Bingo.

Essentially, because I'm aware that how we do things in this country is about to shift massively. If this were a SNES game, we'd be about to restore our game from a Save Point of about 150 years ago, back when the Common Law was better observed and politicians and businessmen couldn't get away with half of what they have been recently. At that point, U.S. citizenship will be something that people will actively want to have again, so the yuk's really on them here. People who squander their citizenship like this are very likely to find their decision being actively enforced. Haven't you noticed the recurring theme from a lot of federal politicians lately about people losing their U.S. citizenship? They're elbowing each other discreetly about something they have planned, and I know enough about the overall plan to know it's nothing but good news for once.

Traditionally, Asian society rewards diligence, education and hard work. Additionally, their organized crime is at least formalized and maintains certain socially-accepted regulations and standards. Their profit margins are slimmer, and their cultural mindset contains a recognition of honor.

Not yet, these guys are still here.

In all seriousness, the image you present is based on conventional, publicly-available information that's in the mainstream at the moment. That's about to shift; the military have gotten their patriot faction together and hold a majority of 95-98%. They're working with Interpol and the U.S. Marshals to rout out networks of corruption within our government, and the information should appear on the mainstream news later this year.

Assisting them? Traditional underground Asian societies, who also want us back on a Constitutionally-based system of governance under the American Common Law. It's just better for all concerned; us, them, and the rest of the world. They're facilitating putting our country through this rehab because we're among their best customers; they've just become tired of exporting their goods to us in exchange for debased paper money, while Rockefeller networks attempt to hack into their own political system in their countries. So this really is the better option. A lot of the "China will 0wnz ur soul" rhetoric is being put out by our corporate news media, whose expiration date has essentially come and gone quite a while ago itself. Give things a few months to resolve themselves: U.S. banks and the Federal Reserve are going by the wayside, and with it the corrupt networks that have relied on the ability to conjure trillions of digital money out of thin air to keep their Ponzi schemes afloat. Things are about to get a lot better.

I really hope this becomes a trend among CEOs who are presently in the U.S.. It's a brilliant way to get rid of many of our parasites; we just need to find a way to convince our politicians to do it as well and we'll be home-free.

+1, Informative.

Give her a year or two as the political situation deteriorates. She might reconsider.

If I were to begin removing your knowledge of each of the 26 letters of the alphabet one by one, your ability to form the most appropriate word to complete a sentence would drop, not increase.

So the more effectively someone has learned to deal with physical threats, the less potential for harm there is for both the victim and the assailant.

This seems to indicate that someone training the public in self-defense methods is clearly in the public's interest.

I agree.

Do you not understand that a government cannot stop all of its people all of the time, or even most of it? However, it can cause them to be so concerned individually, that most will quasi-voluntarily opt to restrict their behavior. The result is that those who do not, encounter the brunt of the government retaliation. I understand that sheepdog employ the same tactic when they herd.

Absolutely. If you do, there are consequences that happen as a result of your choice.

As distinct from what seems to be happening here: if you think he may be causing trouble, you are not allowed to know how to stop him with fatal force should it become necessary. And to make sure you will be unable to, a government will pre-emptively stop a man from entering the country for attempting to provide you with that knowledge.

As similar approach would be terminating a life in the second trimester, on the grounds that it may grow up to commit a violent crime several decades later. That is a lack of minimum force of law, also termed "overreaching" or just plain "usurpation" [of political authorities by the agents of government]. Then again I'm not sure from where the political authority is considered to derive within the UK; perhaps whatever the PM or monarch says, goes.

Are you sure you're not Kent Brockman?

According to non-mainstream news sources including Benjamin Fulford (a former correspondent for Forbes Magazine) and a U.S. military official known as The Drake, both the U.S. and the U.K. are encountering a co-ordinated effort to remove, forcibly if necessary, corrupt political officials from power in compliance with the law. This effort has a lot of backing from significant numbers of U.S. military personnel, Interpol, the Pentagon, the Agencies, U.S. Marshals... and underground Asian societies.

Interesting that this piece is coming out at this juncture.

From TFA:

Oh, now they have to combine the two. Nothing like idly flicking away layers of tissue from the person at the other end of the teleconference while they're nattering on. And, you'll finally be able to verify that some people actually do have a heart.

The distinction is pretty important, and so long as it's not used as an argument to diminish rights it makes quite a bit of sense.

I agree that in a case of accidental nonsentient monitoring that isn't accessed, it's pretty inconsequential.

The natural concern is of course intentional, systematic monitoring, sentient or otherwise, that is or can be accessed effectively. And carefully evaluating who collected that data in the first place, and whether their motives for so doing were even valid and fair, is just a sensible part of data security approached from a societal, rather than a technological, means. Limiting the cases in which collecting the data in the first place is considered socially acceptable is a good place to begin in terms of limiting data loss.

This is because the difficulty occurs when personal data becomes retained by outside parties, because at that point it's pretty difficult for the original owner to establish with any certainty whether that data is accessible or not.

Case in point, when several of the CIA's laptops went missing a few years ago. They were concerned about the data when the laptops went missing, despite the fact that the information was almost certainly encrypted. It's a natural concern, when confidential data is retained by outside parties beyond the control and oversight of the initiating party. The CIA didn't stop to assess whether or not they supposed it could or would be successfully accessed before finding the incident a cause for concern; the mere possibility that it now could be, and they would have no way of knowing either way, was the problem.

There is very often a double-standard in evaluation that people make now, depending on whether the potentially damaged party is (a) a private citizen, or (2) a government agency or corporation. Somehow, there is typically a strong implied bias in the private citizen's disfavor there, and that should probably be noticed and assessed. The standard mentality seems to be that Joe Sixpack was negligent or mentally lacking for not better encrypting his data, and we're cautious to ask ourselves who it's really hurting anyway, but that if it happens to government agencies or corporations it's automatically considered a cause for concern because it represents a threat to state or trade secrets. And there is a disconcerting and counterintuitive propensity for that kind of thinking.

Oh dear.

I'm not sure which was worse: the title, the reasoning, or the fact that I counted the number of single entendres in the low single digits.

Love the way he aims it, phaser-like, at the viewer as he completes his delivery of the opening line.