argued Government Could Ban Books 170510top3

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, May 17, 2010

In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Senator Mitch McConnell pointed out that Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan once argued that the government should have the power to ban books and censor political pamphlets, as yet more alarming information on Kagan’s hostility towards the First Amendment comes to light.

During the Citizens United vs. FEC case, Kagan’s office was asked by Chief Justice John Roberts if the government could ban publications it they were paid for by a corporation or labor union.

“If it’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, ‘and so vote for x,’ the government could ban that?” Roberts asked, to which Kagan’s deputy, Malcolm L. Stewart, said the government could censor such information.

Justice Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument at the time, reports Newsmax.

“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.

“Solicitor Kagan’s office in the initial hearing argued that it would be OK to ban books,” Senator McConnell said. “And then when there was a rehearing Solicitor Kagan herself in her first Supreme Court argument suggested that it might be OK to ban pamphlets.”

McConnell called for a full investigation of Kagan’s First Amendment stance in light of her “troubling” position on free speech, adding that classic political pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and the Federalist Papers could be banned under Kagan’s logic.

Under Kagan’s definition of the government’s role in policing free speech, the state would also have a remit to censor things like newspaper editorials, as well as the political opinions of radio talk show hosts or television reporters. This is alarming given the fact that Obama’s information technology czar Cass Sunstein has called for the re-introduction of the “fairness doctrine,” which would also force political websites to carry mandatory government propaganda.

Obama’s Supreme Court nominee also thinks certain expressions of free speech should be ‘disappeared’ if the government deems them to be offensive. On the surface that’s any opinion on racial, sexuality or gender issues, but since criticizing Obama is now deemed racist, where will it all end?

In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” (emphasis mine).

“In a 1996 paper, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government,” reports World Net Daily.

Kagan’s standpoint on free speech, that it is subject to regulation and definition by the government, has no place in America, completely violates the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, that even unpopular speech should be protected, and would be better suited for countries like Iran, Zimbabwe or North Korea.

Little surprise therefore when we learn that in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton, Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the U.S. as “sad” for those who still hope to “change America.”

If Kagan is approved she is going to find an eager ally in White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” called for the government to tax and outright censor political viewpoints it deemed unsavory.

Kagan’s repulsive take on the rights enshrined in the Constitution is not just limited to free speech.

The Supreme Court nominee outlined her belief that Americans can be guilty until proven innocent, or in fact just plain guilty without even the chance to be proven innocent, when she was quoted as saying, “That someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”

Kagan is also hostile to the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. She has habitually come down on the side of gun control in claiming the state has the right to impose restrictive gun laws and said that she disagrees with the language of the Second Amendment.

Despite accepting the 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent on gun rights, Kagan added that the Constitution “provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” thus leaving the door open for future regulation.

 

White House Asks People to Spy on Health Care Dissidents

Infowars
August 5, 2009

The WhiteHouse.gov Blog has released an appeal under the header of ‘Facts are Stubborn Things’ asking people to flag “scary chain emails” and “videos starting to percolate on the internet” claiming to “uncover” the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.

The posting warns against disinformation seeking to challenge the costly legislation, claiming that: “the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them.” And since when does the President do what he says? If he did, the wars would be over, people would have the promised 5 days to read pending legislation, Obama would not have used signing statements and his administration would have no lobbyists, etc., etc.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Nothing is wrong with setting the record straight, but it is clear that the White House intends to keep tabs on its "flagged" opponents and other health care dissidents. "The Truth" turns out to be the politicial viewpoint being pushed by the White House itself, as the video demonstrates.

The true intention of the ‘warning against disinformation’ is to chill free speech and brand political opposition as false. Besides, it is clear that Obama’s rhetoric differs starkly from what he really does, so there is little reason to stop asking critical questions and challenging any of his administration’s claims.

This episode is reminiscent of the 2008 presidential campaign where an "Obama truth squad" vowed to arrest anyone telling ‘lies’ about Obama, and otherwise intimidating anyone criticizing him.

Again, under the auspices of fighting disinformation, the Obama team is seeking out those challenging his policies and flagging them as in the wrong and even against the law. Nevermind that the Obama truth squad in Missouri were themselves on a highly-politicized campaign, itself not necessarily a true portrayal, to "remind voters" that Obama is a ‘Christian who wants to cut taxes for anyone making less than $250000 per year’ and to ‘respond immediately to any adds violating Missouri ethics laws.’

 

Missouri Gov. Condemns Obama’s “Police State” Tactics

  • The Alex Jones Channel
    Alex Jones Show podcast
    Prison Planet TV
    Infowars.com Twitter
    Alex Jones' Facebook
    Infowars store

Missouri Governor’s Office

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Contact: Jessica Robinson, 573-751-0290

JEFFERSON CITY – Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts – not a free society.”

 

Globe Says Alex Jones Included On Obama’s Enemies List

Infowars
September 29, 2009

As reported earlier today on the Alex Jones Show, the Globe has published what appears to be an enemies list drawn up by Obama at the urging his wife and former president Clinton. In addition to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and oddly Dick Cheney, the list includes Alex Jones. Alex was included for his films, The Obama Deception and the forthcoming Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Obama.

The Globe cites sources close to the Obama administration.

“Obama is getting strategic guidance from Bill Clinton,” the report states. “Bill has met several times with Obama to discuss how he can counterattack his enemies, the source says. The most recent powwow was a 90-minute session at New York’s trendy Il Mulino restaurant on Sept. 14. As police and secret service surrounded the eatery, Bill sat with Obama plotting various ways to get even with his fiercest critics.” Clinton allegedly urged Obama to draw up an enemies list and “then take them down one by one.” According to the article, Obama intends to engage in “all-out mortal combat.”

Alex Jones indicates that if the Obama administration indeed has an official enemies list and his name is included he will consider taking legal action.

globe
globe
globeglobe

On September 27, former president Clinton said the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that attacked him during his presidency has been weakened, but continues to operate against Obama.

“I mean, they’re saying things about him [Obama] — you know, it’s like when they accused me of murder and all that stuff they did,” Clinton told David Gregory of NBC’s Meet the Press.

According to anonymous insiders, Bill and Hillary Clinton kept detailed lists of enemies.Philippe Reines, a spokesman for both Clintons, says neither kept any specific catalog of those believed to have wronged them. “There is no list,” Reines told the New York Times.

Earlier this year, it was reported that Obama operatives had compiled an enemies list of people spreading “disinformation” about Obama’s proposed national health care plan. In response to the effort, U.S. senator John Cornyn of Texas wrote a letter to Obama that “expressed serious concern about the White House’s new program requesting Americans to forward email chains and other communications opposing the President’s health care policies. Sen. Cornyn is seeking assurances that the program is being carried out in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and America’s tradition of free speech and public discourse,” Cornyn’s website noted on August 5.

During the election, Obama’s campaign asked Missouri law enforcement to target Obama’s critics. Two high-profile Missouri officials — Jennifer Joyce, St. Louis Circuit Attorney, and Robert P. McCullouch, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney — went on local television and said they would prosecute “anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad during the presidential campaign.” Gov. Matt Blunt subsequently declared the court officers had “attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.”

The term “enemies list” came into prominence during the Nixon administration. Charles Colson and his assistant George T. Bell had compiled a list of official enemies in 1971. The official purpose, as described by the White House Counsel’s Office, was to “screw” Nixon’s political enemies, by means of tax audits from the IRS, and by manipulating “grant availability, federal contracts, litigation, prosecution, etc.” Nixon’s list contained the names of newspaper editors and journalists, actors, supporters of Democrat Eugene McCarthy and others.

During this period, the FBI and CIA were engaged in attacking political opponents of the government under COINTELPRO, Operation CHAOS, and other illegal and covert programs.

 

The Lights Are Going Out For Free Speech On The Internet

Global move to mimic the Chinese model of web censorship and regulation is coming to America

The Lights Are Going Out For Free Speech On The Internet 060710top2

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Type the keywords “Internet censorship” into Google News and you will immediately understand to what degree the world wide web is under assault from attempts by governments globally to regulate and stifle free speech. From Australia to Belarus, from Turkey to Vietnam, from Pakistan to Egypt, from Afghanistan to Iran, huge chunks of the Internet are going dark as the Chinese model of Internet regulation is adopted worldwide.

But why should Americans concern themselves with countries halfway across the globe adopting Chinese-style net censorship? Because under Senator Joe Lieberman’s 197-page Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, the United States would formally mimic China’s “great firewall” of web censorship.

When Lieberman himself attempted to debunk claims that the bill provides Obama, and any following President for that matter, with a figurative ‘kill switch’ to disable certain parts of the Internet, he explained that the government was merely seeking to emulate powers over the Internet already enjoyed by the Communist Chinese.

Firstly, despite Lieberman’s spin, the text of the bill clearly gives Obama the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight.

Secondly, and even more alarmingly, Lieberman’s acknowledgement that the United States is seeking to emulate China’s policies on Internet control confirm that the entire cybersecurity agenda is primarily concerned with silencing political opposition to the state, since this factor completely dominates the Chinese model which Lieberman openly invokes as the ultimate goal of cybersecurity.

China’s vice-like grip over its Internet systems has very little to do with “cybersecurity” and everything to do with silencing all dissent against the state.

Chinese Internet censorship is imposed via a centralized government blacklist of any websites that contain criticism of the state, porn, or any other content deemed unsuitable by the authorities. Every time you attempt to visit a website, you are re-routed through the government firewall, often making for long delays and crippling speeds.

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. In several regions, the authoritiescompletely cut off the Internet for nearly a year, with many areas only now slowly starting to come back online. Major news and discussion portals used by the Muslim Uighurs in the area remain blocked. Similarly, Internet access in parts of Tibet is routinely restricted as part of government efforts to pre-empt and neutralize unrest.

Major websites like Twitter, Google and You Tube have also been shut down either temporarily or permanently by Chinese authorities.

News websites in China now require users to register their true identities in order to leave comments. This abolition of anonymity is used to chill free speech in that it prevents the user from engaging in criticism of the state for fear that they would be tracked down by authorities.

Chinese authorities are now going further than merely maintaining a “blacklist” of banned websites by instituting a “whitelist” of allowed websites, a move that “could potentially place much of the Internet off-limits to Chinese readers”. Websites not pre-registered with the government would be completely blocked to all Internet users, meaning “millions of completely innocuous sites” would be banned. This equates to requiring government approval to set up a website, which would obviously not be granted if the person or organization making the application has a history of or is likely to engage in dissent against the state.

President Obama himself has criticized Chinese Internet censorship as a hindrance to the free flow of information and allowing citizens to hold their governments accountable, and yet Lieberman wants to hand Obama similar powers.

The model Lieberman has identified as the goal of cybersecurity is centered around keeping people oppressed by eliminating any means of widespread dissent and preventing people from organizing politically. It has nothing to do with providing security against foreign hackers and terrorists and everything to do with strangling free speech critical of the state.

However, this is not merely a war on free speech, it’s a war on Internet anonymity. Even if the government shuts down portions of the web, new networks are guaranteed to pop up to take their place. Indeed, as people who have attempted to downplay concerns about the ‘kill switch’ have rightly pointed out, Obama could already attempt to shut down the Internet using the Communications Act, the PCNAA legislation merely codifies this power formally into law.

The real threat posed by the wider cybersecurity agenda is the implementation of an individual identity system for all Internet users. This is what was proposed by Obama’s cybersecurity co-ordinator Howard Schmidt in a paper compiled with the aid of the National Security Council.

The strategy revolves around, “The creation of a system for identity management that would allow citizens to use additional authentication techniques, such as physical tokens or modules on mobile phones, to verify who they are before buying things online or accessing such sensitive information as health or banking records,” reports the Financial Times.

Only with this government-issued “token” will Internet users be allowed to “able to move from website to website,” a system not too far removed from what China proposed and rejected for being too authoritarian.

So in this sense, the cybersecurity agenda will ensure a world wide web even more draconian than the Chinese model, where the threat of the government identifying individuals, now that anonymity is removed, who engage in “hate speech” critical of the government and revoking their license to use the Internet, will inevitably chill free speech from the very outset.

To trust the federal government with the power to regulate free speech by means of a licensing system for the Internet and not expect the state to abuse such power is the height of stupidity.Cass Sunstein, Obama’s information czar, openly wrote in a 2008 paper of his desire to combat “conspiracy theories” (ie any information communicated primarily through the Internet which represents a threat to the image of the state) by empowering the government to tax or even ban outright opinions of which it disapproves. This is what cybersecurity is all about, eliminating the voices of the oppressed as big government seeks to quicken its takeover of America with the aid of silent obedience.

The cybersecurity assault on the Internet is also dovetailed with an attack from a slightly different angle. Numerous private networks, from transport hubs, to libraries, to universities, to federal government agencies have installed filters that censor political websites which engage in the “hate speech” of dissenting against the state. Since the entire Internet consists of a fusion of privately-owned networks controlled by corporations such as Verizon, AT&T and Qwest, how long before such filters are standardized?

Lieberman’s kill switch bill and the broader cybersecurity agenda has little to do with over hyped threats from foreign hackers and terrorists and everything to do with placing a muzzle on the last outpost of true free speech – the Internet. The state wants to turn the world wide web into a clone of cable television, a sterile medium controlled almost entirely by mega corporations and regulated by FCC bureaucracy and red tape. Your political blog, no matter how many millions of readers it has the potential to attract, has no place in this newly regulated Internet police state.

Take action – call your Senator and demand that they vote against Lieberman’s Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or kiss your right to unrestricted, unregulated, and anonymous free speech on the Internet goodbye. The bill has already been approved by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and is now awaiting a vote by the full Senate.

Find your Senator from the list here or call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Tell your Senator’s office that you will vote them out of office if he/she votes in favor of PCNAA.

 

Top Clinton Official: Only A Terror Attack Can Save Obama

Bilderberger Shapiro says President needs new OKC or 9/11 as a way of "demonstrating that he is a leader" before November elections and reversing plunging approval numbers

Paul Joseph Watson
Propaganda Matrix
Wednesday, July 14, 2010

A former senior advisor to President Bill Clinton says that the only thing which can rescue Barack Obama’s increasingly tenuous grip on power as his approval figures continue to plunge is a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11, another startling reminder that such events only ever serve to benefit those in authority.

Buried in a Financial Times article about Obama’s "growing credibility crisis" and fears on behalf of Democrats that they could lose not only the White House but also the Senate to Republicans, Robert Shapiro makes it clear that Obama is relying on an October surprise in the form of a terror attack to rescue his presidency.

“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

Shapiro’s veiled warning should not be dismissed lightly. He was undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs dung Clinton’s tenure in the Oval Office and also acted as principal economic adviser to Clinton in his 1991-1992 campaign. Shapiro is now Director of the Globalization Initiative of NDN and also Chair of the Climate Task Force. He is a prominent globalist who has attended numerous Bilderberg Group meetings over the past decade.

Shapiro is clearly communicating the necessity for a terror attack to be launched in order to give Obama the opportunity to unite the country around his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists, just as President Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot up from around 50% to well above 80%.

Similarly, Bill Clinton was able to extinguish an anti-incumbent rebellion which was brewing in the mid 1990’s by exploiting the OKC bombing to demonize his political enemies as right-wng extremists.As Jack Cashill points out, Clinton "descended on Oklahoma City with an approval rating in the low 40s and left town with a rating well above 50 and the Republican revolution buried in the rubble."

Anti-incumbent fever is dominating the political climate once again, with establishment Democrats facing serious challenges from Tea Party candidates, people like Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, who has a battle on his hands against Sharron Angle, a candidate the establishment media has attempted to demonize as a far-right extremist because she supports populist measures like removing sodium fluoride from water supplies and supports the Oath Keepers group, an organization centered around upholding states’ rights and the U.S. Constitution.

Only by exploiting a domestic terror attack which can be blamed on right-wing radicals can Obama hope to reverse the tide of anti-incumbency candidates that threaten to drastically dilute the power monopoly of establishment candidates from both major political parties in Washington

As we highlighted yesterday, Shapiro is by no means the first to point out that terror attacks on U.S. soil and indeed anywhere in the world serve only to benefit those in positions of power.

CNN host Rick Sanchez admitted on his show this week that the deadly bombings in Uganda which killed 74 people were "helpful" to the military-industrial complex agenda to expand the war on terror into Africa.

During the latter years of the Bush presidency, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mused with Pentagon top brass that shrinking Capitol Hill support for expanding the war on terror could be corrected with the aid of another terror attack.

Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star in July 2007 that “The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.”

The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would “validate” the President’s war on terror and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

In June 2007, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.

Given the fact that a terror attack on U.S. soil will only serve to rescue Barack Obama’s failing presidency, and will do absolutely nothing to further the aims of any so-called "right wing extremists" the attack is blamed on, who should we suspect as the masterminds behind any such acts of terror? Surely not Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief string puller, the son of an Israeli terrorist who helped bomb hotels and marketplaces, and the man who once said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste….an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."

Undoubtedly, the first people we should suspect as culprits in the event of a domestic terror attack in the United States are the individuals Obama fronts for, globalists who are desperate to neutralize the growing success of grass-roots movements who have ridden a wave of rising resentment against big government as a means of obtaining real political power.

Advertisements