April 17, 2015

Day 107

Cuban Cigar Imports Legalized under deal with U.S.

by Ron Russell

As originally posted on: OBAMA CARTOONS
April 16, 2015


April 15, 2015

Day 105

"Constitutional" doesn't mean "legitimate"

by Kent McManigal

As originally posted on: Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog
April 6, 2015

Admitting that a government, a branch of government, or a "law" is "constitutional" in no way suggests that it has any legitimacy.

It only means the Constitution permits it.

That's a huge difference.


April 14, 2015

Day 104

Obama to Castro: US “Almost Ready” For “Socialist Spring”

by "Matt Rock"

As originally posted on: National Report
April 12, 2015

During a meeting in Panama on Saturday with Cuban Dictator Raul Castro, US President Barack Obama reportedly said that the United States is “bracing itself for socialism,” and that a major socialist revolution, which he referred to as a “Socialist Spring,” would spread through the country in the near future.

Obama’s pro-socialist words came during a cordial discussion regarding ending decades of bitterness between the two countries. Senior White House aides, who say they were privy to the otherwise private discussion, claim that Obama made it a point to draw similarities between the two nations, and had what one aide referred to as “kind words” for socialism as an economic civic.

“We’ve tried capitalism, and every capitalist idea, over the past few centuries,” Obama told Castro, as paraphrased by one of the White House aides. “It works for us. We enjoy capitalism. We enjoy the nice life capitalism brings us. But we’ve also found that capitalism isn’t the answer to every question or problem we’re faced with. Socialism can help us bridge those gaps.”

Obama went on to explain that he views capitalism as “the way,” and socialism as “a tool” to help achieve the means. “We’re almost ready for a new era in capitalism,” Obama said. “I think the world would be a better, safer, more fruitful place if the United States moved a little closer toward socialism, and Cuba moved a little closer toward capitalism. There’s value in both ideas.”

“The American people hate the word `socialism,’ but they’re fond of socialist ideas,” Obama continued. “Polling shows us that the American people want universal healthcare. I think [Obamacare] will get us closer to that. The Socialist Spring will come for the United States, and I think it will come soon.”

Castro was receptive to the idea of a partially-socialist United States, and told President Obama that any move toward socialism undertaken by the US would be seen as “A tremendous achievement for the revolution,” adding that “Your Republicans in America have said you were a socialist for many years, despite no evidence to support that theory. It’s nice to finally see they’ve been proven correct.”

April 13, 2015

Day 103

China Using A Powerful 'Great Cannon' Weapon to Censor The Internet

by Swati Khandelwal

As originally posted on: The Hacker News
April 11, 2015

China has something very impressive that we are not aware of. The country has a powerful and previously unknown weapon that its government is using to bolster their cyber attack capabilities:

Dubbed "The Great Cannon."


When I talk about Internet censorship, it is incomplete if I don't mention China. China is famous for its Great Wall of China and Great Firewall of China. The censoring of Internet access and blocking an individual website in China by its government, known as the Great Firewall of China.

But, why the Chinese government does that? The answer is very simple:

The Chinese government restricts those contents it deems sensitive for its country's so-called democracy. It illegalize certain online speech and activities, block selected websites, and filter keywords out of searches initiated from computers located in Mainland China.

The worse:

Those Chinese citizens who offend authorities against Internet censorship in the country can also face judicial consequences.



The same thing I mentioned above China did few days ago to Github by launching a massive distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack.

Github is a popular source code hosting website used by programmers to collaborate on software development.

The massive DDoS attacks, that intermittently shut down GitHub for more than 5 days, specifically targeted two popular Github projects –

- GreatFire.org – Anti-censorship tool, hosted on GitHub, used to help Chinese citizens circumvent The Great Firewall Of China.
- CN-NYTimes – A group on Github that hosts New York Times mirrors to allow Chinese netizens access to the news website, which is normally blocked in China.

But, how did the Chinese manage to produce DDoS attacks of so much strength and Bandwidth?

Yes, the answer is the "Great Cannon" (GC). Chinese government is now using a new cyber weapon in an effort to silence not only its citizens, but critics around the world, according to the latest report released by Citizen Lab.


What's the Great Cannon?

The Great Cannon is a special cyber attack tool essentially capable of hijacking Internet traffic at the national level and then direct that traffic at targeted networks the attackers want to knock offline, sending back spyware or malware, or using the target to flood another website with traffic.

It is believed that Github's attackers used the Great Cannon as a DDoS attack tool to redirect the Internet traffic of visitors to Chinese search engine giant 'Baidu' or any website that used Baidu’s extensive Advertisement network in order to cripple the popular code-sharing website.

In simple words:

Those visiting a Baidu-affiliated website from anywhere in the world were vulnerable to getting their Internet traffic hijacked by the attackers, which could then be turned into a weapon to flood anti-censorship websites, like GitHub, with too much of junk traffic.

Let’s have a look on how the Great Cannon was deployed in the GitHub and GreatFire.org attacks:


The Great Cannon works by intercepting data which is sent between two nodes and then redirecting the data to a third one. This powerful cyber weapon seems to leverage an analytic script, which is commonly distributed by the Chinese search engine Baidu.


Generally this script is not malicious, but according to Citizen Lab, the Cannon's creators tampered with the script code a little bit in order to redirect the user to Github, instead of sending a data packet, thus flooding the target website with traffic from unsuspecting users.

The weapon is also capable of producing a full-fledged man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack, so it could also be used to intercept unencrypted emails.

It makes me remind of:

QUANTUM – an NSA's similar weapon that was capable to redirect victims to fake websites containing malware served through unencrypted sites using Man in the middle attacks to a spoofed server, which can respond faster than the real one that is placed somewhere on the Internet backbone.

These secret Internet backbone nodes, which the National Security Agency, dubbed Quantum nodes.

What's more:

This new move by Chinese government could signal a trouble in China's online behavior – Shifting from the passive censorship of the Great Firewall of China to the active censorship by readily attacking foreign websites with the Great Cannon.

Cyber attacks originating in China are not at all surprising. But...

..."the operational deployment of the Great Cannon represents a significant escalation in state-level information control: the normalization of widespread use of a [cyber] attack tool to enforce censorship by weaponizing users," the security researchers from the University of Toronto and University of California wrote in a report published Friday.


According to the researchers, the Great Cannon weapon used by Chinese authorities could be neutralized to a great extent if the websites communicate over encrypted HTTPS connections.

Why? The reason:

Those websites whose communications are end-to-end encrypted is difficult to modify for an attacker sitting in between the sender & the receiver, unless and until those websites are not loading files or resources via unencrypted i.e. non-HTTPS connections.

April 12, 2015

Day 102

Random ranting pt. I

by "Depressed Heathen"

As originally posted on: depressedheathen
April 11, 2015

I’m pissed off.

That is the whole reason for the this blog. Just another rant blog by some asshole with an opinion. I’ve been watching shit in social media and mainstream media unfold and I can’t help but think about how fucking ridiculous some people can be. I watch these people do the most reprehensible things and then ignorantly question why people are so outraged by it. I just can’t believe it. There is a sense of logic that is missing from the common man.

I don’t even know where to begin or what to focus on, so I’m just going to pick something, and run with it.

Gay Cakes:

What the fuck does that even mean, anyway? Is the cake made with homo milk?

It’s all anyone can talk about today. A gay couple requests a cake be made by a Christian bakery, and is refused. It is clearly defined as discrimination – refusing service because of a minority groups involvement in that particular minority group. Then, the state of Indiana goes and passes a law that gives “religious freedom” to shops, effectively allowing them to refuse to serve gay couples if they want to? The government is pro-discrimination. Does anyone else see something wrong with this?

Not just that, but the morons who see this and try to justify it? I’ve seen so many YouTube videos doing their own ‘experiments’ with this exact situation. The most reprehensible is by a piece of shit name Josh Feuerstein. I’ll save my feelings about this asshole for another day; ’cause let’s be honest, I’ll be talking about him a lot.

Josh Feuerstein (or Josh Fuckstain, as I’ve heard him be referred to as) calls up a bakery and asks them to print “I do not support gay marriage” or “gay rights” or some shit on the cake. The bakery refused to print this on the cake; with good reason! This is easily considered hate speech and the bakery could have been accosted for printing such vile messages on their cakes.

What would happen if they printed on a cake, “white power”? Shit would hit the fan. And that’s just touching the surface. Since uploading this video onto YouTube, Josh Fuckstain supporters have been barraging this bakery with death threats. What the holy fuck is that about? People are actually threatening death upon a bakery, for refusing to participate in hate speech.

This story actually made local news. When Josh was questioned about it, he said it was a social experiment. From what I’ve seen, he’s made no attempt to apologize for this behavior, or the backlash that came from it. The least he could have done is called up and introduced himself, asked the question – the woman who answered even asked if it was a prank call, to which he replied “no”. I’ve got news for you Josh, if you are calling for anything other than business, it’s a fucking prank call. No, he didn’t inform the bakery of anything and used the response for his own selfish bigoted purposes. She left the call thinking this man was an asshole. Let’s face it, the guy is a total asshole. End of story.

The worst part of this video was his fucked up justification that followed. He said that if the bakery was allowed to refuse to print anti-gay messages on a cake, then by default they should also be allowed to refuse service for gay couples. This is basically saying that because a business does not want to participate in discrimination, that they should be allowed to participate in discrimination. This whole argument is so beyond illogical, it actually makes my head hurt trying to understand it.

Listen and believe:

The social justice, feminazi mantra. “You should just believe a woman when she says she’s been raped!” As if women are the paragon of virtue and never do wrong. As if all of those cases that were proven to be false accusations are just to be over looked. I hate the fact that men get shit on because one person accuses them of rape.

Thankfully, I’ve never been accused of raping a woman. I have however been accused of being physically abusive toward a woman. When in high school, I dated a girl. She had some serious emotional issues, including commitment issues. We broke up after 11 months. I will admit that I too had / have some pretty bad emotional issues. They were a lot worse back when I was dating this girl.

I was a child and teenager that grew up with an undiagnosed mood disorder. Today, as an adult, I am being treated for depression, but I still have yet to be officially diagnosed with something. The treatment I am going through has helped tremendously, but back when I was 17, I was an emotional wreck. So when I wanted someone to lean on, I would go to the most obvious person; the person who I thought cared the most about me; my then, girlfriend.

Whenever I’d become emotionally distraught, she’d become distant. She’d refuse to talk to me, refuse to see me in some cases. In a fit of anxiety, I all but begged her to come over and see her. She refused. The last thing she told me when we broke up was that she ‘got bored’. Those words are pretty telling to me.

Fast forward a year, I had graduated and she was a grade below me. I was dating another girl at the time who also attended that high school. One day, a mutual friend approached my 2nd girlfriend and asked her if she was okay. As it turned out, someone was spreading a rumor that I was physically abusive toward my first girlfriend. Complete and total bullshit. But people bought it. You can really tell who your real friends are at times like this.

The moral of this story; woman are capable of lying. That’s not to say that all cases are false, but that’s not a reason to believe that all cases are fact. The default position to any claim is skepticism. It’s true with the God claim. It’s true with the unicorn claim. It’s true with the pink elephant claim. Why should it be any different with rape cases?

I remember one time getting into an argument with a gent via social media about the Bill Cosby rape claims. At the time, 30 women had come forward and accused him of rape / attempted rape. At this point, the guys career is done. There is no way anyone is going to trust the guy. In interviews, he even tries dodging the questions. I have no doubt in my mind that he has some level of guilt.

But this asshole I was arguing with said that because 30 women came forward, that solidified his guilt. Actually, it was the Canadian rock artist Danko Jones that originally started this. He said “I don’t evidence to back it up. If 30 woman pop up and say he did it, he’s guilty.” That’s such a fallacious argument. Appeal to popularity doesn’t work for God, why would it work in this case?

Let’s not forget the Michael Jackson case, where he was accused of molesting a little boy. Even after it was proven that the boy lied because his father put him up to it, Michael Jackson was forever seen as a child molester. Granted, he was a bit weird, but that doesn’t justify the claim.

This asshole also turned my attention to Susan Brownmiller. Upon researching the woman, it painted a very controversial picture for me. She was apparently a proponent in 2nd wave feminism and actually condemned sexuality and pornography. I read some of her arguments and thought she was bat shit crazy. The asshole had the gusto to say “you’re welcome” as if he was doing me a favor.

Which reminds me, apparently being skeptical is now rape apologetics? I don’t even understand this. I’m just saying that if a complete stranger said she was raped, I’d want to know more details about it. It doesn’t mean I’m dismissing her and taking a side with the guy. It just means that I don’t have enough information to make a judgement call on the claim. THAT is how these claims should be treated. Whether it’s one guy, two guys, or 30 guys. I’ve been told this argument falls apart at 2 or 3 accusations. But are we really willing to believe that 100% of these claims are true?

Bill Cosby is a huge household name. I remember watching his comedy when I was 9. My mom watched him, my grandparents watched him, my great grand parents watched him. You’re hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t know who he is. And with someone at that level of fame also comes with a level of money. It’s not terribly difficult to believe that some people may make claims against someone for pay out. It happened to Michael Jackson – why is it so hard to believe it with this?

I’m not saying Bill Cosby is innocent. By no means do I think that. He was a man in the spotlight. Women very likely threw themselves at him. There’s a reason they call fame all about “drugs, sex and rock and roll”, after all. It’s not hard for me to imagine that after having women fling themselves at someone, that that someone thinks it’s okay to make advances at all women. Some women may be victims to this type of behavior. THAT is a travesty and should be addressed. But with how easy it is to lie, why are we willing to believe everything at face value?

If you haven’t got it yet, my opinion is that Bill Cosby is guilty as shit. Get over yourselves for thinking otherwise.

Mercedes Carrerra:

For those who are unfamiliar, Mercedes Carrerra is an adult film actor. In other words, she fucks people on camera. I imagine she’s pretty good at it – believe it or not, I have no yet seen her videos. Don’t let that make you think I haven’t seen her in action – but still images aren’t the same as videos.

Be that as it may, Mercedes has been a proponent of the #GamerGate movement and is probably one of the most intelligent people I’ve seen on the web today. She may do porn, but she has a background in engineering. I first came across her as a special guest on the Drunken Peasants podcast. I fell in love with her ever since.

I saw a video the other day where she recounted her experience with charities and other ‘activists’. She was going to participate in a live cam show, and donate proceeds to Able Gamers, a charity that raises money for gamers with handicaps. Because of her pro-#GamerGate views, Able Gamers apparently received ‘word’ that Mercedes would be using this to ‘weaponize’ something…? I don’t know, the whole thing seemed like bullshit.

The bottom line here is that because someone agree’s with #GamerGate, people who disagree with it went out of their way to make it impossible for this supporter to make money and donate it to those in need. How fucked up is that?

She also said that she tried to reach out to Anita Sarkeesian to help raise money to support a REAL victim of rape and sexual violence. Obviously Anita, being the valiant feminist that she is, was totally on board for helping this victim out, right?

Wrong. Anita Sarkeesian did not even acknowledge Mercedes request. Why is that? Is it because he’s an actor in the adult film industry? Or is it because she’s pro-#GamerGate? Whatever the case may be, it just goes to show how dangerous being opposed to views or ideals can be. Whether we agree an a particular social issue or not, we – as human fucking beings – should be able to set aside our differences and help each other when in need. That is was secular morality is all about.

But no. Anita fucking Sarkeesian did fuck all to help a REAL victim of sexual violence. Instead, she continues to tote this diluted narrative that women are oppressed because of how they appear in video games – FUCKING VIDEO GAMES – and play the professional victim card by tweeting out pictures of her ‘harrassers’.

I’ve been outspoken about my distaste for this woman. As far as I’m concerned, she can go fuck herself. She obviously has no real interest in doing good in the world. It’s all about keeping up appearances and making money off of the poor saps who are gullible enough to believe her.

Where “listen and believe” goes wrong.

I raise a toast to Meredes Carrerra, for being more of a human being than all those feminists who claim to fight for equality, combined. Keep on keepin’ on.

April 11, 2015

Day 101

'Arrested' ethics

by Kent McManigal

As originally posted on: Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner
January 20, 2010

"Arrest" is the euphemism for a kidnapping committed by government employees while they are "on the clock".

If the enforcers do it on their "own time", it is (sometimes) classified as "crime", yet if they are "just doing their job" while committing the kidnapping, they are thought by many statists to be doing the right thing.

Since "arrest" does nothing to return any victim of aggression or theft to their pre-attack condition, it has nothing to do with "justice", but only punishment. It is also used mainly on people who have harmed no innocent person, but are simply engaging in consensual acts that government prohibits for no legitimate reason and without authority.

The most common "justifications" for these kidnappings are drug "laws", "tax laws", gun "laws", and sex "laws". These people then become political prisoners. Those who write, "sign", enforce, or support those counterfeit "laws" are guilty of harming the innocent.

April 10, 2015

Day 100

Crime- The Definition

by Kent McManigal

As originally posted on: Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog
September 14, 2009

"Crime" is just anything the government doesn't approve of. It could be right or wrong, or even morally and ethically neutral. Many hideously evil acts are not "crimes" if they are committed by government agents, and many truly good things are "crimes" just because the government says so. Sometimes, just to be cantankerous, I will call "legal" government actions "crime" just to remind people of the evil of government at its very core.

April 09, 2015

Day 99

New Video Surfaces Showing New Jersey Cops Siccing Dog on Non-Resisting Man, Who Ended Up Dying

by Carlos Miller

As originally posted on: PINAC
April 8, 2015

A third video has surfaced from New Jersey, showing a Vineland cop straddling a non-resisting man while punching him repeatedly, ordering a police dog to join in the attack, which resulted in the man’s death last week.

“Get him! get him,” the cop orders the dog, who then begins mauling Philip White.

After several seconds, the cop then tries to pull the dog off the White, but the dog continues his attack.

White, who is on his back, has his arms in the air as the dog continues to chomp on him.

“Roll over, put your hands behind your back, do it now!” the cop orders as the dog refuses to let go of him.

When they finally pull the dog off him, the cops continue yelling at him to roll over, even though he appeared to already have been on his stomach when the video starts, only to roll over on his back to defend himself from the dog.

At no point in this video as well as in the previous two videos that emerged last week does it show White trying to take the cop’s gun, but that is the excuse they used to kill him, which is not surprising considering it has worked for so many cops in the past.

The other videos show a cop trying to confiscate phones from witnesses as “evidence,” but it’s still not clear as to how that situation was resolved because police and prosecutors have been very tightlipped about this incident, but the videos did survive.

Police said they had initially responded to a call for a disorderly man. Witnesses say when police arrived, White tried to strike them with a roundhouse kick but missed.

That was when they pounced on him.

April 08, 2015

Day 98


As originally posted: Reporters Without Borders
April 7, 2015

Journalism is getting more and more dangerous in Libya, where violent clashes are reported almost every day despite negotiations between the various factions that began under UN aegis at the start of the year. The chaotic environment poses a constant threat to reporters, who are increasingly forced to flee abroad.

In October 2014, Reporters Without Borders launched a campaign aimed at making the international public aware of what is happening to journalists in Libya. The campaign visual showed the scene of a journalist’s murder together with the words: “Not seeing news from Libya any more? He did try though.”

Reporters Without Borders strongly condemns the continuing acts of violence against journalists, which have increased steadily in number since the campaign’s launch.

The overwhelming violence to which journalists are now exposed in Libya is making it virtually impossible for them to work and is forcing them to flee en masse to neighbouring countries,” said Reporters Without Borders programme director Lucie Morillon. “This situation is all the more alarming because the news media have a vital role to play in conflict zones. The safety of journalists should be an absolute priority for national and international actors in Libya.”

Journalists brutally murdered

Three bloggers and activists – Mohamed Bettou, Mohamed El Messmari and Siraj Ghatess – were found with their throats cut in November in Darna, an eastern city controlled by extremist religious militias that is regarded as one of the most dangerous places in Libya for news providers.

Mohamed Hawess, a reporter and former presenter on the Libyan TV station Likoule El ahrare, was kidnapped in Tripoli in mid-December and was held for three days, until released in a prisoner exchange.

Cameraman Salem Al Husadi fled the country a few weeks ago after being the target of a murder attempt in Darna in October.

Exodus of journalists

Reporters Without Borders has registered many cases of journalists being forced to flee abroad since November. They include Sirine El Amari, who was France 24’s Tripoli correspondent. She left in November after being repeatedly summoned by the authorities in Tripoli to explain her reports, and then receiving several threats.

Cartoonist Nizar Siala fled after receiving death threats because of a cartoon about the destruction of Libya’s cultural heritage in Tripoli.

Former Al-Jazeera correspondent Naim La3chibi fled in February after his Benghazi home was destroyed in an act of vandalism.

Libya is ranked 154th out of 180 countries in the 2015 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index.

April 07, 2015

Day 97

Marxists and Crony Capitalists Driving the Information Highway Bus

by Judi McLeod

As originally posted on: Canada Free Press
April 2, 2015

By the time self-acclaimed whistleblower Edward Snowden blew the cover on the National Security Agency (NSA) forever more known as ‘Spies are Us’, it was already way too late for the privacy of online online private citizens.

Privacy, like commonsense and government altruism, doesn’t live here anymore.

Before NSA, we were already big-time data-based with every nuance and details of our private lives spied upon and standby stored by Google, FaceBook and other unsavory social networks on the take.

Blowback from the Snowden-exposed NSA has über dominated the Big Brother spydom we’ve been talking about ever since.  Public outrage was guaranteed mostly because the NSA is a billion dollar government agency.

Little did we know when Snowden dropped his NSA bombshell that the IRS was spying on American citizens too, especially TEA Party members that the current administration regards as “bigoted”,  “bible-thumping””, “racist” dissidents. 

The NSA can only throw public citizen perceived dissidents into a data base and pass on information to other government agencies, like the EPA and IRS who aim to first control,  then shut down all government dissidents.  Problem is the The IRS does not just data base the enemy, they first harass then gauge them right out of business.

Google, FaceBook, et al get cut a break by Internet users because they’re not government agencies, per se.

Try this on for size: Google is a de facto government agency.  As soon as he was elected,  savvy President Barack Obama held his very first formal business meeting with up and coming super stars of the technology world; Google visited the White House 230 times in 2009.

There’s more: 

While the FCC is taking the flak for the recently spawned ‘net neutrality’ that will close off the Information HIghway for millions who will no longer be able to afford access to it, it was really Google who ushered it in.

Up to now during the past seven tumultuous years, it was the government taking on the hypocritical starring role as the Department of Truth.  Now Google will filter all internet news and determine what is truth.

They’re already reformatting their algorithms to reroute the traffic of conservative blogs and websites.  Google net minder Alexa and see how the traffic for online news websites has been in decline for the last six months.

How’s that for not being a government agency?

We all thought that The Information Highway would open up new horizons on the world of communication and in so doing, set us free.  ‘Citizen journalists’ would abound and stop the corruption of Big Government right in its tracks.  With our iphones, ipads, and other fingertip technology, there was no government move that could be made without our being on to it.

Instead the noose has been tightened around our necks and we’ve all been had.  We’ve been lured onto the world web and caught right up in its sticky tentacles.  We’ve been sold out for a few thousand insipid ‘likes’.

We now live in a world where NSA, Google, Facebook and Twitter don’t catch ISIS, they catch us instead.

They effectively cut off the access of the Little Guy, but leave communication open to the terrorists.

While they were making their billions, Google with its $130 billion in assets was working in close tandem with the government in its slick and ongoing propaganda department.

Google operatives, who appear on television shows telling us that robots will do our jobs over the next two decades and do the dog and pony show on coming technology,  played a role in both Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and in Obama’s so-called Arab Spring.

As an unsuspecting technology-driven constituency we helped make it all happen.

The social networks most reliable fans are the millions of 30-something millennials who don’t give a rat’s rear that a combo of Marxists and crony capitalists are now driving the Information Highway bus along a rutted road.

Big Bro hijacked the bus long before Edward Snowden blew the whistle on NSA.

Problem is “the news”  stopped right there and no one is thinking to ask where Big Bro is taking the bus.

April 06, 2015

Day 96

Intelligence Services Block Activists’ Emails … And Frame Them With Fake Emails

Is Big Brother Blocking Your Mail?

by "George"

As originally posted on: Washington's Blog
March 24, 2015

You send an email to a reporter saying that you’ve got proof of criminal wrongdoing by a government official … or a big bank. You never receive a response.

Or you send an email to an expert on monetary policy asking if the Federal Reserve’s policies help the rich at the expense of the little guy … or an expert on radiation asking if the Fukushima accident might endanger public health. You never receive a response.

This might be for any number of perfectly innocent reasons, including:

- Your email ended up in their spam folder
- They’re busy
- They’re not interested enough to write back
- They think you’re a bore or a crank

But there could be another explanation …

By way of background, China has blocked gmail for its citizens.

Yahoo blocked emails relating to the Occupy protests.

Bahrain uses British software that allows the government to frame political activists by creating messages from that person that they never typed. 35 other countries use the same software.

Tunisia monitored and blocked the emails of activists, so they were never delivered. For example:

There is also technical surveillance whereby downloading or adding attachment to an email must go through a central server. Under the pretext of protecting public order and national security, a 1998 post and telecommunications law enables the authorities to intercept and check the content of email messages and in fact electronic surveillance such as filtering of email messages of government opponents have been reported. Global Voices Advocacy Director and Tunisia Activist Sami Ben Gharbia conducted a test from the Netherlands with two Tunisia-based activists and confirmed by logging to their email accounts from the Netherland that what he sees is not what they receive when they login from Tunisia, and that they cannot access some of the messages they receive.

The Tunisian government used software from Western companies to block emails of political dissidents.

A prominent American political writer said that – if Tunisia is doing it – you can bet that Western countries are, as well.

Indeed, Snowden revealed that the British spy agency GCHQ has developed numerous offensive digital tools, including:

Ability to deny functionality to send/receive email or view material online.


Ability to spoof any email address and send email under that identity.


Mass delivery of email messaging to support an Information Operations campaign.

The potential for stifling dissent is staggering.

April 05, 2015

Day 95

Gay Couple stoned to death in Dearborn

by Ron Russell

As originally posted on: TEA PARTY HUMOR
April 4, 2015


April 04, 2015

Day 94


As originally posted: Reporters Without Borders
April 3, 2015

Reporters Without Borders is alarmed by Hicham Mansouri’s conviction and imprisonment on an adultery charge, suspecting that the real target is the organization he works for, the Moroccan Association of Investigative Journalism (AMJI).

Hicham Mansouri has been sentenced to ten months in prison and a fine of 40,000 dirhams (3,800 euros) for alleged “complicity in adultery” under articles 490 and 491 of the criminal code. According to the information obtained by Reporters Without Borders, his trial on 30 March was marked by irregularities.

The AMJI’s project manager, Mansouri was with a woman when a dozen or so plainclothes policemen stormed into his Rabat home on 17 March without showing a warrant, and then undressed him and beat him before taking him to a police station. Several human rights groups condemned the violent nature of his arrest.

Prevented from speaking to his lawyers during the first 24 hours after his arrest, he was brought before prosecutors on 18 March and charged with “adultery and preparing premises for the purposes of prostitution.”

At his trial, the judge refused to hear defence witnesses while the evidence presented by the prosecution did not suffice to prove the charge, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) said.

We firmly condemn Hicham Mansouri’s arbitrary arrest and conviction and we call for his immediate and unconditional release,” Reporters Without Borders programme director Lucie Morillon said.

Calling it a “political trial,” AMJI president Maâti Monjib accused the authorities of picking on Mansouri in order to undermine an organization that defends human rights. It was clear that the AMJI was the target, he said.

Journalists, news media and NGOs that investigate sensitive issues are closely monitored by the Moroccan authorities and the AMJI – launched during the “Arab spring” in 2011 to promote free speech, investigative journalism and the right to information – is no exception. According to our sources, its activities have been systematically blocked since last September.

Without giving any reason, the authorities prevented an international conference on investigative journalism from being held in a Rabat hotel on 22 January on the initiative of Germany’s Friedrich Naumann Foundation.

Morocco is ranked 130th out of 180 countries in the 2015 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index.

April 03, 2015

Day 93


As originally posted: Reporters Without Borders
April 1, 2015

Reporters Without Borders deplores the closure of Mishapi Voice TV, a popular privately-owned radio station in Goma, in the eastern province of Nord-Kivu, on the alleged grounds that its broadcasts were disrupting air traffic control communications at Goma’s airport.

The station’s transmitter was dismantled and removed on 23 March by representatives of the Congo Post and Telecommunications Regulatory Agency (ARPTC), who said it was jamming the frequency used by the Air Transport Authority (RVA) for air traffic control in Goma.

“We condemn Mishapi Voice TV’s arbitrary closure and point out that it was not up to the ARPTC to take such a decision, which should have been referred to the public prosecutor’s office,” said Cléa Kahn-Sriber, the head of the Reporters Without Borders Africa desk.

“In the event that the station’s broadcasts were interfering with the RVA’s radio communications, why didn’t the ARPTC just assign it a different frequency instead of closing it down or demanding that it buy a new frequency? Everything suggests that this was a reprisal of a political and business nature.

“Unfortunately, the victims are the population of Goma and the surrounding area, who are being deprived of news and information, and the station’s journalists, who have been put out of work. We call on the ARPTC to stop this undue meddling and to allow Mishapi Voice TV to resume operating.”

It so happens that Mishapi Voice TV’s owner, local businessman Adelard Mineene, is currently embroiled in a legal battle over the failure of a microfinance company he ran, in which senior provincial officials were involved.

Mishapi Voice TV’s closure may have been designed to put pressure on Mineene in this legal dispute – a suspicion supported by the fact that the ARPTC suggested that the radio should buy a new frequency for 25,000 dollars, a sum that it already spent to get its existing frequency in 2012.

Democratic Republic of Congo is ranked 150th out of 180 countries in the 2015 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index.

April 02, 2015

Day 92

A Praxeological Proof of Political Opportunism?

by Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski

As originally posted on: Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski
July 2, 2012

According to the Ricardian Law of Association, specialization and division of labor increase productivity. From this it follows that any given field of professional activity will be dominated by specialists.

Franz Oppenheimer's distinction between the economic means and the political means, combined with the insights provided by the Ricardian Law of Association and the Austrian theory of entrepreneurship, suggests that whereas the economic means will be utilized most successfully by those capable of combining heterogeneous capital goods so as to produce the final goods that will harmonize with the uncertain future wants of the consuming public, the political means will be utilized most successfully by those capable of creating and wielding institutionalized violence, aggression, and coercion.

Now, let us assume for the sake of the argument that there is nothing inherently contradictory in the notion that one's liberty can be violated to one's own prudential or moral advantage, and, thus, that there is nothing inherently contradictory in the concept of a benevolent despot.

However, in view of all of the observations made in the previous paragraphs, the concept in question, even if logically coherent, at the same time seems logically constrained to denote an empty set. After all, just as someone who can operate profitably both on the gold market and on the silver market should be thought of as a better precious metals specialist than someone who can operate profitably only on the gold market, someone who can wield coercion both for the supposed good of his subjects and for his own private advantage is more specialized in using the political means than someone who can use them only for the former purpose.

In addition, even in our scenario of relaxed moral assumptions, achieving good results does not require initiatory violence - persuasion and charity are equally effective in this context, if not more so. In order to achieve opportunistic gains, however, a politician needs to resort to some form of initiatory violence, be it naked coercion or fraud. In other words, the political means are particularly well suited to advancing opportunistic, not benevolent behaviour.

In sum, in view of the praxeological nature of the political means and the praxeologically necessary consequences of the Ricardian Law of Association, for every would-be politician who sincerely believes that he is well suited for the role of a benevolent despot, there will be a far more effective politician concerned exclusively with his private gain, and the latter will always outcompete the former in the realm of power-seeking. Thus we get a purely logical proof of the conclusions of the Public Choice literature.

March 31, 2015

Day 90

How money creation threatens hyperinflation

by Patrick Barron

As originally posted on: Patrick Barron, an Austrian Economist
March 29, 2015

In order to understand the relationship between money creation and the price level, we first need to get some definitions straight.

To Austrians the terms inflation and deflation refer to money and not prices. There is no doubt that money has experienced unprecedented inflation. In February of 2010 base money was $2.1 trillion. Four years later it was $3.8 trillion. In the same time frame, M1 has increased from $1.7 trillion to $2.9 trillion. M2 has gone from $8.5 trillion to $11.7 trillion. Excess reserves have doubled from $1.2 trillion to $2.4 trillion. (Please keep in mind that prior to 2008 excess reserves seldom were more than a few BILLION dollars, which is effectively zero and represented mostly the aggregate of excess reserve cash in thousands of community bank vaults.)

To Austrians changes to the price level, what the public incorrectly calls inflation and deflation, are the result of changes to the aggregate demand for consumers' goods and the aggregate supply of consumers' goods. Think of a simple ratio with the numerator representing demand and the denominator representing supply. Notice that an increase in supply will cause the price level to fall. Aren't we all happy with this? I am. Or a decrease in demand will cause the price level to fall. There can be many causes of a decrease in demand--a fall in the money supply due to bank failures, a change in subjective time preference to save more, or a rational desire to hold more cash during times of uncertainty. None of these are bad for the economy per se. Whatever the cause, the antidote to a fall in demand is falling prices. The relationship between supply and demand must be re-established.

The point I am trying to make is that it is fruitless to attempt to prop up prices with more money creation, as the unprecedented increase in all categories of money in recent years has shown. In fact, excess reserves represent the potential for a massive increase in the money supply. The ratio of mandatory reserves to M1 is around 3%. The ratio of mandatory reserves to M2 is around 1%. Just do the math to find out the mathematical potential increase in the money supply should the banks eventually be able to convert excess reserves into mandatory reserves via the lending process. Keep in mind that this is exactly what the government WANTS banks to do; i.e., make more loans to supposedly stimulate the economy. An increase in the demand for goods of this magnitude, the numerator of our simple equation, would cause the price level to skyrocket perhaps to hyperinflation levels.

Therefore,digging even deeper into our problem, one finds that legal tolerance for fractional reserve banking is at the heart of the problem. Fractional reserves allow banks to create money out of thin via the lending process. Instead of funding an increase in loans by an increase in real savings, loans are "funded" by...well...nothing. This triggers the Austrian business cycle. Production, the denominator in our simple equation, falls. When supply falls, prices rise. Creating even more money will not help the situation, only exacerbate it.

Hyperinflation is a cancer that lurks in our monetary structure. Time to surgically remove it before it metastasizes.

March 30, 2015

Day 89

Limited Government Is Not Possible in the Interventionist State

by Patrick Barron

As originally posted on: Patrick Barron, an Austrian Economist
February 13, 2015

Would we have political liberty we must first have economic freedom, for the form of government is determined by the form of economic organization. At first blush the opposite would seem to be self-evident; i.e., that our form of government determines all else, including our economic structure. But Mises advises otherwise. In his magnum opus Human Action, (page 283 of the Mises Institute's scholars' edition), Mises explains thus (my emphasis):

Freedom, as people enjoyed it in the democratic countries of Western civilization in the years of the old liberalism's triumph, was not a product of constitutions, bills of rights, laws, and statutes. Those documents aimed only at safeguarding liberty and freedom, firmly established by the operation of the market economy, against encroachments on the part of officeholders.

Likewise, in The Law by Frederic Bastiat, (page 53 of the 2012 Laissez Faire Books paperback edition), Frederic Bastiat has this to say (my emphasis again):

A science of economics must first be developed before a science of politics can be logically formulated. Essentially, economics is the science of determining whether the interests of human beings are harmonious or antagonistic. This must be known before a science of politics can be formulated to determine the proper functions of government.

The insights of these two titans of liberty are vastly important to those of us who value our liberty and wish to maintain what we have and expand it in the future. It counsels us that attempts to pass laws or even constitutional amendments to ensure our political liberty will be wasted as long as our economic freedom continues to be usurped by government. In other words, limited government will fade in the face of the modern regulatory state, and no laws can protect us from its deprivations. Economics not only trumps politics, it determines its very form.

The root cause of economic interventions is the fallacy that government can improve our lives by making decisions for us. But this is impossible. As I explained in an earlier essay, by their very nature economic interventions by government are not something that we desire voluntarily. Cooperation under the division of labor is non-coercive and requires from government only access to an honest criminal justice system to enforce contracts and protect property rights. However, government mandates require government coercion for their enforcement.

 An example is the mandate that everyone contribute to the government's Social Security and Medicare programs. Although the public requires no government mandate to buy any of the wide ranging retirement savings and health insurance products available on the free market, government must force us to participate in its Social Security and Medicare schemes. Absent the mandates no one would participate. The systems are fatally flawed transfer taxes, Ponzi schemes of sorts, posing as retirement savings and healthcare plans. There are no real profit producing assets from which to pay the plans' distributions, merely the promise by government that it will continue to force others to pay you in the future as it forces you to pay others in the present.  The programs can be maintained only by the police power of the state. What may appear to be widespread acceptance of the Social Security and Medicare mandates is the vociferous support of those receiving benefits and the completely rational desire of those paying to stay out of jail. Social Security and Medicare have replaced our freedom to dispose of our own money as we choose with the compliance apparatus of a police state. This is not limited government, and no constitutional amendment can alter this fact.

The more government meddles in the economic sphere--which should require no regulation at all, since it is completely voluntary--the more police power is necessary to force us to comply. All government agencies possess huge enforcement mechanisms that not only can confiscate our property but take away our freedom. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is little more than a government supported extortion racket, finding nebulous health and safety violations in the workplace that apparently do not concern the actual workers themselves, who haven't been chained to their machines for quite some time now. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shuts down businesses and threatens entire industries for violations of arbitrarily established environmental standards that are of little concern to the people affected. Smokestack emissions and the like are purely local environmental issues for which one would expect a wide variety of standards across the nation. Undoubtedly the people employed by the giant steel mills of Gary, Indiana tolerate smokestack emissions that Beverly Hills residents would find unacceptable. These arbitrary EPA standards are depriving Americans of the opportunity to work at higher paying jobs. Their freedom to tolerate more pollution in order to enjoy a higher standard of living has been usurped by government.

Speaking of jobs, just try practicing some profession that requires a government issued license, even if the parties using your service do not care whether you have one or not. Better yet, employ someone who is willing to work at a wage rate below the proscribed minimum or who is willing to work without healthcare or family leave benefits. The police power of the state will descend upon you, even though there is no dispute between you and your employee. Want to reclaim discarded furniture, refurbish it, and sell it out of your house? Better not try to do that without a business license and a store front in an area that is properly zoned. Do you want to hire "an able bodied man" to do some heavy lifting at your place of business? Oh, oh! The discrimination police will put you in your place, which may be a jail cell if you cannot pay their fine.

 No truly limited government can perform these police functions, so expecting one falls into the category of a cognitive dissonance. In laymen's terms, we are just kidding ourselves that we are a truly free people with a government that is subservient to our wishes and exists primarily to protect our life, liberty, and property. Keep this in mind the next time you hear that some new economic regulations have been proposed or implemented. Concomitant with these regulations comes an ever more powerful and coercive government.

The lesson is clear: Where the state expands liberty retreats.

March 29, 2015

Day 88

Ex-ISIS militant tells story of homosexual gang rape orgies

by "Kilgore Trout" [a/k/a "Kilgoar"]

As originally posted on: The Internet Chronicle
March 26, 2015

INTERNET — A former ISIS militant told reporters, after escaping into Turkey, that ISIS is, in his words, “A homosexual circlejerk, faggotry of the most despicable type imaginable.”

Speaking under condition of anonymity, the militant said, “You always hear about the sweet little white girls getting married off to big bad men in ISIS, but they don’t care for women except to pump out babies. What turns the fucks on are the nightly all-male orgies, and in their twisted reading of Islam, this disgusting stuff is smiled upon by Allah.”

The militant shrugged when explaining his logic for risking his life to flee ISIS, saying, “I was all for a holy war but not the gay stuff, so I quit. Didn’t worry about my life.”

Grinding his teeth in anger, the militant seethed, “First they light this huge brick of hash in this tiny little tent packed with big bearded men, and it just gets so smokey and everyone’s all screwed up. They rub up on each other, fondle and grab at each other, until they all get worked up and their cocks are real heard, and that’s when the circle jerking begins. They’re not much into ass fucking except when they capture a bunch of young boys, and

that shit is so gruesome. These kids, sometimes infants, are just fucked to death, and there’s shit and blood all over their cocks. It’s an Ian Watkins nightmare.”

When asked if any of the rape victims survived, the militant nodded, “Oh, yeah, of course, in fact the survivors — if they’re young enough — they’re initiated and revered for their toughness, and they fight on the front lines of the battles. Those who survive but won’t fight are thrown off of roofs, so that ISIS can maintain its anti-gay image, but that’s all it is, an image. They know it sells well to the little white girls they need for breeding stock.”