google translate

miercuri, 15 aprilie 2015

Lupul paznic la oi

Constitutional Rights






Nothing you write, say, text, tweet or share via phone or computer is private anymore.
This is the new normal in America today.
A process which started shortly after 9/11 has grown into a full-fledged campaign of warrantless surveillance, electronic tracking and data mining, carried out by federal agents who have been given carte blanche access to the vast majority of electronic communications in America. Their methods completely undermine constitution safeguards, and yet no federal agency, president, court or legislature has stepped up to halt this assault on our rights.
In fact, Congress, the courts, and the president (starting with George W. Bush and expanding exponentially under Barack Obama) have actively helped to erect this electronic concentration camp in which we are now imprisoned.
A good case in point is the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), formerly known as CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). Sold to the public as necessary for protecting us against cyber attacks or internet threats such as hacking, this Orwellian exercise in tyranny-masquerading-as-security actually makes it easier for the government to spy on Americans, while officially turning Big Business into a government snitch.
Be warned: this cybersecurity bill is little more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing or, as longtime critic Senator Ron Wyden labeled it, “a surveillance bill by another name.”
Lacking any significant privacy protections, CISA, which sacrifices privacy without improving security, will do for surveillance what the Patriot Act did for the government’s police powers: it will expand, authorize and normalize the government’s intrusions into the most intimate aspects of our lives to such an extent that there will be no turning back. In other words, it will ensure that the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unfounded, warrantless government surveillance, does not apply to the Internet or digital/electronic communications of any kind.
In a nutshell, CISA would make it legal for the government to spy on the citizenry without their knowledge and without a warrant under the guise of fighting cyberterrorism. It would also protect private companies from being sued for sharing your information with the government, namely the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in order to prevent “terrorism” or an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.”
Law enforcement agencies would also be given broad authority to sift through one’s data for any possible crimes. What this means is that you don’t even have to be suspected of a crime to be under surveillance. The bar is set so low as to allow government officials to embark on a fishing expedition into your personal affairs—emails, phone calls, text messages, purchases, banking transactions, etc.—based only on their need to find and fight “crime.”
Take this anything-goes attitude towards government surveillance, combine it with Big Business’ complicity over the government’s blatantly illegal acts, the ongoing trend towards overcriminalization, in which minor acts are treated as major crimes, and the rise of private prisons, which have created a profit motive for jailing Americans, and you have all the makings of a fascist police state.
So who can we count on to protect us from the threat of government surveillance?
It won’t be the courts. Not in an age of secret courts, secret court rulings, and an overall deference by the courts to anything the government claims is necessary to its fight against terrorism.
It won’t be Congress, either (CISA is their handiwork, remember), which has failed to do anything to protect the citizenry from an overbearing police state, all the while enabling the government to continue its power grabs. It was Congress that started us down this whole Big Brother road with its passage and subsequent renewals of the USA Patriot Act, which drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights.
And it certainly won’t be the president. Indeed, President Obama recently issued an executive order calling on private companies (phone companies, banks, Internet providers, you name it) to share their customer data (your personal data) with each other and, most importantly, the government. Here’s the problem, however: while Obama calls for vague protections for privacy and civil liberties without providing any specific recommendations, he appoints the DHS to oversee the information sharing and develop guidelines with the attorney general for how the government will collect and share the data.
Talk about putting the wolf in charge of the hen house.
Mind you, this is the same agency that is responsible for militarizing the police, weaponizing SWAT teams, spying on activists, stockpiling ammunition, distributing license plate readers to state police, carrying out military drills in American cities, establishing widespread surveillance networks through the use of fusion centers, funding city-wide surveillance systems, accelerating the domestic use of drones, and generally establishing itself as the nation’s standing army, i.e., a national police force.
This brings me back to the knotty problem of how to protect Americans from cyber attacks without further eroding our privacy rights. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, there are three camps of where to draw the line.
In the first camp are those who trust the government to do the right thing. To this group, CISA is simply a desperately needed blueprint for safeguarding us against a possible cyberattack. The problem is that CISA is a “privacy nightmare” that “stomps all over civil liberties” without making “the country any safer against cyberattacks.”
In the second camp are those who not only don’t trust the government but think the government is out to get them. Sadly, they’ve got good reason to distrust the government, especially when it comes to abusing its powers and violating our rights. To those in this second group, surveillance is here to stay, which means the government will continue to monitor, regulate and control all means of communications.
Then there’s the third camp, which neither sees government as an angel or a devil, but merely as an entity that needs to be controlled and bound “down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” To these few, the only way to ensure balance in government is by holding government officials accountable to abiding by the rule of law.
Unfortunately, with all branches of the government stridently working to maintain its acquired powers, and the private sector marching in lockstep, there seems to be little to protect the American people from the fast-growing electronic surveillance state. In the meantime, surveillance has become the new normal, and the effects of this endless surveillance are resulting in a more anxious and submissive citizenry.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the follow-up to his award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State (SelectBooks), paints a terrifying portrait of a nation at war with itself and which is on the verge of undermining the basic freedoms guaranteed to the citizenry in the Constitution. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.




  • Tuesday, April 14, 2015
  • John W. Whitehead
Nothing you write, say, text, tweet or share via phone or computer is private anymore.

This is the new normal in America today.

A process which started shortly after 9/11 has grown into a full-fledged campaign of warrantless surveillance, electronic tracking and data mining, carried out by federal agents who have been given carte blanche access to the vast majority of electronic communications in America. Their methods completely undermine constitution safeguards, and yet no federal agency, president, court or legislature has stepped up to halt this assault on our rights.

In fact, Congress, the courts, and the president (starting with George W. Bush and expanding exponentially under Barack Obama) have actively helped to erect this electronic concentration camp in which we are now imprisoned.

A good case in point is the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), formerly known as CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). Sold to the public as necessary for protecting us against cyber attacks or internet threats such as hacking, this Orwellian exercise in tyranny-masquerading-as-security actually makes it easier for the government to spy on Americans, while officially turning Big Business into a government snitch.

Be warned: this cybersecurity bill is little more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing or, as longtime critic Senator Ron Wyden labeled it, “a surveillance bill by another name.”

Lacking any significant privacy protections, CISA, which sacrifices privacy without improving security, will do for surveillance what the Patriot Act did for the government’s police powers: it will expand, authorize and normalize the government’s intrusions into the most intimate aspects of our lives to such an extent that there will be no turning back. In other words, it will ensure that the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unfounded, warrantless government surveillance, does not apply to the Internet or digital/electronic communications of any kind.

In a nutshell, CISA would make it legal for the government to spy on the citizenry without their knowledge and without a warrant under the guise of fighting cyberterrorism. It would also protect private companies from being sued for sharing your information with the government, namely the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in order to prevent “terrorism” or an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.”

Law enforcement agencies would also be given broad authority to sift through one’s data for any possible crimes. What this means is that you don’t even have to be suspected of a crime to be under surveillance. The bar is set so low as to allow government officials to embark on a fishing expedition into your personal affairs—emails, phone calls, text messages, purchases, banking transactions, etc.—based only on their need to find and fight “crime.”

Take this anything-goes attitude towards government surveillance, combine it with Big Business’ complicity over the government’s blatantly illegal acts, the ongoing trend towards overcriminalization, in which minor acts are treated as major crimes, and the rise of private prisons, which have created a profit motive for jailing Americans, and you have all the makings of a fascist police state.

So who can we count on to protect us from the threat of government surveillance?

It won’t be the courts. Not in an age of secret courts, secret court rulings, and an overall deference by the courts to anything the government claims is necessary to its fight against terrorism.

It won’t be Congress, either (CISA is their handiwork, remember), which has failed to do anything to protect the citizenry from an overbearing police state, all the while enabling the government to continue its power grabs. It was Congress that started us down this whole Big Brother road with its passage and subsequent renewals of the USA Patriot Act, which drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights.

And it certainly won’t be the president. Indeed, President Obama recently issued an executive order calling on private companies (phone companies, banks, Internet providers, you name it) to share their customer data (your personal data) with each other and, most importantly, the government. Here’s the problem, however: while Obama calls for vague protections for privacy and civil liberties without providing any specific recommendations, he appoints the DHS to oversee the information sharing and develop guidelines with the attorney general for how the government will collect and share the data.

Talk about putting the wolf in charge of the hen house.

Mind you, this is the same agency that is responsible for militarizing the police, weaponizing SWAT teams, spying on activists, stockpiling ammunition, distributing license plate readers to state police, carrying out military drills in American cities, establishing widespread surveillance networks through the use of fusion centers, funding city-wide surveillance systems, accelerating the domestic use of drones, and generally establishing itself as the nation’s standing army, i.e., a national police force.

This brings me back to the knotty problem of how to protect Americans from cyber attacks without further eroding our privacy rights. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, there are three camps of where to draw the line.

In the first camp are those who trust the government to do the right thing. To this group, CISA is simply a desperately needed blueprint for safeguarding us against a possible cyberattack. The problem is that CISA is a “privacy nightmare” that “stomps all over civil liberties” without making “the country any safer against cyberattacks.”

In the second camp are those who not only don’t trust the government but think the government is out to get them. Sadly, they’ve got good reason to distrust the government, especially when it comes to abusing its powers and violating our rights. To those in this second group, surveillance is here to stay, which means the government will continue to monitor, regulate and control all means of communications.

Then there’s the third camp, which neither sees government as an angel or a devil, but merely as an entity that needs to be controlled and bound “down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” To these few, the only way to ensure balance in government is by holding government officials accountable to abiding by the rule of law.

Unfortunately, with all branches of the government stridently working to maintain its acquired powers, and the private sector marching in lockstep, there seems to be little to protect the American people from the fast-growing electronic surveillance state. In the meantime, surveillance has become the new normal, and the effects of this endless surveillance are resulting in a more anxious and submissive citizenry.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the follow-up to his award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State (SelectBooks), paints a terrifying portrait of a nation at war with itself and which is on the verge of undermining the basic freedoms guaranteed to the citizenry in the Constitution. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
- See more at: http://constitutionalrightspac.com/articles/the-wolf-is-guarding-the-hen-house-the-government-s-war-on-cyberterrorism/?trr#sthash.3GyE7Sn4.dpuf

The Wolf Is Guarding the Hen House: The Government’s War on Cyberterrorism

The Wolf Is Guarding the Hen House: The Government’s War on Cyberterrorism
  • Tuesday, April 14, 2015
  • John W. Whitehead
Nothing you write, say, text, tweet or share via phone or computer is private anymore.

This is the new normal in America today.

A process which started shortly after 9/11 has grown into a full-fledged campaign of warrantless surveillance, electronic tracking and data mining, carried out by federal agents who have been given carte blanche access to the vast majority of electronic communications in America. Their methods completely undermine constitution safeguards, and yet no federal agency, president, court or legislature has stepped up to halt this assault on our rights.

In fact, Congress, the courts, and the president (starting with George W. Bush and expanding exponentially under Barack Obama) have actively helped to erect this electronic concentration camp in which we are now imprisoned.

A good case in point is the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), formerly known as CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). Sold to the public as necessary for protecting us against cyber attacks or internet threats such as hacking, this Orwellian exercise in tyranny-masquerading-as-security actually makes it easier for the government to spy on Americans, while officially turning Big Business into a government snitch.

Be warned: this cybersecurity bill is little more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing or, as longtime critic Senator Ron Wyden labeled it, “a surveillance bill by another name.”

Lacking any significant privacy protections, CISA, which sacrifices privacy without improving security, will do for surveillance what the Patriot Act did for the government’s police powers: it will expand, authorize and normalize the government’s intrusions into the most intimate aspects of our lives to such an extent that there will be no turning back. In other words, it will ensure that the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unfounded, warrantless government surveillance, does not apply to the Internet or digital/electronic communications of any kind.

In a nutshell, CISA would make it legal for the government to spy on the citizenry without their knowledge and without a warrant under the guise of fighting cyberterrorism. It would also protect private companies from being sued for sharing your information with the government, namely the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in order to prevent “terrorism” or an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.”

Law enforcement agencies would also be given broad authority to sift through one’s data for any possible crimes. What this means is that you don’t even have to be suspected of a crime to be under surveillance. The bar is set so low as to allow government officials to embark on a fishing expedition into your personal affairs—emails, phone calls, text messages, purchases, banking transactions, etc.—based only on their need to find and fight “crime.”

Take this anything-goes attitude towards government surveillance, combine it with Big Business’ complicity over the government’s blatantly illegal acts, the ongoing trend towards overcriminalization, in which minor acts are treated as major crimes, and the rise of private prisons, which have created a profit motive for jailing Americans, and you have all the makings of a fascist police state.

So who can we count on to protect us from the threat of government surveillance?

It won’t be the courts. Not in an age of secret courts, secret court rulings, and an overall deference by the courts to anything the government claims is necessary to its fight against terrorism.

It won’t be Congress, either (CISA is their handiwork, remember), which has failed to do anything to protect the citizenry from an overbearing police state, all the while enabling the government to continue its power grabs. It was Congress that started us down this whole Big Brother road with its passage and subsequent renewals of the USA Patriot Act, which drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights.

And it certainly won’t be the president. Indeed, President Obama recently issued an executive order calling on private companies (phone companies, banks, Internet providers, you name it) to share their customer data (your personal data) with each other and, most importantly, the government. Here’s the problem, however: while Obama calls for vague protections for privacy and civil liberties without providing any specific recommendations, he appoints the DHS to oversee the information sharing and develop guidelines with the attorney general for how the government will collect and share the data.

Talk about putting the wolf in charge of the hen house.

Mind you, this is the same agency that is responsible for militarizing the police, weaponizing SWAT teams, spying on activists, stockpiling ammunition, distributing license plate readers to state police, carrying out military drills in American cities, establishing widespread surveillance networks through the use of fusion centers, funding city-wide surveillance systems, accelerating the domestic use of drones, and generally establishing itself as the nation’s standing army, i.e., a national police force.

This brings me back to the knotty problem of how to protect Americans from cyber attacks without further eroding our privacy rights. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, there are three camps of where to draw the line.

In the first camp are those who trust the government to do the right thing. To this group, CISA is simply a desperately needed blueprint for safeguarding us against a possible cyberattack. The problem is that CISA is a “privacy nightmare” that “stomps all over civil liberties” without making “the country any safer against cyberattacks.”

In the second camp are those who not only don’t trust the government but think the government is out to get them. Sadly, they’ve got good reason to distrust the government, especially when it comes to abusing its powers and violating our rights. To those in this second group, surveillance is here to stay, which means the government will continue to monitor, regulate and control all means of communications.

Then there’s the third camp, which neither sees government as an angel or a devil, but merely as an entity that needs to be controlled and bound “down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” To these few, the only way to ensure balance in government is by holding government officials accountable to abiding by the rule of law.

Unfortunately, with all branches of the government stridently working to maintain its acquired powers, and the private sector marching in lockstep, there seems to be little to protect the American people from the fast-growing electronic surveillance state. In the meantime, surveillance has become the new normal, and the effects of this endless surveillance are resulting in a more anxious and submissive citizenry.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the follow-up to his award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State (SelectBooks), paints a terrifying portrait of a nation at war with itself and which is on the verge of undermining the basic freedoms guaranteed to the citizenry in the Constitution. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
- See more at: http://constitutionalrightspac.com/articles/the-wolf-is-guarding-the-hen-house-the-government-s-war-on-cyberterrorism/?trr#sthash.Sm3rGJdI.dpuf

The Wolf Is Guarding the Hen House: The Government’s War on Cyberterrorism

The Wolf Is Guarding the Hen House: The Government’s War on Cyberterrorism
  • Tuesday, April 14, 2015
  • John W. Whitehead
Nothing you write, say, text, tweet or share via phone or computer is private anymore.

This is the new normal in America today.

A process which started shortly after 9/11 has grown into a full-fledged campaign of warrantless surveillance, electronic tracking and data mining, carried out by federal agents who have been given carte blanche access to the vast majority of electronic communications in America. Their methods completely undermine constitution safeguards, and yet no federal agency, president, court or legislature has stepped up to halt this assault on our rights.

In fact, Congress, the courts, and the president (starting with George W. Bush and expanding exponentially under Barack Obama) have actively helped to erect this electronic concentration camp in which we are now imprisoned.

A good case in point is the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), formerly known as CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). Sold to the public as necessary for protecting us against cyber attacks or internet threats such as hacking, this Orwellian exercise in tyranny-masquerading-as-security actually makes it easier for the government to spy on Americans, while officially turning Big Business into a government snitch.

Be warned: this cybersecurity bill is little more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing or, as longtime critic Senator Ron Wyden labeled it, “a surveillance bill by another name.”

Lacking any significant privacy protections, CISA, which sacrifices privacy without improving security, will do for surveillance what the Patriot Act did for the government’s police powers: it will expand, authorize and normalize the government’s intrusions into the most intimate aspects of our lives to such an extent that there will be no turning back. In other words, it will ensure that the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unfounded, warrantless government surveillance, does not apply to the Internet or digital/electronic communications of any kind.

In a nutshell, CISA would make it legal for the government to spy on the citizenry without their knowledge and without a warrant under the guise of fighting cyberterrorism. It would also protect private companies from being sued for sharing your information with the government, namely the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in order to prevent “terrorism” or an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.”

Law enforcement agencies would also be given broad authority to sift through one’s data for any possible crimes. What this means is that you don’t even have to be suspected of a crime to be under surveillance. The bar is set so low as to allow government officials to embark on a fishing expedition into your personal affairs—emails, phone calls, text messages, purchases, banking transactions, etc.—based only on their need to find and fight “crime.”

Take this anything-goes attitude towards government surveillance, combine it with Big Business’ complicity over the government’s blatantly illegal acts, the ongoing trend towards overcriminalization, in which minor acts are treated as major crimes, and the rise of private prisons, which have created a profit motive for jailing Americans, and you have all the makings of a fascist police state.

So who can we count on to protect us from the threat of government surveillance?

It won’t be the courts. Not in an age of secret courts, secret court rulings, and an overall deference by the courts to anything the government claims is necessary to its fight against terrorism.

It won’t be Congress, either (CISA is their handiwork, remember), which has failed to do anything to protect the citizenry from an overbearing police state, all the while enabling the government to continue its power grabs. It was Congress that started us down this whole Big Brother road with its passage and subsequent renewals of the USA Patriot Act, which drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights.

And it certainly won’t be the president. Indeed, President Obama recently issued an executive order calling on private companies (phone companies, banks, Internet providers, you name it) to share their customer data (your personal data) with each other and, most importantly, the government. Here’s the problem, however: while Obama calls for vague protections for privacy and civil liberties without providing any specific recommendations, he appoints the DHS to oversee the information sharing and develop guidelines with the attorney general for how the government will collect and share the data.

Talk about putting the wolf in charge of the hen house.

Mind you, this is the same agency that is responsible for militarizing the police, weaponizing SWAT teams, spying on activists, stockpiling ammunition, distributing license plate readers to state police, carrying out military drills in American cities, establishing widespread surveillance networks through the use of fusion centers, funding city-wide surveillance systems, accelerating the domestic use of drones, and generally establishing itself as the nation’s standing army, i.e., a national police force.

This brings me back to the knotty problem of how to protect Americans from cyber attacks without further eroding our privacy rights. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, there are three camps of where to draw the line.

In the first camp are those who trust the government to do the right thing. To this group, CISA is simply a desperately needed blueprint for safeguarding us against a possible cyberattack. The problem is that CISA is a “privacy nightmare” that “stomps all over civil liberties” without making “the country any safer against cyberattacks.”

In the second camp are those who not only don’t trust the government but think the government is out to get them. Sadly, they’ve got good reason to distrust the government, especially when it comes to abusing its powers and violating our rights. To those in this second group, surveillance is here to stay, which means the government will continue to monitor, regulate and control all means of communications.

Then there’s the third camp, which neither sees government as an angel or a devil, but merely as an entity that needs to be controlled and bound “down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” To these few, the only way to ensure balance in government is by holding government officials accountable to abiding by the rule of law.

Unfortunately, with all branches of the government stridently working to maintain its acquired powers, and the private sector marching in lockstep, there seems to be little to protect the American people from the fast-growing electronic surveillance state. In the meantime, surveillance has become the new normal, and the effects of this endless surveillance are resulting in a more anxious and submissive citizenry.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the follow-up to his award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State (SelectBooks), paints a terrifying portrait of a nation at war with itself and which is on the verge of undermining the basic freedoms guaranteed to the citizenry in the Constitution. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
- See more at: http://constitutionalrightspac.com/articles/the-wolf-is-guarding-the-hen-house-the-government-s-war-on-cyberterrorism/?trr#sthash.lbsoP4tJ.dpuf

The Wolf Is Guarding the Hen House: The Government’s War on Cyberterrorism

The Wolf Is Guarding the Hen House: The Government’s War on Cyberterrorism
  • Tuesday, April 14, 2015
  • John W. Whitehead
Nothing you write, say, text, tweet or share via phone or computer is private anymore.

This is the new normal in America today.

A process which started shortly after 9/11 has grown into a full-fledged campaign of warrantless surveillance, electronic tracking and data mining, carried out by federal agents who have been given carte blanche access to the vast majority of electronic communications in America. Their methods completely undermine constitution safeguards, and yet no federal agency, president, court or legislature has stepped up to halt this assault on our rights.

In fact, Congress, the courts, and the president (starting with George W. Bush and expanding exponentially under Barack Obama) have actively helped to erect this electronic concentration camp in which we are now imprisoned.

A good case in point is the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), formerly known as CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). Sold to the public as necessary for protecting us against cyber attacks or internet threats such as hacking, this Orwellian exercise in tyranny-masquerading-as-security actually makes it easier for the government to spy on Americans, while officially turning Big Business into a government snitch.

Be warned: this cybersecurity bill is little more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing or, as longtime critic Senator Ron Wyden labeled it, “a surveillance bill by another name.”

Lacking any significant privacy protections, CISA, which sacrifices privacy without improving security, will do for surveillance what the Patriot Act did for the government’s police powers: it will expand, authorize and normalize the government’s intrusions into the most intimate aspects of our lives to such an extent that there will be no turning back. In other words, it will ensure that the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unfounded, warrantless government surveillance, does not apply to the Internet or digital/electronic communications of any kind.

In a nutshell, CISA would make it legal for the government to spy on the citizenry without their knowledge and without a warrant under the guise of fighting cyberterrorism. It would also protect private companies from being sued for sharing your information with the government, namely the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in order to prevent “terrorism” or an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.”

Law enforcement agencies would also be given broad authority to sift through one’s data for any possible crimes. What this means is that you don’t even have to be suspected of a crime to be under surveillance. The bar is set so low as to allow government officials to embark on a fishing expedition into your personal affairs—emails, phone calls, text messages, purchases, banking transactions, etc.—based only on their need to find and fight “crime.”

Take this anything-goes attitude towards government surveillance, combine it with Big Business’ complicity over the government’s blatantly illegal acts, the ongoing trend towards overcriminalization, in which minor acts are treated as major crimes, and the rise of private prisons, which have created a profit motive for jailing Americans, and you have all the makings of a fascist police state.

So who can we count on to protect us from the threat of government surveillance?

It won’t be the courts. Not in an age of secret courts, secret court rulings, and an overall deference by the courts to anything the government claims is necessary to its fight against terrorism.

It won’t be Congress, either (CISA is their handiwork, remember), which has failed to do anything to protect the citizenry from an overbearing police state, all the while enabling the government to continue its power grabs. It was Congress that started us down this whole Big Brother road with its passage and subsequent renewals of the USA Patriot Act, which drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights.

And it certainly won’t be the president. Indeed, President Obama recently issued an executive order calling on private companies (phone companies, banks, Internet providers, you name it) to share their customer data (your personal data) with each other and, most importantly, the government. Here’s the problem, however: while Obama calls for vague protections for privacy and civil liberties without providing any specific recommendations, he appoints the DHS to oversee the information sharing and develop guidelines with the attorney general for how the government will collect and share the data.

Talk about putting the wolf in charge of the hen house.

Mind you, this is the same agency that is responsible for militarizing the police, weaponizing SWAT teams, spying on activists, stockpiling ammunition, distributing license plate readers to state police, carrying out military drills in American cities, establishing widespread surveillance networks through the use of fusion centers, funding city-wide surveillance systems, accelerating the domestic use of drones, and generally establishing itself as the nation’s standing army, i.e., a national police force.

This brings me back to the knotty problem of how to protect Americans from cyber attacks without further eroding our privacy rights. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, there are three camps of where to draw the line.

In the first camp are those who trust the government to do the right thing. To this group, CISA is simply a desperately needed blueprint for safeguarding us against a possible cyberattack. The problem is that CISA is a “privacy nightmare” that “stomps all over civil liberties” without making “the country any safer against cyberattacks.”

In the second camp are those who not only don’t trust the government but think the government is out to get them. Sadly, they’ve got good reason to distrust the government, especially when it comes to abusing its powers and violating our rights. To those in this second group, surveillance is here to stay, which means the government will continue to monitor, regulate and control all means of communications.

Then there’s the third camp, which neither sees government as an angel or a devil, but merely as an entity that needs to be controlled and bound “down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” To these few, the only way to ensure balance in government is by holding government officials accountable to abiding by the rule of law.

Unfortunately, with all branches of the government stridently working to maintain its acquired powers, and the private sector marching in lockstep, there seems to be little to protect the American people from the fast-growing electronic surveillance state. In the meantime, surveillance has become the new normal, and the effects of this endless surveillance are resulting in a more anxious and submissive citizenry.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the follow-up to his award-winning book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State (SelectBooks), paints a terrifying portrait of a nation at war with itself and which is on the verge of undermining the basic freedoms guaranteed to the citizenry in the Constitution. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
- See more at: http://constitutionalrightspac.com/articles/the-wolf-is-guarding-the-hen-house-the-government-s-war-on-cyberterrorism/?trr#sthash.lbsoP4tJ.dpuf

luni, 6 aprilie 2015

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Government Surveillance (HBO)

FB Marius Mina

Singura solutie : trebuie să ne schimbam noi comportamentul online ca sa ne protejam viaţa privată  ...

John Oliver took a swipe at America’s surveillance programs in a hilarious rant on his show, which featured an interview with Edward Snowden. Oliver’s segment discusses the upcoming reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act





There are very few government checks on what America’s sweeping surveillance programs are capable of doing. John Oliver sits down with Edward Snowden to discuss the NSA, the balance between privacy and security, and dick-pics.

duminică, 5 aprilie 2015

O fi Severin tot o jigodie, dar aici are dreptate

Prioritate de Dreapta

Daca informatiile primite de parlamentari in vederea adoptarii unei decizii in cunostinta de cauza erau secrete, pe ce baza a putut stabili presa, dar si guvernele straine, care nu au vazut si nu au studiat dosarul cauzei, ca Parlamentul Romaniei a tras concluzii gresite? Aceasta cu privire la arestare, caci referitor la oprirea urmaririi penale si a judecatii nici nu se pune problema, dupa cum am vazut.
CORECTPolitics:

„Cazul Sova” ne afecteaza securitatea nationala - o analiza juridica, politica si geo-politica

1. Sa recapitulam pe scurt faptele. Pentru anumite motive, sa presupunem temeinice, DNA a decis sa inceapa urmarirea penala impotriva unui senator pe nume Sova. Nu a cerut pentru asta aprobarea nimanui. Potrivit legii nici nu trebuia sa o ceara.

Daca pe parcursul urmaririi, DNA va strange probe care vor crea procurorilor convingerea ca dl Sova a savarsit cu adevarat infractiunile de care este banuit, acestia vor putea trece la trimiterea lui in judecata. Tot fara a trebui sa ceara aprobarea cuiva.

Daca judecatorii, la finalul procesului, vor constata ca dl Sova a comis infractiunile care i se imputa, il vor condamna iar pedeapsa va fi imediat pusa in executare. Pentru asta instanta judecatoreasca nu va avea de cerut aprobarea nimanui.

In concluzie, legea romana nu permite nimanui din afara autoritatii judecatoresti sa stopeze procesul judiciar. In faza de urmarire doar procurorul o poate face. In faza de judecata procesul se incheie prin hotararea pronuntata de judecatori.

Asadar, propozitia „Parlamentul a blocat cursul justitiei”, raportata la legislatia romana in vigoare, este o ineptie. Atunci cand pur si simplu nu este minciuna, intoxicare, dezinformare. Chiar daca ar dori-o, Parlamentul nu are nici un mijloc sa opreasca mersul justitiei, procesul judiciar. El este cu totul exterior acestui proces. Puterile sunt separate.

In „cazul Sova”, un caz vechi de ani multi si „buni”, se pare ca procurorii nu au gasit probe sau, daca au gasit, nu au luat masurile necesare ca sa le conserve. Cum DNA are totdeauna dreptate (sic!), cand nu exista probe care sa ii sustina acuzatiile inseamna ca cineva le-a distrus. Acesta nu poate fi decat persoana interesata in disparitia lor; in speta acest domn Goe al urmarii penale care pare a fi domnul Sova. In consecinta, pentru a nu mai distruge probele distruse (sic!) DNA s-a decis sa il si aresteze. Exista probabil speranta ca in arest isi va da seama ca a gresit, isi va regreta fapta si va reconstitui probele pierdute (sic!). Nici o legatura intre aceasta si vreo incalcare a Conventiei Europene a Drepturilor Omului sau a Conventiei ONU privind interzicerea torturii. Nu-i asa?

2. Pentru ca justitia sa isi urmeze cursul cu acuzatul in arest, este insa nevoie de aprobarea Parlamentului. Nu de alta dar un senator are de indeplinit mandatul cu care l-au insarcinat vreo cateva mii de cetateni, presupus cinstiti. Or din arest nu o mai poate face, lasandu-i astfel pe alegatori pentru o vreme fara reprezentant. Un reprezentant care nu are de ce sa demisioneze daca se stie nevinovat, el beneficiind de altfel, cum niciodata nu uita sa ne-o reaminteasca DNA, de prezumtia de nevinovatie. Ce nevinovatie ar mai fi aceea care produce efectele vinovatiei? („Demisia de onoare” si-o da cineva care se stie vinovat si care accepta sa piarda avantajele pozitiei publice spre a-si salva, cel putin, onoarea. Nevinovatul isi apara onoarea ramanand pe pozitie si luptand de acolo nu pentru a-si dovedi nevinovatia ci pentru a dovedi vinovatia celor care il acuza pe nedrept.)

Avand nevoie de aprobarea Parlamentului, procurorul DNA, asemenea oricarui cetatean care trebuie sa obtina o autorizatie de natura a-i permite sa faca ceva, trebuie formuleze o cerere; fireste, insotita de motive si dovezi. De ce ar avea procurorul – un simplu functionar al statului care nu face parte din puterea judecatoreasca – mai multe drepturi decat orice cetatean petitionar?! Ba chiar mai multe drepturi decat miile de cetateni care au decis ca dl Sova sa ii reprezinte si nu sunt interesati ca alesul lor sa fie impiedicat de un functionar public in a-si duce misiunea la bun sfarsit?! Daca tot tinem cu orice pret ca toti sa fie egali, de ce ar fi procurorii mai egali decat altii?!

3. Cata vreme Parlamentul are competenta de a da urmare cererii DNA inseamna ca el are puterea de a o accepta sau de a o respinge. Aceasta dupa ce va fi cercetat datele puse la dispozitie de DNA. Respingerea face parte din procedura normala. Ea se bazeaza pe analiza de detaliu a fiecarei cereri, respectiv a fiecarui caz in parte. Unele cereri se resping, altele se aproba. Aceasta uneori chiar in aceeasi zi; caci fiecare situatie este unica.

4. Respingerea cererii nu duce la concluzia ca intre DNA si Parlament apare un conflict institutional. Tot asa cum un conflict institutional nu apare atunci cand instanta judecatoreasca abilitata il achita pe inculpat respingand astfel recursul DNA. Tot asa cum nu exista conflict intre cetatean (societate) si stat atunci cand o institutie a administratiei de stat respinge cererile cetateanului.

Curtea Constitutionala nu are nici o competenta in aceasta materie. Orice alta concluzie ar duce la situatia in care Curtea Constitutionala ar fi chemata sa actioneze ca o instanta de ultim recurs in procesele in care rechizitoriile DNA nu sunt validate sau atunci cand petitiile cuiva nu sunt solutionate favorabil de institutiile executivului.

Un conflict inter-institutional poate aparea doar atunci cand nemultumita, DNA incearca sa puna sub urmarire parlamentarii sau judecatorii care nu i-au satisfacut cererile ori nu i-au confirmat opiniile. Adica atunci cand o institutie (in speta DNA) isi foloseste puterile nu in scopul in care i-au fost date (prinderea hotilor) ci pentru a-si impune punctul de vedere unei alte institutii, limitand indirect capacitatea acesteia de a dispune liber de puterile recunoscute ei. (Asa a procedat si ANI atunci cand a vrut sa sanctioneze pe parlamentarii care au votat impotriva deciziei sale de vacantare a unor mandate din motive de incompatibilitate.)

Decizia privind raspunsul la „cererea DNA de ridicare a imunitatii de retinere sau arest preventiv” (daca s-ar fi folosit aceasta formula explicita, probabil ca multe confuzii ar fi fost evitate) se ia de catre institutia competenta (Parlamentul) potrivit procedurilor sale. Doar constitutionalitatea acestor proceduri ar putea face, dupa caz, obiectul cenzurii Curtii Constitutionale. Aceasta este, insa, o alta problema.

5. Cine crede ca spre a intelege si aplica o lege (inclusiv Constitutia) este suficienta stiinta cititului, se inseala. Daca ar fi asa nu ar mai exista facultati de drept.

Chiar daca este o lege fundamentala sau tocmai de aceea Constitutia nu este autosuficienta. Cu alte cuvinte ea fixeaza cadrul general al legislatiei dar nu epuizeaza sistemul normativ. De aceea, in aprecierea constitutionalitatii normelor dezvoltatoare ale legii fundamentale, trebuie avut in vedere spiritul acesteia iar nu numai litera ei, logica sistemului de organizare si functionare a statului iar nu doar textele in interpretare literala.

Astfel, in opinia mea, Constitutia a fixat pentru Parlament reguli procedurale privind exclusiv desfasurarea activitatii sale fundamentale, specifice. Care este aceasta? Este vorba despre adoptarea actelor cu caracter normativ si controlul politic al executivului. Intra aici si tot ceea ce tine de relatia de tip constitutional cu alte institutii ale statului in cadrul mecanismului de control reciproc si echilibru al puterilor. In ceea ce priveste organizarea activitatii proprii, precum si adoptarea actelor cu caracter individual nespecifice muncii legislative, Parlamentului i s-a lasat aptitudinea de a adopta proceduri speciale, tinand seama de particularitatile obiectului reglementarii.

Ridicarea imunitatii parlamentare in cazuri individuale nu intra in categoria activitatilor specifice. In schimb ea priveste – potrivit legislatiei romanesti actuale – privarea de libertate a persoanei; adica limitarea unui drept fundamental aparat de intregul sistem normativ intern si international referitor la drepturile omului. De aceea adoptarea unei proceduri mai exigente de luare a deciziei, care include votul secret si majoritatea absoluta, se justifica pe deplin.

Principiul echilibrului si limitarii reciproce a puterilor cere ca Ministerul Public (Parchetul) sa procedeze la retinerea sau arestarea parlamentarilor cu o dubla autorizatie – cea a puterii legislative (ex ante) si cea a puterii judecatoresti (ex ante cu privire la arestul preventiv). Procedura interna care conduce la acordarea sau respingerea autorizatiei tine de organizarea institutiei competente (in speta a Parlamentului). De aceea ea nu are a fi si nu este reglementata de Constitutie.

In schimb, nerespectarea acestei proceduri conduce la anularea hotararii si prin urmare la ilegalitatea tuturor actelor savarsite in baza ei. Ceea ce este nul produce efecte nule. Mai pe inteles, daca autorizatia de a-l aresta pe dl Sova ar fi fost acordata pe baza unui vot la vedere sau / si cu o majoritate sub nivelul celei prevazute de regulile Senatului aplicabile in materie, arestarea ar fi fost ilegala. Daca judecatorul roman (de drepturi si imunitati) ar fi dispus-o, decizia lui ar fi fost cu siguranta sanctionata de Curtea Europeana a Drepturilor Omului (CEDO).

6. Ar fi bine ca, pentru a evita sanctionarea Romaniei la CEDO, cu efecte negative pentru buzunarul contribuabilului roman, Parchetul sa declanseze urmarirea penala a celor care violeaza secretul votului parlamentar. (Tot asa cum in mod normal sunt urmariti penal cei care violeaza secretului votului la alegerile parlamentare, prezidentiale sau locale.) In aceasta categorie ar intra nu doar cei care urmaresc si inregistreaza felul in care parlamentarii introduc bilele in urna, ci si aceia care instiga la sau fac presiuni pentru desecretizarea votului, precum chiar si cei care isi divulga votul – caci a vota secret, cand legea o prevede, este o obligatie iar nu un drept de care parlamentarii sa dispuna dupa voia lor.

7. Ceea ce se mai cere adaugat este ca spre a decide, Parlamentul trebuie sa se informeze. Informarea Parlametnului cu privire la date din dosarul de urmarire penala este – atentie mare!!! – o exceptie de la caracterul nepublic (cu alte cuvinte secret) al procedurii de cercetare penala. Potrivit legii, in faza in care este instrumentata de procurori procedura penala este scrisa, oculta si necontradictorie. In faza in care se desfasoara in fata instantei judecatoresti (atunci cand se ajunge, deci, la implicarea puterii judecatoresti) procedura devine orala, publica si contradictorie. Exista explicatii stiintifice pentru aceasta.

Asadar spre a obtine aprobarea arestarii preventive procurorii trebuie sa permita parlamentarilor accesul la informatiile secrete ale dosarului pe care il gestioneaza. Respectivele informatii sunt analizate de comisia juridica in sedinta neplublica, pe baza lor adoptandu-se un aviz. Avizul se comunica plenului in vederea adoptarii unei hotarari finale prin vot secret. Asa se intampla in toate statele democrate din lume.

Incalcarea acestei proceduri in oricare din componentele ei (inclusiv caracterul secret al votului) descalifica democratia tarii in cauza, potrivit normelor stabilite de Consiliul Europei, deschizand calea unor sanctiuni politice si juridice la nivel european chiar si atunci cand ea nu este sanctionata pe plan intern.

8. Pornind de la aceste ultime observatii se impune o intrebare: daca informatiile primite de parlamentari in vederea adoptarii unei decizii in cunostinta de cauza erau secrete, pe ce baza a putut stabili presa, dar si guvernele straine, care nu au vazut si nu au studiat dosarul cauzei, ca Parlamentul Romaniei a tras concluzii gresite? Aceasta cu privire la arestare, caci referitor la oprirea urmaririi penale si a judecatii nici nu se pune problema, dupa cum am vazut.

Nu cumva avem de a face, in realitate, cu o actiune masiva de intoxicare, dezinformare si manipulare a opiniei publice, cu scopul de a se produce instabilitate sociala si politica in Romania? Ceea ce era sau chiar mai este pe punctul sa se intample. Daca este asa – si se pare ca asa este – cui oare serveste aceasta tocmai acum cand Presedintele Putin afirma ca izbucnirea unui nou razboi mondial devine pe zi ce trece inevitabila?

Presedintele Johhanis ar trebui sa caute raspunsul la aceste intrebari si sa il impartaseasca cetatenilor linistind spiritele iar nu agitandu-le. Pana atunci sa notam ca ambasadele care, incalcand Conventia de la Viena asupra relatiilor diplomatice (art 41) au criticat prin presa iar nu pe canale institutionale (MAE), Parlamentul Romaniei pentru o hotarare corecta din punct de vedere procedural si a carei corectitudine pe fond nu avea cum fi evaluata din afara in acest stadiu al procedurii (ea tinand oricum de afacerile interne ale statului roman), au fost cele ale SUA, Germaniei, Marii Britanii si Olandei. Nu pot decat sa sper ca diplomatii straini in cauza, reprezentanti oficiali ai unor tari aliate, au actionat in afara instructiunilor primite din capitale.

sâmbătă, 28 martie 2015

NATO ne ordonă să trecem Prutul?

Prioritate de Dreapta

Uite-acu'... stai niţel, să mă descalţ... ;-) )
AM Press:
    Congresul american – e prima știre pe care o citesc în această dimineață – l-a somat pe Barack Obama să se miște mai iute cu înarmarea Ucrainei. SUA a trimis, înțeleg, în ultima lună, niște mizilicuri de arme în Ucraina de 70 milioane de dolari. Trebuie ceva mai mult, mai iute, mai greu, musai letal. Congresmenii, democrați sau republicani, și-au dat mâna, votând la fel. Ieși la interval Obama, bagă și tu o atomică acolo, ceva consistent că mânâncă Putin Ucraina! – strigă, cu votul lor adunat în deștele ridicate spre tavan, congresmenii. Putin, dacă va mânca lumea ca pe un sandwich, o ia și el de la margine. A mâncat Crimeea și niște raioane ucrainene pe care le-a refăcut republici sovietice, va mânca, dacă e cum zice NATO, Republica Moldova și, când va ajunge – curând zic alarmați occidentalii – la noi, încercând să ne ronțăie, cum au mai făcut-o, începe răzbelul. Al Treilea Mondial, îl numesc unii, fără reținere. Până va ajunge în America, războiul mondial se plictisește. Sătui de atâta mușcat din sandwich, rușii se împacă, așa cum au mai făcut-o, cu americanii. În timpul ăsta noi am fost deja mistuiți în burdihanul războiului mondial de apărare. Vom ieși, din intestinal gros al confruntării, în forma lipicioasă pe care o ia orice produs supus digestiei animalelor mari.

   În războaiele noastre, ni s-a ordonat să trecem Carpații spre a ne aduce acasă frații transilvăneni, căsăpiți de unguri și imperii vestice. Am trecut cu ”arme și flori”, întâmpinați de ardeleni la ”trecători” și am ajuns cam departe, suind opinca pe Parlamentul de la Budapesta. Mareșalul Antonescu, aliat cu nazismul lui Hitler, ne-a ordonat să trecem Prutul și să ne luăm Basarabia îndărăt. Și opincarii noștri au albit câmpurile rusești cu oasele lor, uitând să se oprească la Nistru. Antonescu, găsit criminal de război, a fost executat. Necazul e că după aia și poporul român a fost găsit vinovat și executat, sub privirile îngăduitoare și plictisite ale Occidentului, vreo 50 de ani. Au tot executat rușii la noi. Ne-au executat plăți de război de nu se mai terminau cu toate că armata română, devenită aliată cu rușii și americanii împotriva lui Hitler, a stat tot în primele rânduri, până aproape de Berlin, unde am fost retrași, câți mai eram, spre a nu fi considerați și noi învingători. Scârboasă e, uneori, istoria.
    Nu-mi place Putin. Are, așa cum am mai povestit, o privire pe care, ca gazetar, am întâlnit-o în Biroul Oval de la Kremlin și am simțit că-mi îngheață sângele în instalații. Un ambasador al lui zicea mai ieri că scufundă nu știu ce vapoare dacă se enervează, iar țarul, întors din morți după vreo zece zile în care nu l-a mai văzut nimeni, a dat primul lui ordin – alarmare militară de grad înalt. Anglia trimite la Constanța un mare portavion, de ultim tip, distrugător de tot ce i se opune-n univers, se lăuda la București, ministrul de Război al Reginei. Pe la Curtici curg lungi trenuri cu tancuri și transportoare blindate. Congresmenii americați se răstesc la Obama că se mișcă prea greoi în Ucraina și nu trimite mai repede armament letal. În Polonia și România se înghesuie arme și comandamente. Externele rusești ne anunță că suntem deja obiectiv dușman de război pentru Rusia, prin pericolul Deveselului nostru devenit avanpost american, ca atare vom fi rachetați cu prioritate.

   Am făcut armata la termen redus, după facultate și eram chiar bun la trageri și la gândire tactică ofițerească. Nu mă tem de război pentru mine. Dar parcă iar ne ordonă cineva să trecem Prutul și parcă nu l-aș trece, nu pentru că n-am avea de recuperat de pe acolo niște pământuri, unele chiar capturate de surata Ucraina, dar îl trec degeaba și e posibil să revin de acolo fără picioare sau mort de tot. Nu-i pagubă că mor eu, dar mă uit la copiii școlii de peste drum cum aleargă în recreație și tare n-aș vrea să le strice cineva, rus sau american, joaca. Ca atare mă rog Dumnezeului posibil din cer, căci la ruși și americani mă rog degeaba, să nu dea cineva, prieten sau dușman, cu bomba în joaca țâncilor noștri.

2 comentarii :

Anonim G spunea...
Iar ca dusmanul sa nu puna mina pe ceva in aceasta tara aplicam, cu sirg, tactica pamintului pirjolit !
Iata ce-mi scoate ochii, de ceva vreme, ori de cite ori deschid calculatorul :
http://ecodiesel.euroconsult.ro/?gclid=CJLKzI7mw8QCFWfKtAodaAIA5g
Cititi, e interesant !
Acum nu mai livram in tari straine rafinarii ''la cheie'' ci le vindem ''la cheie'' pe cele din batatura !!!
Oricum , e mai putin neobisnuit ca inchiderea a sute de scoli si spitale.
Acum, daca vor fi si niscaiva raniti de ingrijit, boc si nemernicul lui sef vor pune la dispozitia spitalelor de campanie casele lor si mosiile lor.....
Arza-i -ar focul de tradatori !

Riddick spunea...
Măcar de ne-am trezi, odată...

marți, 24 martie 2015

Deznaţionalizarea României

Prioritate de Dreapta


Sub Ceauşescu s-a construit o reţea de ordonatori unici de cont, care avea misiunea de a produce valută din mediile economice externe, destinate în principal achitării accelerate a datoriilor externe. După lovitura de stat din decembrie 1989, aceşti operatori de cont, ofiţeri ai Departamentului de Informaţii Externe, nu au mai vărsat la bugetul de stat aproximativ șapte miliarde de dolari. Banii sustraşi au finanţat structura noilor formaţiuni politice care au ruinat România timp de 25 de ani.
Naţiunea:

Ani la rândul, România a fost ţinta tuturor cotropitorilor Europei şi a fost şi încă mai este o oază de latinitate într-o mare de popoare slave. Şi tot de mii de ani, am avut şi norocul că acest popor să aibă şi conducători, regi, domnitori, viteji şi curajoşi care au ştiut să oprească vremelnic hoardele cotropitoare. Acum însă, în ultimul sfert de secol, pare că acest lucru, cotropirea ţării, pare să nu mai poată fi oprită cu nici un chip. Jaful a pornit din interior şi din exterior, precum un imens foc pus la cale de terorişti piromani.

Deznaţionalizarea României a fost şi încă mai este un deziderat pentru forţe oculte ce acţionează încă în strânsă colaborare cu trădătorii autohtoni, de neam şi ţară! Acest “Plan strategic” a fost conceput în etape, aşa cel puţin se vede şi mai ales îl simţim noi toţi în prezent.

Prima etapă, cea cuprinsă între anii 1990-2000, este etapa în care după asasinarea cuplului Ceauşescu, printr-un sistem foarte complex de manipulare şi dezinformare, securisto-comunist, a fost instaurată încet dar sigur, „Crima Organizată’’. O mafie politico-economică. Sub Ceauşescu s-a construit o reţea de ordonatori unici de cont, care avea misiunea de a produce valută din mediile economice externe, destinate în principal achitării accelerate a datoriilor externe. După lovitura de stat din decembrie 1989, aceşti operatori de cont, ofiţeri ai Departamentului de Informaţii Externe, nu au mai vărsat la bugetul de stat aproximativ șapte miliarde de dolari. Au fost 354 de ordonatori unici de cont. Primele surse de finanţare de care au profitat designerii democraţiei originale, au fost următoarele: două miliarde de dolari reprezentând exporturile industriale şi alimentare, din 1989, bani gestionaţi de fosta securitate; două miliarde de dolari proveniţi din exporturile de arme în ţările arabe şi Africa, suma aflată tot în conturile operative ale DIE.

Banii sustraşi au finanţat structura noilor formaţiuni politice care au ruinat România timp de 25 de ani. Restul sumelor, în valută, care au fost rătăcite în conturile securităţii, au finanţat apariţia primelor bănci private. Gruparea mafiotă, de fapt un club închis al elitei nomenclaturii comuniste a fost formată din ofiţerii DIE, UM 0107/AVS acoperiţi în BRCE, ICE Romtehnica, Terra, Dunărea, Delta, Crescent, Carpaţi, Trawe, Agroexport etc.

Apoi, s-a trecut la decapitarea industriei româneşti şi a economiei în ansamblul său. Zeci şi sute de fabrici, combinate şi întreprinderi au fost dezmembrate, tocate, vândute şi/sau transferate către alte entităţi economice private, interne dar mai ales externe. Sub diverse lozinci, create special pentru manipularea şi dezinformarea maselor, aceste entităţi economice au fost definitiv dezmembrate şi vândute, piesă cu piesă! Cine au fost cei care au aprobat acest haos economic? Tocmai capii reţelelor de crimă organizată, instauraţi la putere atunci, cei veniţi din eşaloanele 2 şi 3 ale PCR şi Securităţii şi care au fost rapid transformaţi în politicieni „serioşi’’ de care ţara avea nevoie… Inutil să mai prezentăm nume, toată lumea i-a văzut, aplaudat şi votat!

Prin urmare, acest grup infracţional stabil, avea să penetreze toate structurile statului, avea să-şi întindă tentaculele, cuprinzând toată ţara ca o imensă celula canceroasă.

Mii de locuri de muncă au fost anihilate, mii de şomeri au bântuit şi mai bântuie şi acum societatea românească. Degeaba au încercat oamenii să se răzvrătească, prin greve şi demonstraţii de masă, fiindcă acestea au fost rapid „rezolvate’’ printr-o acţiune de mare amploare de neutralizarea controlului social, prin cumpărarea, şantajarea sau denigrarea liderilor de sindicat şi/sau ai opoziţiei democratice, abia înfiripate. Un remember… Mineriadele lui Iliescu şi toată clica sa, apoi câţi lideri de federaţii şi uniuni sindicale nu au fost cumpăraţi cu funcţii politice şi/sau administrative, iar alţii au „căzut’’ de la sine pe acest front nevăzut al manipulării informative!

Aceşti ani ’90-2000 au fost anii fatidici, când s-a consolidat „Crima organizată” concretizată printr-un grup infracţional stabil (puterea politică), un lider şi o ierarhie a subordonării foarte strictă (acţionând în special subversiv), precum şi un sistem de neutralizare a controlului social (distrugerea şi anihilarea oricărei forţe de opoziţie democratică). De aici s-a trecut la etapa a doua, cea cuprinsă între anii 2000 şi 2010.

Perioadă în care, cu consolidările de rigoare arătate mai sus, s-a trecut la infiltrarea crimei organizate la nivel de instituţii prin mafiotizarea şi politizarea excesivă a tuturor instituţiilor statului. Nimic nu a rămas necontaminat de acest flagel, de această tumoră canceroasă. Absolut nici o instituţie, agenţie, inspectorat, minister etc.!

Caracteristică principală a acestei perioade se poate traduce astfel:

- O preocupare permanentă de a corupe persoane influenţe din legislativ, executiv, aparatul judiciar, servicii secrete şi prin numiri de şefi politici şi infractori în aceste compartimente vitale;

- Un sistem eficient de manipulare a opinei publice, creat prin subordonarea unor concerne de presă şi mass-media, cu jurnalişti bine „instruiţi” şi plătiţi pentru acest gen de activităţi;

- Un mecanism eficient de spălare a banilor, bine pus la punct, printr-o economie subterană, în strânsă corelaţie cu sistemul bancar.

Tot acum avem şi o concretizarea a devalizării şi distrugerii sistemului bancar, început în anii ’90, cu celebrele bănci naţionale/comerciale (Banca Agricolă, Bancorex, Bankop, Banca internaţională a Religiilor). Dacă aceste două etape încă nu au pecetluit soarta României, urmează acum parte a treia din acest plan. Vorbim de perioada 2010-2015… şi mai mult poate.


7 comentarii :


Crystal Clear spunea...
Cel mai mai pertinent rezumat explicativ al ultimilor 25 de ani.
Planurile de viitor sunt cel putin la fel de negre.
Riddick spunea...

E bine că e rezumat, sunt prinse mişcările de ansamblu, nu cazurile particulare.
Crystal Clear spunea...
Da, excelent articol !
Felicitări că l-ai găsit !
Crystal Clear spunea...
Com:
"A mai fost o sarcina importanta-trecerea si tratarea in derizoriu a nationalismului si patriotismului.
Distrugerea sentimentului de solidaritate ,realizat prin cumpararea liderilor de opinie si deturnarea protestelor prin contramanifestatii masive in favorea celor contestati.Aici si-au dat mana atat serviciile din est cat si cele din vest si sud-est.In structurile de conducere au fost impuse persoane fara origine etnica certa,si neaparat santajabile.O parere-serviciile au fost cele mai implicate in deznationalizarea si distrugerea statului.Fara aportul lor nu se reusea acest dezastru facut in 25 de ani-in toate razboiele din istoria moderna a Romaniei ,cumulat,nu s-a reusit o scadere a pibului cu 80 la suta,plus un asa mare exod."
Riddick spunea...

Da. Eu însumi am căzut victimă, citeam săptămânal "22" şi "Caţavencu" şi "Cotidianul" (vechi), cumpăram cărţile lui Patapievici...

Declicul a fost la NU-urile francez şi olandez de la referendumurile din 2005 privind aşa-zisa "Constituţie europeană".
Gabi spunea...
Pentru România şi împotriva Poporului Român, a fost pregătit un program diabolic şi extrem de periculos, cu un final incredibil.După falsificarea adevăratei istorii a Poporului Român şi după tentativele nereuşite de până acum, de data aceasta programul pregătit împotriva românilor este mult mai perfid şi diversificat. Scenariul derulat în România (copiat după cel aplicat în Rusia în anul 1917 şi în ţara noastră din 1945) a vizat ca, începând cu 22 decembrie 1989, în funcţiile de preşedinte al României, în conducerea Parlamentului, în Guvern şi în fruntea principalelor instituţii ale Statului Român să fie promovaţi şi susţinuţi cât mai mulţi minoritari care execută ordinele primite din străinătate. Românii încă nu ştiu că, în ultimii 25 de ani, nu au avut un preşedinte român al României, ci numai minoritari, care păstrează secretul asupra etniei din care fac parte. În mod deloc întămplător, românii sunt informaţi şi ştiu multe în cele mai diverse domenii, dar nu ştiu nimic despre etnia conducătorilor la nivel central, respectiv despre etnia celor care au ajuns preşedinţi ai Senatului şi Camerei Deputaţilor, membrii Birourilor Permanente ale celor două Camere, preşedinţi de Comisii parlamentare permanente, senatori şi deputaţi, prim-miniştri, viceprimi-miniştri, miniştri de stat, miniştri, miniştri delegaţi, secretari generali ai guvernului, consilieri prezidenţiali, secretari de stat, directori ai serviciilor secrete, conducători ai Televiziunii şi Radioului public, conducători ai instituţiilor centrale şi ai agenţiilor naţionale, cei din consiliile de administraţie de la Banca Naţională a României şi de la celelalte bănci de stat, până la lichidarea lor, cei din Comisiile prezidenţiale.

Românii au dreptul să afle cine a guvernat România în ultimii 25 de ani ! Unii dintre ei au dublă cetăţenie, alţii sunt copiii sau nepoţii celor care au adus comunismul din U.R.S.S., dar majoritatea au nume şi prenume neaoş româneşti. Când vor afla adevărul despre etnia conducătorilor din ultimele două decenii românii se vor deştepta foarte repede şi vor înţelege de ce, prin viclene uneltiri, Ţara a fost adusă în pragul falimentului şi Poporul Român la sapă de lemn.
Riddick spunea...
De pecinginea asta nu scăpăm noi uşor. Mi-e că tot prin violenţă.