Context is everything in regards to free speech. Was the post specifically addressed to the subject, i.e. posted on the subject's facebook page vs their own facebook page. What was the author's psychological profile, i.e. any psychological disorders, recent unemployment, history of violence, etc. From what I have researched on the web this guy in urban dictionary terms is a "poser" who is obnoxious and crass but otherwise harmless. The subject was right in alerting authorities and in addition they should have obtained a restraining order against Anthony as well as acquired a firearm to protect themselves. Certainly law enforcement should investigate all perceived threats and in this case they did.
Perhaps his biggest mistake was to fantasize about harming an FBI agent. In a police state any public dissention or insubordination to government authority must be met with harsh retaliation to set an example. We will see if the current supreme court, strict constructionists who deem even money a form of speech, will decide that his speech was protected or that it was illegal and consequentially grant the government power to arbitrarily imprison people solely based verbal expression.
Who are the parties driving this agreement? The corporate lobbyist in China and the US who are secretly drafting this agreement for their own benefit.
As Thomas Jefferson once stated, "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
Listen to US billionaire Steve Wynn in his own words call the communist China, where most of his revenue comes from, "the most laissez-faire place on the planet at the moment". When I grew up communism was the evil empire but it appears if they start taking American Express those transgressions are quickly overlooked.
China has illuminated what the most successful government model is for economic growth as they have surpassed the US in global trade and will soon become the largest economy in the world. This secret treaty is an effort to codify the globalist's privileged trading status and would accelerate the vast income inequality that plagues both China and the US. Every American should remember that the revolutionary Boston Tea Party was a reaction to a tax imposed for the direct benefit of the East India corporation's monopoly. Any elected official that privately or publicly supports this travesty should be held accountable at the voting booth.
China has arguably moved from communism to fascism and as Mussolini stated "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." One can see many of the tenants of an oligarch's paradise: a single party police/surveillance state, labor unions are outlawed, environmental regulations are practically non-existent, imminent domain is abused, and there is an income inequality that even surpasses the US. Capitalism has chosen the most profitable government model and is hedging their investments on it. China is already the largest trading nation and is expected to soon surpass the US as the largest economic power. In the 1930's many American investors flocked to the economic growth in fascist germany. and Prescott Bush(perhaps indirectly) come to mind. Given the current political climate in the US perhaps there may be another Business Plot in our generation.
I imagine many of these large investment firms have direct or indirect access to zero percent federal reserve loans (going on six years with no end in sight) and they would be foolish not to speculate on Alibaba with house money.
I had a similar idea and ended up with this setup:
- A Rooms to Go leather power recliner
- A $50 adjustable medical stand from amazon
- A 27 inch monitor that is placed on the medical stand. I optionally mounted a second monitor by attaching a monitor arm to the medical stand.
- A 10ft HDMI cable
- A wireless keyboard and mouse
The recliner has a little space between the bottom of it and the floor so I can move the medical stand with the monitor on it in front of me at a fairly close distance. I can also recline the chair with the monitor in front of me and easily swing the stand out of the way with minimal effort. I place the wireless keyboard on my lap and use the mouse on the medical stand. I am a tall person with a long reach so this may not work for others. After almost two years of use I have had no ergonomic issues. I can move the monitor slightly off center so that I can double task and code while casually observing a tv show or movie with my wife. It has worked out very well for me and the complaints from my wife about me working too much have diminished significantly.
I would presume perfect information means complete information. If that is the case then why would any business be compelled to release information that could be perceived as critical to their operations without regulation or the threat of regulation? As we have seen with the GM case keeping consumers in the dark about safety issues pads the bottom line and they would have gotten away with if it weren't for those pesky NHTSA regulators. I always find it amusing when the captains of industry get on television and berate government regulation and accountability their first line of defense for impropriety is always the mantra "it may be unethical but it is not illegal".
I do think that the goals regulation should be to enforce transparency, clarity, and legal accountability more than just simply restricting certain types of activities.
Homeland Security is an institution based in FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. The more they panic the populace the more Congress will capitulate and grant them ever increasing power and funding. Secrecy grants them a shield to deflect all criticism: in the event of an attack they can simply state they were underfunded or were not granted the powers they needed to protect the people regardless of whatever the truth may be and no one except initiated would be the wiser. Instead of confronting terrorism using our well accepted and established system of Justice we all get thrown into a state of complete panic when someone attacks us for political motivations. Last year 1.6 million American's died of cancer. Why don't we spend trillions of dollars combating a real threat instead of something that may kill 1 in 20 million Americans?
Ironically the point of terrorism is to effect political change based on the psychological impact of an attack. Congress seems to pay no heed to this as they accelerate the decline of America into a police state, perhaps to the desire of the terrorist boogieman. Certainly anyone who has read a history book knows what happens when a people grant their government extraordinary powers to combat a perceived threat: a dictator arises and they lose all their liberties. I speak for no one besides myself but I would rather take my chances with being killed by a malcontent than risk losing everything precious in my life to totalitarian government.
In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
Well said. Cui bono - who benefits? Government officials like Michael Hayden keep conjuring up the terrorist boogieman to rationalize totalitarian surveillance but in the end "Knowledge is Power" and that is the ultimate objective. Access to all information - virtual omniscience - can cement any party's rule and wealth and some would do anything to obtain that power. I recommend watching PBS's recent Frontline documentary for an in depth look at the surveillance state. Our government is heavily influenced by corporate interests and it stands to reason mass surveillance is more about power with access to all information than it is about the safety of ordinary citizens. Terrorism is just a psychological ruse to distract from the real prize.
A point of interest - A key criteria in the FBI's definition of terrorism is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" With that said when the revolving door government officials fear monger and institute policies contrary to Constitutional principles are they facilitating terrorism?