As I continue to watch CLEO stooges mimic my essays, another point has been validated; that law enforcement can effectively "criminalize" any sort of activity they please as long as maintain control over the environment (as well as the vehicles and devices necessary to support CLEO storylines). In a previous essay I pointed out that it appeared that nothing I could possibly do, waiting for a bus, sitting in a park, having a cup of coffee, taking a piss, or writing these essays, was exempt from some sort of police response or report, subject to "investigation" by cops, even though the premises were always bogus. This authority to "investigate" and accuse is an insidious thing, because it has been obvious for years that the power not to prosecute was the source of power for the PMAPS as it pertains to their own, other prosecutors, public officials and law enforcement personnel. The power to accuse is a source of power for these demigods because it provides a weapon and the shield for those that wield it. Therefore, they are accountable to no one while they possess this power, this authority, certainly not the other Prosecutors Mutual Admiration and Protective Society members.
This is why the Founders thought it was so important to provide for a free press, and the First Amendment was supposed to guarantee that this provision was never abridged by Congress. There were many reasons for this, but a cursory glance at American history shows that government has never been prone to policing itself, nor is it capable of doing so effectively. Government officials, especially those in law enforcement, are continually finding ways to preclude public scrutiny of their activity, (some of the evidence can be found below in the first essay inre Brown Act violations). The Patriot Act effectively precluding any scrutiny over law enforcement and it didn't take long before they proved the "Trust me, I'm a cop" premise was ridiculously misplaced.
As soon as the first of these essays was posted, malicious attacks on the account and the URL began. A quick check of the IP revealed that the ISP was Global Crossing. Another reference check reminded me that Global Crossing was the same outfit that had paid George H.W. Bush in stock for a speaking engagement, which he converted into a $3.5 million cash redemption. Now there was nothing illegal about it. If someone were to pay me in stock in their publishing company for the rights to my book, for instance, I would consider the offer based on an assessment of the company's potential and future earnings. The former President was no longer in office when he was compensated for the speech, nor was the $50,000 out of line for speakers of his status. But at the same time, the function of journalists in a free society has always been to report and comment on these things, to allow the reader to make their own determinations, to provide the substance for dialog, and to frame the debates that are necessary to maintain a healthy, open democracy.
At the point just after the first version of the Patriot Act was passed, all of a sudden we had "secret police" that were investigating anyone they decided was a "suspect" of espionage or treason. Consider for a moment what you would do if you found yourself at a baseball stadium filled with 46,000 fans, and the person sitting next to you said, "You know, I think everyone in this stadium is a spy, plotting to destroy the United States!" That's right. You'd go speak with security and ask the usher to allow you to move to another seat.
But that's exactly what the "Secret Police" did in 2006, and every year since 2001, when they arbitrarily decided that tens of thousands of Americans were "suspects" and used that suspicion to wield "Secret Police" authority and investigative powers against them, all without the participation of any judicial officials, without any scrutiny whatsoever of their tactics, their motives or the results. In fact, what we found out later was that FBI was indeed illegally serving exigent letters, thousands of phony instruments that were used to confiscate property and records under the auspices of Patriot Act powers despite lacking the authority to do so when they served those letters. And every year since the Patriot Act was passed, similar violations have occurred, but how is anyone going to know when the fundamental premise of these "investigations" are to maintain secrecy? The Senate has no means of holding anyone accountable for violations in a meaningful sense, and in fact have a shared incentive to overlook abuses. The Senate doesn't even have the power to withhold funds from DHS for violations, so the term "oversight" is almost meaningless.
But this is the law, and what I have pointed out, along with many legal scholars and federal judges, is that you can't have a Constitution of a Bill of Rights and the Patriot Act at the same time. The are contradictory, in direct opposition to each other, because the Founders made no provision for "Secret Police" or any secretive investigations conducted against American citizens without some sort of participation and oversight by the judicial branch. In fact, they tried to make sure the exact opposite was beyond abridgement. "Congress shall make no law . . . " seems to be fairly conclusive as far as intent, yet the Patriot Act undermines the premise, obviates it in fact, to the point where the rest of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is rendered meaningless as well.
The reason I've pointed this out is because the "Preachers" that stood before the general population and told them they had to sacrifice their civil rights for security, have been eagerly supported by the "Punks" who in my experience are the "Goons and Cowards" who benefit from this increased power. Law enforcement and military slime not subject to prosecution or even accountability. As I've observed the reckless, stupid, destructive behavior of America's Heroes, especially the Hags that have earned my contempt, I've tried to refine their behavior and conduct to a single pseudonym, and after watching how they function in a civilian environment, there is no better description. Overgrown punks with nothing resembling a moral compass or common decency in their genes. And so this defect is passed along to their progeny, and when I see little twits like the cowardly, worm-like wanna-be cop, lurking in a restroom for harassment duty, I'm often reminded that the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree; that "military brats" grow up to be "military slime" because their is nothing in the civilian realm that they value above their allegiance to their own ilk, their own kind.
When the Constitution was forged, there was a discussion about whether a standing army was necessary, whether a reserve force, an organized militia, wouldn't be adequate to protect and defend the nation. Up until 1945, when the U.S. proved that tactical nuclear capability ended a lot of disputes before they began, there was reason to support the notion of a standing army, a military capable of responding to threats to the "Homeland" as it were. This is no longer the case, and if one looks with an objective eye at the the results and the costs associated with maintaining 5 million active personnel, the 23 million in-actives that require care and feeding, and the residual costs incurred by their ineptitude, misconduct and failures, perhaps it's time to revisit that debate.
© humble journalist
To go to the next essay, follow this link: http://gop4sale.blogspot.com/
Friday, August 19, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
"We Are America, Not You"
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
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
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
"Look, Your Honor!"
So while law enforcement is using computer printouts as "evidence" in court, printouts that could be bogus phone records, bank statements, criminal history or anything else that serves their purposes, they also know that their own systems are hopelessly flawed. I have maintained, for good reason, that all of this started with an ex-Marine cop copying DMV photos and pasting them into an ill-conceived, and fraudulent, arrest and booking report. I am also convinced, based on the evidence provided by the court records associated with the DA Number Scam perpetrated by San Diego County D.A. Paul "Pffft", that it was intentional and part of a collaborative effort. There is no other way to interpret the available records (and the lack of those that would support the contention that the "arrests" described by "Book-em' Dan-O" Lasher ever took place). I also noted that there is a database entry that is completely fabricated, an "active" case that never occurred, period.
Even if one were to subtract the evidence suggesting a collaborative effort, and the motives and affiliations of those involved, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have essentially admitted that they have no control over their databases or systems anyway. In other words, for all I know my alleged "criminal history" became several pages larger while I wrote the previous essay. After all, if two people can have the same DA number despite the fact none of the descriptive data is consistent, despite the fact one is deceased, despite the fact one appeared in court to properly adjudicate those issues, then what exactly is it that law enforcement can claim to be accurate as far as the "evidence" they are presenting to the judiciary? What are those court orders worth if the D.A. goes back to his office and obviates them with a few keystrokes?
For the sake of emphasis, I will repeat that the bogus phone records that remain in my possession were clearly derived from a counterfeit website, the result of DNS redirection and twenty minutes later, the offshore telecom was refusing to provide accurate internal records at their retail outlet. Why should they care if the bogus records only serve the purposes of law enforcement? They have immunity from civil liability. The only bank records associated with an account that could be attributed to me, an account with my signature at least, also included alterations and deletions, just like every other Internet-based source I've ever used, including the account where the previous essays were published, and unfortunately my G-mail account as well.
And while I've been pointing these things out, horrific stories about the consequences suffered by others who were victimized by corrupt files, malicious code and the other consequences of illegal access to their property or accounts continue to be reported on a daily basis. So while it's unfortunate that law enforcement and government agencies have no control over their databases or systems, they will not be the ones that suffer the consequences. As usual. And if you read "Questioning the Internet" you'll find quotes from their own people predicting that their systems were not designed or capable of anything resembling security or "resiliency" in the future. So the future arrived, it ain't pretty, and the Cyber-Boss quit.
For the rest of us, especially those of us who have been targeted by CLEOs, Public Servants and Corporate Stooges that enjoy exclusive access to those databases and control over what they produce in the way of "evidence" that serve their purposes of CLEOs, the situation is even uglier. I have no control, for instance, over the appearances by CLEO stooges, posers, script-readers or proxies, (or the harassment by military slime and those same CLEO stooges). But I also know that law enforcement has the ability to subtract property, and among the Magnificent Ironies, the ability and the motive to falsely attribute Abandoned Shopping Bags, cell phones, e-mails, Internet postings, and records which are nothing more than printouts or contrivances produced with a personal computer, a scanner or a copy machine. Things I may never see or know exist.
They can do this primarily because they have already stolen all of my belongings, everything most people consider personal to them, and maintain possession of them. Why would they acknowledge that they were stolen when all of those things become vehicles for CLEO storylines as Bonnie Dumanis, County Hag Ms. Honey and San Diego County Sheriff Deputies proved when they staged that CLEO Award-winning production of an arrest of their own stooge using stolen property as a device to bring bogus charges?
But as we follow this imprecise path towards the points of significance, the evidence of which I believe is compelling, and in some cases conclusive, CLEOs, their stooges and the news often supply support. The link below, the appearance of an Abandoned Cell Phone, the use of bogus discount cards by retailers, and the parade of CLEO stooges, posers and script-readers, have all been noted. So its just another day in the CLEO Alternate Universe where CLEO "credibility" is the only physical law that applies to anything that occurs within it.
But how can they maintain that their own databases are accurate, how do they call those records "evidence" in a judicial environment when a bunch of junior hackers are making fools out of them and their systems?
When I wrote "Questioning the Internet" almost two years ago, it didn't take long before I saw CLEO stooges engaging in proximity poses and the affectations suggestive of illegal activity. It took me a few months to realize that many of them were wearing black hats, and a while longer to associate it with the name of the informal group of Super Geeks I mentioned in that piece. Since then, just about everything I've written about has been mimicked by CLEO stooges. For instance, I've pointed out that people with no money have a limited number of destinations available to them, especially those that like to write which requires a computer. I've made references to places like Burger King because of an ambush by underage teens who walked out displaying cigarettes that they brought with them, a common CLEO tactic. I've made references to many places and things for their value as enhancements common to anyone who uses the language creatively, none of them intended as anything other than metaphorical references.
And along the way, whether it was the Mr. Blackwell outfits, the cammy gear, or a stop at a fast food outlet, I couldn't help but wondering whether somewhere a Crooked Law Enforcement Official was telling a judge, "Look, Your Honor, he's at a fast food place just like it says here! This must be a secret code!" Or, "Look, Your Honor! There's another suspicious-looking character with a black hat! This can't be a coincidence." Of course it can't be a coincidence, there's too many of them, and not a single one of the CLEO stooges has any way of knowing where I might be at a certain time unless CLEOs are telling them, especially on short notice, like when I decide to wait for a bus, or stop for a cup of coffee, or simply to rest for a few minutes.
On one occasion, I glanced at a newspaper on a rack and a guy in a black hat no less, came rushing into the establishment, took out a piece of paper at tried to make it appear he retrieved it from the newspaper on the rack. I never touched the newspaper, only glanced at the headline, but this CLEO stooge was outside ready to spring into action to affect the portrayal that he had recovered a piece of paper. Who stages this stuff? Who sits around waiting for a guy to glance at a newspaper anyway? And how did he know I would even bother to glance at it from outside? This is CLEO bullshit, so someone observing told him when to spring into action to affect the portrayal, and to act as a boomerang for a piece of paper that he brought with him.
So for the nearly two years I've been posting these essays, for lack of another means of reporting the offenses described, those things that law enforcement has adamantly refused to acknowledge, I can't help but wondering if judges and the rest of the population are as stupid as CLEOs want them to be. I only point this out because it has been apparent for some time that every CLEO scam I've discovered and described is reliant on this assumption. I'm stupid, the judiciary is stupid, the general population is stupid, and all of us only exist for the benefit of their storylines and their agenda.
Moments after I wrote the essay above, the CLEO stooges, which are easy to identify because of their costumes, movements and recitals, sprang into action just in time to be recorded on video by two passing patrol cars, all the characters synchronized with my exit. Is this stuff for real? Black hats, phony poses for passing patrol cars, comical affectations and recitals? Is every word I write or utter in public supposed to become part of a CLEO storyline, a secret code scenario, a super-devious, ultra covert attempt to break the law such that CLEOs can come up with a plausible scenario that somehow resembles a legitimate law enforcement endeavor? Something other than a Perpetual Investigation that will never end until your humble writer is precluded from critical assessment of law enforcement practices and certain public officials?
The reason I ask is that these subjects would have never been examined closely had it not been for a CLEO agenda that included falsifications and thefts, the response being even more falsifications and thefts. The Big Law Dog could have accepted a theft report and then trashed it a few minutes later. I have only followed the path of documentation and evidence, just like any other investigative journalist. I have only asked the questions that were begging for answers, just like any other investigative journalist. And if you trace all of this back to the source, the point of origin, you'll find a common thief ("Igor"), an crooked ex-Marine cop, and a bunch of ex-military idiots that should have been prosecuted for their criminal conduct long before others like myself, my mother and the rest of the population, including those in the law enforcement community, became obliged to pay the price for their recklessness, stupidity and their destructive natural tendencies.
So now law enforcement has to have people follow me in costumes wherever I go, posing for staged photos, talking about illegal activity as if to prove what I've been saying is 100% accurate. That law enforcement will never admit that one of their members falsified a report. Instead, they are willing to falsify a thousand more reports to make the bogus one appear to be true, despite the fact that according to the physical laws of the Singular Universe, it is impossible. That they are much more inclined to commit a series of felonies to cover up a single misdemeanor than they are to admit the misdemeanor when it involves one of their own. And the end-all solution to anything that they refer to as "causing trouble" is to make accusations, restrain, detain, steal.
The number of accusations made against me, the unrelenting barrage that has followed me since I became destitute due to the criminal acts described here, is truly amazing. No one, especially someone who puts so much effort into avoiding people and situations that almost always result in police responses, complaints or ambushes, could possibly commit so many offenses unless they set out to establish a world record.
All I can say to the military slime that caused this, and the civilian law enforcement personnel that seem obliged to cover it up, is that you should tell the idiots that thought of this scam that they should have picked a guy who wasn't liable to write a f**cking book about it. You should have picked a guy that wasn't a top English and grammar student at every level of his education because his mother was a literary scholar and a professional English teacher. You should have picked a guy, that left to his own devices, without any inclination to spend his time collecting aluminum cans or drinking out of a brown paper bag, wouldn't spend it writing about his experiences, something he was naturally inclined to do since birth. You should have picked a guy a lot closer to the actual profile of the late Michael E. Bartley.
That's how I know the people that conceived the elements of this scam must be ex-military. No one else could possibly be that stupid. And if anyone else is actually stupid enough to think that CLEO stooges are performing for anyone but CLEOs and the military slime that often direct them, I'll sure be interested to find out how it is supposed to make any sense, especially without profit or motive. But if the intention is only to be annoying, to supplement the other forms of harassment, that would be even less of a surprise than a quasi-plausible CLEO storyline.
© humble journalist
Just for the record, it is my opinion that Burger King ranks at or near the bottom of the fast food chains. Their food is crap, not fit for human consumption as far as I'm concerned. Of course, if I had a choice, I'd be preparing my own meals, making my own coffee, and I would never set foot in another fast food franchise unless it was the last and only option short of starvation. I wouldn't be writing on a crummy public computer either, knowing that that the servers were controlled by Public Servants who have demonstrated on many occasions their contempt for me and my presence, and who have consistently provided access to those responsible for the corruption of my storage media, alterations and deletions to text, and the theft of passwords that facilitated it.
Nor would you find me in any other public place, subject to the antics of CLEO stooges that rely on knowledge of my location, the positioning of surveillance devices and law enforcement personnel to affect their portrayals, and subjected to the idiocy of nose-picking half-wits that complain about my attitude, conveniently ignoring harassment by CLEO stooges and military slime.
Nor would I be writing an extended version of what started off as a two-page theft report at all. But at least Steve Cooley can't say there was never a theft report.
Even if one were to subtract the evidence suggesting a collaborative effort, and the motives and affiliations of those involved, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have essentially admitted that they have no control over their databases or systems anyway. In other words, for all I know my alleged "criminal history" became several pages larger while I wrote the previous essay. After all, if two people can have the same DA number despite the fact none of the descriptive data is consistent, despite the fact one is deceased, despite the fact one appeared in court to properly adjudicate those issues, then what exactly is it that law enforcement can claim to be accurate as far as the "evidence" they are presenting to the judiciary? What are those court orders worth if the D.A. goes back to his office and obviates them with a few keystrokes?
For the sake of emphasis, I will repeat that the bogus phone records that remain in my possession were clearly derived from a counterfeit website, the result of DNS redirection and twenty minutes later, the offshore telecom was refusing to provide accurate internal records at their retail outlet. Why should they care if the bogus records only serve the purposes of law enforcement? They have immunity from civil liability. The only bank records associated with an account that could be attributed to me, an account with my signature at least, also included alterations and deletions, just like every other Internet-based source I've ever used, including the account where the previous essays were published, and unfortunately my G-mail account as well.
And while I've been pointing these things out, horrific stories about the consequences suffered by others who were victimized by corrupt files, malicious code and the other consequences of illegal access to their property or accounts continue to be reported on a daily basis. So while it's unfortunate that law enforcement and government agencies have no control over their databases or systems, they will not be the ones that suffer the consequences. As usual. And if you read "Questioning the Internet" you'll find quotes from their own people predicting that their systems were not designed or capable of anything resembling security or "resiliency" in the future. So the future arrived, it ain't pretty, and the Cyber-Boss quit.
For the rest of us, especially those of us who have been targeted by CLEOs, Public Servants and Corporate Stooges that enjoy exclusive access to those databases and control over what they produce in the way of "evidence" that serve their purposes of CLEOs, the situation is even uglier. I have no control, for instance, over the appearances by CLEO stooges, posers, script-readers or proxies, (or the harassment by military slime and those same CLEO stooges). But I also know that law enforcement has the ability to subtract property, and among the Magnificent Ironies, the ability and the motive to falsely attribute Abandoned Shopping Bags, cell phones, e-mails, Internet postings, and records which are nothing more than printouts or contrivances produced with a personal computer, a scanner or a copy machine. Things I may never see or know exist.
They can do this primarily because they have already stolen all of my belongings, everything most people consider personal to them, and maintain possession of them. Why would they acknowledge that they were stolen when all of those things become vehicles for CLEO storylines as Bonnie Dumanis, County Hag Ms. Honey and San Diego County Sheriff Deputies proved when they staged that CLEO Award-winning production of an arrest of their own stooge using stolen property as a device to bring bogus charges?
But as we follow this imprecise path towards the points of significance, the evidence of which I believe is compelling, and in some cases conclusive, CLEOs, their stooges and the news often supply support. The link below, the appearance of an Abandoned Cell Phone, the use of bogus discount cards by retailers, and the parade of CLEO stooges, posers and script-readers, have all been noted. So its just another day in the CLEO Alternate Universe where CLEO "credibility" is the only physical law that applies to anything that occurs within it.
But how can they maintain that their own databases are accurate, how do they call those records "evidence" in a judicial environment when a bunch of junior hackers are making fools out of them and their systems?
When I wrote "Questioning the Internet" almost two years ago, it didn't take long before I saw CLEO stooges engaging in proximity poses and the affectations suggestive of illegal activity. It took me a few months to realize that many of them were wearing black hats, and a while longer to associate it with the name of the informal group of Super Geeks I mentioned in that piece. Since then, just about everything I've written about has been mimicked by CLEO stooges. For instance, I've pointed out that people with no money have a limited number of destinations available to them, especially those that like to write which requires a computer. I've made references to places like Burger King because of an ambush by underage teens who walked out displaying cigarettes that they brought with them, a common CLEO tactic. I've made references to many places and things for their value as enhancements common to anyone who uses the language creatively, none of them intended as anything other than metaphorical references.
And along the way, whether it was the Mr. Blackwell outfits, the cammy gear, or a stop at a fast food outlet, I couldn't help but wondering whether somewhere a Crooked Law Enforcement Official was telling a judge, "Look, Your Honor, he's at a fast food place just like it says here! This must be a secret code!" Or, "Look, Your Honor! There's another suspicious-looking character with a black hat! This can't be a coincidence." Of course it can't be a coincidence, there's too many of them, and not a single one of the CLEO stooges has any way of knowing where I might be at a certain time unless CLEOs are telling them, especially on short notice, like when I decide to wait for a bus, or stop for a cup of coffee, or simply to rest for a few minutes.
On one occasion, I glanced at a newspaper on a rack and a guy in a black hat no less, came rushing into the establishment, took out a piece of paper at tried to make it appear he retrieved it from the newspaper on the rack. I never touched the newspaper, only glanced at the headline, but this CLEO stooge was outside ready to spring into action to affect the portrayal that he had recovered a piece of paper. Who stages this stuff? Who sits around waiting for a guy to glance at a newspaper anyway? And how did he know I would even bother to glance at it from outside? This is CLEO bullshit, so someone observing told him when to spring into action to affect the portrayal, and to act as a boomerang for a piece of paper that he brought with him.
So for the nearly two years I've been posting these essays, for lack of another means of reporting the offenses described, those things that law enforcement has adamantly refused to acknowledge, I can't help but wondering if judges and the rest of the population are as stupid as CLEOs want them to be. I only point this out because it has been apparent for some time that every CLEO scam I've discovered and described is reliant on this assumption. I'm stupid, the judiciary is stupid, the general population is stupid, and all of us only exist for the benefit of their storylines and their agenda.
Moments after I wrote the essay above, the CLEO stooges, which are easy to identify because of their costumes, movements and recitals, sprang into action just in time to be recorded on video by two passing patrol cars, all the characters synchronized with my exit. Is this stuff for real? Black hats, phony poses for passing patrol cars, comical affectations and recitals? Is every word I write or utter in public supposed to become part of a CLEO storyline, a secret code scenario, a super-devious, ultra covert attempt to break the law such that CLEOs can come up with a plausible scenario that somehow resembles a legitimate law enforcement endeavor? Something other than a Perpetual Investigation that will never end until your humble writer is precluded from critical assessment of law enforcement practices and certain public officials?
The reason I ask is that these subjects would have never been examined closely had it not been for a CLEO agenda that included falsifications and thefts, the response being even more falsifications and thefts. The Big Law Dog could have accepted a theft report and then trashed it a few minutes later. I have only followed the path of documentation and evidence, just like any other investigative journalist. I have only asked the questions that were begging for answers, just like any other investigative journalist. And if you trace all of this back to the source, the point of origin, you'll find a common thief ("Igor"), an crooked ex-Marine cop, and a bunch of ex-military idiots that should have been prosecuted for their criminal conduct long before others like myself, my mother and the rest of the population, including those in the law enforcement community, became obliged to pay the price for their recklessness, stupidity and their destructive natural tendencies.
So now law enforcement has to have people follow me in costumes wherever I go, posing for staged photos, talking about illegal activity as if to prove what I've been saying is 100% accurate. That law enforcement will never admit that one of their members falsified a report. Instead, they are willing to falsify a thousand more reports to make the bogus one appear to be true, despite the fact that according to the physical laws of the Singular Universe, it is impossible. That they are much more inclined to commit a series of felonies to cover up a single misdemeanor than they are to admit the misdemeanor when it involves one of their own. And the end-all solution to anything that they refer to as "causing trouble" is to make accusations, restrain, detain, steal.
The number of accusations made against me, the unrelenting barrage that has followed me since I became destitute due to the criminal acts described here, is truly amazing. No one, especially someone who puts so much effort into avoiding people and situations that almost always result in police responses, complaints or ambushes, could possibly commit so many offenses unless they set out to establish a world record.
All I can say to the military slime that caused this, and the civilian law enforcement personnel that seem obliged to cover it up, is that you should tell the idiots that thought of this scam that they should have picked a guy who wasn't liable to write a f**cking book about it. You should have picked a guy that wasn't a top English and grammar student at every level of his education because his mother was a literary scholar and a professional English teacher. You should have picked a guy, that left to his own devices, without any inclination to spend his time collecting aluminum cans or drinking out of a brown paper bag, wouldn't spend it writing about his experiences, something he was naturally inclined to do since birth. You should have picked a guy a lot closer to the actual profile of the late Michael E. Bartley.
That's how I know the people that conceived the elements of this scam must be ex-military. No one else could possibly be that stupid. And if anyone else is actually stupid enough to think that CLEO stooges are performing for anyone but CLEOs and the military slime that often direct them, I'll sure be interested to find out how it is supposed to make any sense, especially without profit or motive. But if the intention is only to be annoying, to supplement the other forms of harassment, that would be even less of a surprise than a quasi-plausible CLEO storyline.
© humble journalist
Just for the record, it is my opinion that Burger King ranks at or near the bottom of the fast food chains. Their food is crap, not fit for human consumption as far as I'm concerned. Of course, if I had a choice, I'd be preparing my own meals, making my own coffee, and I would never set foot in another fast food franchise unless it was the last and only option short of starvation. I wouldn't be writing on a crummy public computer either, knowing that that the servers were controlled by Public Servants who have demonstrated on many occasions their contempt for me and my presence, and who have consistently provided access to those responsible for the corruption of my storage media, alterations and deletions to text, and the theft of passwords that facilitated it.
Nor would you find me in any other public place, subject to the antics of CLEO stooges that rely on knowledge of my location, the positioning of surveillance devices and law enforcement personnel to affect their portrayals, and subjected to the idiocy of nose-picking half-wits that complain about my attitude, conveniently ignoring harassment by CLEO stooges and military slime.
Nor would I be writing an extended version of what started off as a two-page theft report at all. But at least Steve Cooley can't say there was never a theft report.
Theft Report
To simplify and summarize the first 137 essays, it was the theft of personal property that resulted in the late Michael E. Bartley acquiring two fraudulent IDs courtesy of the California DMV which at the time had plenty of data and photos to prevent it had they chosen to do so. Many other thefts occurred both before and after the issuance of those IDs, all of which would have to be construed as evidence of the various scams that progressed from that point. On May 4, 2007 I was relieved of two IDs, one a California driver's license that was current and valid between 2000-04 by Orange County Sheriff Deputy Johnston. Two days later, I became aware that Kevin M. Cimarusti had stolen the rest of my property from my mother's residence, that which remained from those things that he had stolen previously, which included just about every item that I'd acquired since childhood. Authorities with jurisdiction took no action, and in fact chose not to acknowledge the report of those thefts. When I attempted to report the thefts, I was detained, which resulted in the theft and corruption of my remaining belongings.
Not long after that, ex-Marine David S. Mack, stole personal property and replaced documents and storage media with corrupted versions of those that were stolen. After that, County of Los Angeles officials provided themselves with access to my belongings which resulted in the theft of property. After that San Diego law enforcement officials stopped me on one occasion which resulted in more missing items after the stop. After that, an ex-Navy couple ransacked my belongings which resulted in theft and destruction of many items that would constitute evidence of previous criminality on the part of military personnel.
After that, L.A. County law enforcement officials ordered me away from my property and to face a wall while they "searched" my belongings. I cannot be certain what may have been taken or replaced, but storage media, specifically some CDs appeared to be switched. The same law enforcement officials have stopped me on other occasions, the most recent being May 3, 2011, when I was restrained and relieved of my possessions, which of course resulted in the theft of property. On two occasions, thefts of documentation and personal property occurred at the State of California EDD offices, and on another occasion officials ordered me to establish an online account against my wishes. Other thefts have occurred at facilities funded by agencies that apparently perceive civil or criminal liability, and still others occurred by personnel who appeared to affiliated with the military or law enforcement.
And along the way, many complaints have been made by America's Heroes and Public Servants, some of them bizarre in their speciousness, but all of them appear to be connected to falsified reports by law enforcement officials or other complaints made by America's Heroes and Public Servants previously. No formal charges have ever been made against me (that weren't dropped or dismissed), nor were the alleged "arrests" described by "Book-em Dan-O" Lasher known to me, which precluded any opportunity to dispute their validity, however on the many occasions when Accusing Fingers have conspicuously arrived to make an allegation, either property was removed or some sort of report was made that did not include my input or rebuttal.
In other words, no person that has made a complaint has ever done so in a manner that would allow me to dispute it either in person or in a judicial environment. The rest of the time, the complaint has been about my "attitude" or some other form of baseless, contrived, but transparently purposeful allegation., the report itself the only indication that any such occurrence took place, the complainants managing to maintain anonymity for the purpose of concealing their affiliations. However, it has become obvious over the last several years, based on the activities of law enforcement personnel and proxies, that the reports of the thefts described above will not be officially acknowledged. In fact, it would appear that law enforcement officials have decided that they will relieve me of my remaining possessions using the same devices and tactics, the vast majority of which include documentation that supports these essays, insuring that the destitution caused by the criminal misconduct of other law enforcement officials does not become known to the judiciary or the general population.
It has also been rather obvious that every element, every component of the various law enforcement storylines, as well as every theft that constituted destruction of evidence or obstruction was perpetrated by a very narrow segment of the population, approximately 10% which include ex-military personnel, law enforcement officials and their immediate relatives. How the other 90% was somehow excluded from a sequence of events that spans more than twenty years, I find to be revealing, not particularly surprising once one understands the motives and the affiliations of those involved.
From this point, and for those who have not read the previous essays, we can proceed with the technical aspects of all of this, the motives of the characters, the money trail back to the perpetrators, the contrivances, misrepresentations and falsifications by law enforcement personnel, and the implications of these things as they pertain to the Constitution and contemporary society. And for those that have read the previous essays, a new CLEO scam has surfaced that I will refer to as the Abandoned Cell Phone Scam in the future (although the title probably serves as an adequate description). More proof that a CLEO scam is always in progress regardless of my location or my activity.
© 2011 humble journalist
The first essay on these subjects was titled "Questioning the Internet" which can be found at http://hubpages.com/hub/humblejournalist. Since then, content was redirected to a malicious URL, the bogus content attributed to me for obvious reasons (false attribution). On many occasions since, I have noted that text was altered or removed, (note the swath that was cut from Essay 97 at http://hubpages.com/hub/essay97). All of the examples of illegal access and tampering appear to share a common purpose, a motive, for the particular alteration, deletion or redirect. All of them hostile and malicious without question. So I will continue, making the best attempt to maintain integrity and accuracy, but also knowing that for the reasons described in "Questioning the Internet" that this is, for all practical purposes, an impossible task, and apparently law enforcement shares that view:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/26/us-cyber-security-chief-quits
Not long after that, ex-Marine David S. Mack, stole personal property and replaced documents and storage media with corrupted versions of those that were stolen. After that, County of Los Angeles officials provided themselves with access to my belongings which resulted in the theft of property. After that San Diego law enforcement officials stopped me on one occasion which resulted in more missing items after the stop. After that, an ex-Navy couple ransacked my belongings which resulted in theft and destruction of many items that would constitute evidence of previous criminality on the part of military personnel.
After that, L.A. County law enforcement officials ordered me away from my property and to face a wall while they "searched" my belongings. I cannot be certain what may have been taken or replaced, but storage media, specifically some CDs appeared to be switched. The same law enforcement officials have stopped me on other occasions, the most recent being May 3, 2011, when I was restrained and relieved of my possessions, which of course resulted in the theft of property. On two occasions, thefts of documentation and personal property occurred at the State of California EDD offices, and on another occasion officials ordered me to establish an online account against my wishes. Other thefts have occurred at facilities funded by agencies that apparently perceive civil or criminal liability, and still others occurred by personnel who appeared to affiliated with the military or law enforcement.
And along the way, many complaints have been made by America's Heroes and Public Servants, some of them bizarre in their speciousness, but all of them appear to be connected to falsified reports by law enforcement officials or other complaints made by America's Heroes and Public Servants previously. No formal charges have ever been made against me (that weren't dropped or dismissed), nor were the alleged "arrests" described by "Book-em Dan-O" Lasher known to me, which precluded any opportunity to dispute their validity, however on the many occasions when Accusing Fingers have conspicuously arrived to make an allegation, either property was removed or some sort of report was made that did not include my input or rebuttal.
In other words, no person that has made a complaint has ever done so in a manner that would allow me to dispute it either in person or in a judicial environment. The rest of the time, the complaint has been about my "attitude" or some other form of baseless, contrived, but transparently purposeful allegation., the report itself the only indication that any such occurrence took place, the complainants managing to maintain anonymity for the purpose of concealing their affiliations. However, it has become obvious over the last several years, based on the activities of law enforcement personnel and proxies, that the reports of the thefts described above will not be officially acknowledged. In fact, it would appear that law enforcement officials have decided that they will relieve me of my remaining possessions using the same devices and tactics, the vast majority of which include documentation that supports these essays, insuring that the destitution caused by the criminal misconduct of other law enforcement officials does not become known to the judiciary or the general population.
It has also been rather obvious that every element, every component of the various law enforcement storylines, as well as every theft that constituted destruction of evidence or obstruction was perpetrated by a very narrow segment of the population, approximately 10% which include ex-military personnel, law enforcement officials and their immediate relatives. How the other 90% was somehow excluded from a sequence of events that spans more than twenty years, I find to be revealing, not particularly surprising once one understands the motives and the affiliations of those involved.
From this point, and for those who have not read the previous essays, we can proceed with the technical aspects of all of this, the motives of the characters, the money trail back to the perpetrators, the contrivances, misrepresentations and falsifications by law enforcement personnel, and the implications of these things as they pertain to the Constitution and contemporary society. And for those that have read the previous essays, a new CLEO scam has surfaced that I will refer to as the Abandoned Cell Phone Scam in the future (although the title probably serves as an adequate description). More proof that a CLEO scam is always in progress regardless of my location or my activity.
© 2011 humble journalist
The first essay on these subjects was titled "Questioning the Internet" which can be found at http://hubpages.com/hub/humblejournalist. Since then, content was redirected to a malicious URL, the bogus content attributed to me for obvious reasons (false attribution). On many occasions since, I have noted that text was altered or removed, (note the swath that was cut from Essay 97 at http://hubpages.com/hub/essay97). All of the examples of illegal access and tampering appear to share a common purpose, a motive, for the particular alteration, deletion or redirect. All of them hostile and malicious without question. So I will continue, making the best attempt to maintain integrity and accuracy, but also knowing that for the reasons described in "Questioning the Internet" that this is, for all practical purposes, an impossible task, and apparently law enforcement shares that view:
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Benefits v. Boondoggles
I have commented on the Social Security issue in a manner that could be construed as critical of the system, but those that I've quoted on the subject were bipartisan representatives selected to articulate that which both Democrats and Republicans have avoided acknowledging for decades. The economists that said "Fix Social Security" could have also said "Save Social Security" because as far as I'm concerned, they are the same. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that raiding the Trust Fund constituted embezzlement twenty years ago, he was right. It should have never happened, and if it hadn't been for military expenditures associated with the Vietnam War, it may not have. President Johnson came up with the idea of a "unified budget" to disguise the cost of that war in 1968. The debts incurred henceforth became known as "off budget" expenditures, or put another way, the practice of using Trust Fund surpluses to hide the size of the overall federal deficit became known as "Intra-Governmental Holdings of Debt" (which is what President George W. Bush presented when he opened a file cabinet full of IOUs to illustrate the problem).
Harry Reid now says that the situation won't become a problem for another twenty years, but the downgrading of U.S. Treasury bonds can only be interpreted as the writing on the wall. Sure, you can wait for twenty years and keep borrowing a trillion and a half dollars a year for the next twenty years, but Standard and Poors was essentially telling Mr. Reid and other politicians that besides accruing massive interest payments on that debt, there are other costs associated with that policy. Mr. Reid is also correct when he says that is remains a "successful program" in the sense that it has provided a reliable source of income for those who can no longer earn it, exactly as intended.
Unfortunately, when FDR unveiled the program, he also said that no one would ever pay more than one percent of their paycheck into the Trust Fund and that occurred at a time when life expectancy was around 63 years. Both assumptions for the future of the system proved to be out of whack, and to compound the problem many seniors are living comfortably on retirement income that exceeds the average worker who is paying into the system. This makes the entire subject rather difficult to debate in terms of fairness, so the debate never takes place, at least not in a meaningful sense. (But we do know that the widows of coal miners and fisherman lost at sea are not starving in the streets because of the loss of their loved ones as was the case in the 1930's. They have been replaced by journalists who criticize public officials).
There are some very clear choices that could be made to alleviate the pressure on the Social Security Trust Fund however. First and foremost, we have always been told that any and all "cuts" must exclude military spending, the same way that local governments exclude police and fire from budget cuts. There is a huge difference. Police and fire provide an immediate and tangible benefit to taxpayers. In some cases, they literally can't live without them. The military on the other hand has demonstrated an uncanny ability to follow one fiasco with another. As far as tangible benefits, those that can be defined as actually defending Americans from aggression or harm, the nuclear deterrent remains the only significant value to taxpayers. The threat of tactical nuclear weapons has kept the peace for the last sixty years, not the "boots on the ground" invasions that have left so many countries in shambles prior to the withdrawal of American troops after varying degrees of failure.
There is no threat to Americans from Taliban air raids. There is no threat to Americans that requires troops stationed in Germany or Japan. And if you look at the cost-to-value ratio of any military action in the last sixty years, it is difficult to understand what the objective was when the idea was conceived after assessing the actual results. I am most certainly a biased commentator on this subject, but the Social Security Trust Fund and its viability, indeed the viability of the U.S. Treasury and its financial instruments, have most certainly been put in jeopardy by these pointless, misdirected and sometimes counterproductive excursions by the U.S. military. The reasons are debatable, the blame can be shared amongst a bunch of walking Christmas trees that were never that smart to begin with, a bunch of clowns that wouldn't last very long in the private sector and are rarely found in CEO positions once they leave the Armed Services. (The same people that told us that the guy who shot up Fort Hood was a "model officer" before he redefined the term for them).
So I have concluded, and challenge anyone that would care to offer a rebuttal, that the Social Security Trust Fund should be restored to the status it enjoyed in 1968 when it became a slush fund for Military Kooks who needed a ton of money to prove that they could screw up anything they become involved with. Especially decisions about how to spend the taxpayers money in terms of any discernible return on that investment.
© humble journalist
Harry Reid now says that the situation won't become a problem for another twenty years, but the downgrading of U.S. Treasury bonds can only be interpreted as the writing on the wall. Sure, you can wait for twenty years and keep borrowing a trillion and a half dollars a year for the next twenty years, but Standard and Poors was essentially telling Mr. Reid and other politicians that besides accruing massive interest payments on that debt, there are other costs associated with that policy. Mr. Reid is also correct when he says that is remains a "successful program" in the sense that it has provided a reliable source of income for those who can no longer earn it, exactly as intended.
Unfortunately, when FDR unveiled the program, he also said that no one would ever pay more than one percent of their paycheck into the Trust Fund and that occurred at a time when life expectancy was around 63 years. Both assumptions for the future of the system proved to be out of whack, and to compound the problem many seniors are living comfortably on retirement income that exceeds the average worker who is paying into the system. This makes the entire subject rather difficult to debate in terms of fairness, so the debate never takes place, at least not in a meaningful sense. (But we do know that the widows of coal miners and fisherman lost at sea are not starving in the streets because of the loss of their loved ones as was the case in the 1930's. They have been replaced by journalists who criticize public officials).
There are some very clear choices that could be made to alleviate the pressure on the Social Security Trust Fund however. First and foremost, we have always been told that any and all "cuts" must exclude military spending, the same way that local governments exclude police and fire from budget cuts. There is a huge difference. Police and fire provide an immediate and tangible benefit to taxpayers. In some cases, they literally can't live without them. The military on the other hand has demonstrated an uncanny ability to follow one fiasco with another. As far as tangible benefits, those that can be defined as actually defending Americans from aggression or harm, the nuclear deterrent remains the only significant value to taxpayers. The threat of tactical nuclear weapons has kept the peace for the last sixty years, not the "boots on the ground" invasions that have left so many countries in shambles prior to the withdrawal of American troops after varying degrees of failure.
There is no threat to Americans from Taliban air raids. There is no threat to Americans that requires troops stationed in Germany or Japan. And if you look at the cost-to-value ratio of any military action in the last sixty years, it is difficult to understand what the objective was when the idea was conceived after assessing the actual results. I am most certainly a biased commentator on this subject, but the Social Security Trust Fund and its viability, indeed the viability of the U.S. Treasury and its financial instruments, have most certainly been put in jeopardy by these pointless, misdirected and sometimes counterproductive excursions by the U.S. military. The reasons are debatable, the blame can be shared amongst a bunch of walking Christmas trees that were never that smart to begin with, a bunch of clowns that wouldn't last very long in the private sector and are rarely found in CEO positions once they leave the Armed Services. (The same people that told us that the guy who shot up Fort Hood was a "model officer" before he redefined the term for them).
So I have concluded, and challenge anyone that would care to offer a rebuttal, that the Social Security Trust Fund should be restored to the status it enjoyed in 1968 when it became a slush fund for Military Kooks who needed a ton of money to prove that they could screw up anything they become involved with. Especially decisions about how to spend the taxpayers money in terms of any discernible return on that investment.
© humble journalist
Bobbleheads: Don't Touch My Junk
When the "Bobblehead" issue became apparent due to their conspicuous antics, it served notice that the CLEO/Military Slime population had another hole in their dike that needed to be plugged. Prior to that, I really hadn't considered the possibility that anyone would think it was necessary to question my education, education or aptitude because I can't think of anything easier than taking a test I've already passed or demonstrating in real time my composition abilities. That is when I realized that one of the elements to the ID fraud, specifically the background and criminal record of Michael E. Bartley, were all linked, which led me to believe that there was a distinct possibility that the fraud never actually ended, that there was indeed a crime in progress that involved "some blonde guy" trespassing on my mother's property.
This of course, led to any number of other questions that have gone unanswered, some of them deliberately concealed, the evidence stolen and destroyed by those with an obvious motive. But any professor of English, anyone with an advanced degree or specialized training, can tell you that the same person wrote all of these essays, that person being your humble writer. I'm not here to provide an education to the ignorant masses on the subject of literacy, grammar or composition. I am only pointing out that these essays are following a specific path, the intention being to connect subjects and elements that may seem disparate at first glance, and turn them into a logical, compelling presentation. This is how a professional writer actually performs his task, and there are no "Bobbleheads" that could possibly understand how I intend to do it, what the conclusions may be, or how these essays have been constructed to lead to those conclusions.
Simply put, there is no room for contributors, editors, researchers or any other form of assistance or scrutiny. The notion of a "Bobblehead" participating in that process is not only impossible to imagine, it would actually be counterproductive. So does that "hole in the dike" continue to exist for CLEO/Military Slime? I don't know, but one of the things I've discovered is that the only people that seem to support the notion that I was ever in the military, or that I don't have the aptitude or skills to accomplish that which I have in a scholastic environment, are the same Bottom 9% folks (and their relations) that have consistently imposed themselves on the sequence of events; the perpetrators of thefts, the frauds, the impersonations and other criminal offenses I've described in these essays; the Accusing Fingers who have supplied law enforcement with bogus complaints; the people that have stalked and harassed me almost continually since I discovered the fraudulent General Power of Attorney document and sought law enforcement intervention and judicial review; the stand-ins who I've found at hospitals, grocery stores, libraries and other venues who somehow know what they need to do to support CLEO storylines; and as near as I can tell, constitute every example of "Cop Filth" that I've encountered. And never once have these people been held accountable, or even questioned about any of their actions.
So if the "Bobbleheads" were necessary to portray your humble writer as an uneducated, ex-military slimeball, it stands to reason that law enforcement would be obliged to cling to their phony arrest and booking reports (authored by military slime), bogus database entries and the profile that is actually that of a deceased ex-Navy piece of shit who was recruited for the purpose, which was only possible because he was an ex-Navy piece of shit with a file accessible by other ex-Navy pieces of shit, the scam reliant on the rest of the ex-Navy piece of shit population supporting the entire scam. No, I was never in the military, and my contempt for those who remain unprosecuted criminals is palpable. But I decided that these essays, the compelling arguments that will be made in an inimitable, logical manner, are the best response. There are bigger issues here, and they will all be addressed and hopefully connected in such a way that the issues are clarified and a dialog takes place; the same sort of dialog that was intended when the Founders supplied us with the First Amendment.
Those with an advanced knowledge of grammar and composition, may also note that what you see here is freestyle keyboard hacking in its purest form, something that all professional writers hope to indulge in someday because all of us, no matter what environment, reporting, copy writing, technical writing, teaching, have all been stuck with guidelines that were imposed on us by supervisors, editors and clients. What you see here is what happens when a writer is allowed the freedom to write in an unrestricted format. The gloves come off, the language gets a road-test, and the subjects get what they deserve.
It's fun. But also accurate, concise and intended to follow a imprecise path to compelling, logical arguments regarding issues of contemporary significance, something no "Bobblehead" (impersonator) is capable of understanding or writing about.
© humble journalist
Not long after I started to write this essay, some of America's Heroes began showing up wearing the typical accoutrements they seem to think are necessary to advertise their service to their country, one of whom was behaving like a typical CLEO stooge earlier at another location. My opinion of these people is based on personal experience, their allegiance to their own, as well as certain defense contractors, is not surprising in the least. I have read accounts about the hazing practices in the military, and my opinions do not include how they treat their own people. I couldn't care less. My points of contention, the basis of my criticism, is related to the manner in which they function within the civilian population, particularly those that acquire civilian law enforcement authority. My experience includes frequent examples of what I consider to be harassment along with a series of criminal offenses perpetrated against myself and my mother that civilian law enforcement authorities have conspicuously, and repeatedly, ignored.
I hope those points have been adequately clarified.
This of course, led to any number of other questions that have gone unanswered, some of them deliberately concealed, the evidence stolen and destroyed by those with an obvious motive. But any professor of English, anyone with an advanced degree or specialized training, can tell you that the same person wrote all of these essays, that person being your humble writer. I'm not here to provide an education to the ignorant masses on the subject of literacy, grammar or composition. I am only pointing out that these essays are following a specific path, the intention being to connect subjects and elements that may seem disparate at first glance, and turn them into a logical, compelling presentation. This is how a professional writer actually performs his task, and there are no "Bobbleheads" that could possibly understand how I intend to do it, what the conclusions may be, or how these essays have been constructed to lead to those conclusions.
Simply put, there is no room for contributors, editors, researchers or any other form of assistance or scrutiny. The notion of a "Bobblehead" participating in that process is not only impossible to imagine, it would actually be counterproductive. So does that "hole in the dike" continue to exist for CLEO/Military Slime? I don't know, but one of the things I've discovered is that the only people that seem to support the notion that I was ever in the military, or that I don't have the aptitude or skills to accomplish that which I have in a scholastic environment, are the same Bottom 9% folks (and their relations) that have consistently imposed themselves on the sequence of events; the perpetrators of thefts, the frauds, the impersonations and other criminal offenses I've described in these essays; the Accusing Fingers who have supplied law enforcement with bogus complaints; the people that have stalked and harassed me almost continually since I discovered the fraudulent General Power of Attorney document and sought law enforcement intervention and judicial review; the stand-ins who I've found at hospitals, grocery stores, libraries and other venues who somehow know what they need to do to support CLEO storylines; and as near as I can tell, constitute every example of "Cop Filth" that I've encountered. And never once have these people been held accountable, or even questioned about any of their actions.
So if the "Bobbleheads" were necessary to portray your humble writer as an uneducated, ex-military slimeball, it stands to reason that law enforcement would be obliged to cling to their phony arrest and booking reports (authored by military slime), bogus database entries and the profile that is actually that of a deceased ex-Navy piece of shit who was recruited for the purpose, which was only possible because he was an ex-Navy piece of shit with a file accessible by other ex-Navy pieces of shit, the scam reliant on the rest of the ex-Navy piece of shit population supporting the entire scam. No, I was never in the military, and my contempt for those who remain unprosecuted criminals is palpable. But I decided that these essays, the compelling arguments that will be made in an inimitable, logical manner, are the best response. There are bigger issues here, and they will all be addressed and hopefully connected in such a way that the issues are clarified and a dialog takes place; the same sort of dialog that was intended when the Founders supplied us with the First Amendment.
Those with an advanced knowledge of grammar and composition, may also note that what you see here is freestyle keyboard hacking in its purest form, something that all professional writers hope to indulge in someday because all of us, no matter what environment, reporting, copy writing, technical writing, teaching, have all been stuck with guidelines that were imposed on us by supervisors, editors and clients. What you see here is what happens when a writer is allowed the freedom to write in an unrestricted format. The gloves come off, the language gets a road-test, and the subjects get what they deserve.
It's fun. But also accurate, concise and intended to follow a imprecise path to compelling, logical arguments regarding issues of contemporary significance, something no "Bobblehead" (impersonator) is capable of understanding or writing about.
© humble journalist
Not long after I started to write this essay, some of America's Heroes began showing up wearing the typical accoutrements they seem to think are necessary to advertise their service to their country, one of whom was behaving like a typical CLEO stooge earlier at another location. My opinion of these people is based on personal experience, their allegiance to their own, as well as certain defense contractors, is not surprising in the least. I have read accounts about the hazing practices in the military, and my opinions do not include how they treat their own people. I couldn't care less. My points of contention, the basis of my criticism, is related to the manner in which they function within the civilian population, particularly those that acquire civilian law enforcement authority. My experience includes frequent examples of what I consider to be harassment along with a series of criminal offenses perpetrated against myself and my mother that civilian law enforcement authorities have conspicuously, and repeatedly, ignored.
I hope those points have been adequately clarified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)