To condense further, America's Heroes, Public Servants and law enforcement officials have basically made a statement: "We can steal your property, or anything else, whenever it suits our purposes. We can restrain, detain and falsify records. We can screw you out of work, housing, food, property, or anything else we don't want you to possess. We can make and field complaints about you all day long. We can harass you and provoke you as well. We can hijack your communications, invade your accounts and steal your mail and there's nothing you can do about it because there is no one to field a complaint, no way to reach the judiciary with a grievance because we'll steal your filings too. We own all of those things. You do not. We can do these things because we have the Aw-thor-i-tay!"
And my response? "Uh, yeah, that's why I wrote a book about it. So tell me something I don't know."
Now it has always been my belief that law enforcement has a way of manufacturing criminals, especially in the urban areas where people start off with limited opportunities and are generally stuck due to lack of income or resources to improve their situation. (The quality of education doesn't help either). The cops pick out a few guys they don't like. They "hassle" them, pull them over a lot, issue citations for vehicle code violations and so on. Maybe they plant something and impound his vehicle knowing that the guy will lose his job and won't have a way to pay the impound fee. They go out of their way to provoke the guy, something I've been observing for years, and then when his options are reduced to zero, the assumption is that he will do something illegal which will allow law enforcement to slam the door behind him.
I've been aware of the strategic aspects of what has occurred for quite some time. I've seen America's Heroes enter establishments where I applied for work, on some occasions already there when I entered, making sure the application did not result in employment. I could describe these occurrences in detail, but this isn't a "credibility" test, it is a common practice that has always been critical to law enforcement objectives. It isn't legal, nor is the tactical slander involved, so this function has been performed by Military Hags for reasons unknown. (I have theorized that Military Hags, women affiliated with the military, and a certain number of members of the lesbian community have propagated the "predator" storyline since the beginning, which was a long time ago. So when tactical slander is useful to preclude employment, especially when the employer happens to be female, Military Hags, who somehow happen to know when and where I apply for work, are always present or in the vicinity). And I've been harassed and provoked on a daily basis by CLEO stooges and military slime for years, even more frequently since I started writing on the subject.
The point I'm getting to here relates to a Congressional hearing that, if memory serves, occurred just about the time that the late Joe Stack was driving his Cessna into an IRS building. The subject was re-authorization of the Patriot Act and funding for DHS and its sub-agencies. Being one of the few people that has actually read the Patriot Act, I had often wondered how it was that law enforcement justified secret investigations of American citizens when the FISA Court was created to deal with foreign nationals plotting against the U.S. After all, up to that point, every "plot" or act of terrorism had been the result of foreign nationals which arguably should have never been allowed into the country to begin with. So how did this translate into a "Watch List" of more than a million American citizens? Why were tens of thousands of Americans being targeted as suspects of espionage or terrorism, more than 46,000 in 2006 when much of my property and records conspicuously disappeared?
And the answer was, "Well, we haven't seen much activity by foreign nationals plotting terrorist acts here for several years, but the new threat which is much worse, is domestic terrorism. That's right, American citizens becoming radicalized and plotting terrorist acts right here in the Homeland!" Right after I stopped laughing, I paused for a moment to reflect on the new storyline, which was predictable of course. So when Joe Stack used his private plane to express his "anger and frustration" at the IRS, I couldn't help but thinking that CLEO storylines are often the result of their own strategic interests. In other words, guys like Joe Stack didn't understand that his communications had been hijacked and therefore, had no chance of ever getting a reply to any job inquiry. Probably feeling isolated and becoming poorer every day, not understanding his criticism of IRS was the cause, and possibly subject to the same forms of subtle and not-so-subtle forms of harassment and provocations I have described here, he lashed out in a rather predictable manner.
And in so doing, he unintentionally supported the Big Time Law Enforcement storyline about domestic terrorism being the immediate priority and the biggest threat to "Homeland Security" which also means that the provisions of the Patriot Act should be re-authorized along with the funds to protect America from domestic threats like Joe Stack. I offer this speculative comment because I understand the cause and effect relationship between all of the elements of that which is described in these essays, (especially the "who" and the "why"). I also know that it is almost inconceivable to think that no one has ever complained about being arbitrarily assigned to a "Watch List" or subjected to the theft of property and records, the hijacking of communications, threats, intimidation, and the sharing of bogus data amongst law enforcement officials.
I once checked on the complaints that were actually presented to Congress, the oversight being the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and found that there were only a few complaints even mentioned by DHS which I found amusing because I also knew that my attempt to sent such a complaint by certified mail had not been delivered according to USPS (as in intercepted). All of the complaints that were submitted by FBI and DHS to that oversight committee involved Muslim complainants without much in the way of evidence to support them. In other words, just a bunch of disgruntled fundamentalists with nothing better to do than complain about America's Heroes vigilantly protecting the Homeland.
There were plenty of other voices objecting to the Patriot Act, those found at this link for example, http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/1022/49/ but to this day I have yet to see the comments of any individual. Without getting to far into "government conspiracy" territory here, it seems a bit difficult to believe that out of a couple million people no one has ever complained in a public forum, and therefore it also occurred to me that to even discuss a Patriot Act investigation, any indication that it ever occurred, is illegal and punishable by up to five years in prison.
The obvious question then, knowing that the Fourth Amendment has been obviated by the Patriot Act, that restrictions on search and seizure no longer apply is, has the First Amendment also been obviated? In other words, is the hijacking of my communications, which I can prove, the direct result of the illegal use of Patriot Act powers long past the 360 days authorized by law? Or put another way, is the subject itself illegal to discuss, here or anywhere else, and the fact that I am discussing these issues constitute a violation of Patriot Act provisions in the opinion of America's Heroes?
Just asking. But to those who haven't read the Patriot Act, don't make a fool out of yourself by "debating" with those of us who have.
© humble journalist
Note to the judiciary: To protect against the possibility of "Bobbleheads" claiming credit for my work, there are several "traps" within the text and style that are intended to disprove any such claims. However, when I discuss these subjects, I am careful to only make statements that are consistent with that which I have documentation to support, those things that remain in my possession. No one but myself could possibly be aware of that documentation in detail or in its entirety, nor could they be cognizant of the sequence that I have followed to arrive at the conclusions that were intended when I wrote "Questioning the Internet" in October of 2009
However, my observations might only be another example of the "IP Scam" in progress; the false attribution of text to your humble writer from another computer using the same IP. This has been almost a constant as far as the use of public computers, often the CLEO stooges timing their log-ons and log-offs almost perfectly by observing from close range. Of course, there is no way to prove that any print produced from a common printer or IP isn't the product of anyone else within a group, but there have always been indications that it was occurring, usually the timing of the prints being made, the stooge activity associated with it, so I've simply pointed out that using public computers for any illegal purpose, especially knowing CLEO scams are always in progress, would be stupid, and I am not stupid.
It is a sad commentary that after all the thefts of tangible property, identity fraud, and memorabilia, my accounts and intellectual property have also been subjected to malicious hacking, or that others would see it as necessary to claim credit for my work such that a phony "profile" could become plausible. But I have also learned to expect this sort of conduct from those that I have criticized; the only people capable of stealing passwords while I'm restrained; those who also have a motive to make those alterations and deletions.
(A program called "LogMeIn" that allows for remote access was apparently installed on the public computer I used to write this essay. I'm not sure why a public facility would allow for remote access to computers, but it would allow for the type of illegal access to accounts which is discussed in an earlier essay when I was assessing the damage to storage media and the alterations and deletions that resulted from illegal access. I have disabled the function, but since then, even more alterations and deletions to text were discovered).
This link returns to Essay 101: http://burgersonly.hubpages.com/hub/essay101
And to Essay 135 which reviews federal law pertaining to many of the occurrences described: http://burgersonly.hubpages.com/hub/essay135
No comments:
Post a Comment