Segami
Segami's JournalSarah Palin May Have Accidentally Endorsed Racial Supremacy Group
Sarah Palin, once again on the national stage. This time, on Fox News she responded to a tweet from “Josh” who asked her:
Sarah’s answer was simple, and straight to the point:
What is cute, of course, is that there already is a Freedom Party in the United States, the American Freedom Party. And, its posted platform matches the rhetoric given by Ms. Palin. However, it was only recently renamed the American Freedom Party, and before that its name was the American Third Position Party, a white supremacy party with the long-term goal of establishing itself as a new national party.
Now, it is possible that this “Josh” person was unaware of the Freedom Party, nor its white supremacist ways. Or, it is fully possible that he was aware, and was setting up Sarah Palin to be an unwitting recruitment tool for the party, in much the same way in which they used Ron Paul to recruit in years past. They, of course, deny that their position of racial purity and a desire to remove any non-Caucasians from the continent makes them white supremacists. But now they can utilize this incident as a recruitment tool, just as they had Tea Party rallies in the past.
Of course the media jumps on this that Sarah Palin was calling for a split from the GOP. It was an off-the-cuff question, but one which leads us to question her awareness. Was Sarah Palin aware of the Freedom Party, as she does like the name as claimed? If not, how was she not aware of the rampant growth of white supremacy groups across the United States? Then again, she was associated with the Alaska Independence Party, a secessionist movement with ties to white supremacist groups. And do not forget, during Sarah Palin’s second year as Governor, she recorded this message of welcome for the Alaska Independence Party:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/01/sarah-palin-may-have-accidentally-endorsed-racial-supremacy-group-video/
Glenn Greenwald Speaks Out
Glenn Greenwald: NSA Can Store A BILLION CELL PHONE CALLS Every Day
Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald says he has another big scoop about the National Security Agency's surveillance practices up his sleeve. Speaking over Skype to the Socialism Conference in Chicago, Greenwald claimed that the NSA has the ability to store one billion phone calls each day.
Greenwald's reporting earlier this month sparked the scandal over NSA surveillance practices that is currently plaguing the Obama administration. The stories were based on classified documents leaked to him by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, and Greenwald indicated Friday night that he's sitting on several more -- one of which he decided to talk about even though his story on it hasn't been published yet.
"It talks about a brand new technology that enables the national security agency to redirect into its own repositories one billion cell phone calls every single day. One billion cell phone calls every single day," he said.
"But what we're really talking about here is a localized system that prevents any form of electronic communication from taking place without its being stored and monitored by the National Security Agency," Greenwald continued. "It doesn't mean that they're listening to every call, it means they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time, and it does mean that they're collecting millions upon millions upon millions of our phone and email records."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/glenn-greenwald-nsa-cell-phone-calls_n_3520424.html
Nancy Pelosi's AWESOME Reaction To Michele Bachmann DOMA Statement: 'WHO CARES?'
"No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," Ms. Bachmann said in a statement. "For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman." She said the court action "will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States."
Asked to react to Bachmann's statement, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi summed up what increasing majorities of Americans feel about such strident opposition with a dismissive "Who cares?"
Rep. Jerry Nadler was kind enough to assuage religious objectors, though, by noting that "It's very important to understand that people can believe what they want. They can go to what church they want, what synagogue, what they can believe what about temple, what mosque. Marriage or anything else they want. That's a question of religious belief. We're not dealing with religious belief in all these questions. We're dealing with what the state or the federal government does. We have a separation of church and state in this country. So for government purposes, you can be married. The church may not recognize this. That's their business. If you don't want to recognize it from a religious point of view, it's your business. No one is forcing anybody to get married. The point of the separation of church and state is that when we deal with public business and the consecration — not the consecration, but the celebration of marriage by the state, the recognition by the state of who's married is not a religious question."
Top 10 RAGE QUOTES From Scalia’s Dissent On DOMA
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a flaming dissent against the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling Wednesday invalidating the core of the Defense of Marriage Act, the law that prohibits married same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits. Underlying Scalia’s pushback was anger at the majority’s decision to even involve itself in the “abstract questions” of this case and his view that states should be permitted to determine whether or not gay conduct is moral and legislate on that basis.
Here are the top 10 quotes from the staunchly conservative jurist — a mix of rage-filled metaphors and legal punches.
1) ‘Diseased Root’
“We have no power to decide this case,” Scalia wrote. “And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.”
“The Court is eager — hungry — to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case.”
2) ‘Jaw-Dropping,’ ‘Black-Robed Supremacy’
“That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive,” he wrote, adding that the framers of the Constitution created a judicial branch with limited power in order to “guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive.”
3) ‘No Justification’ For Obama Administration
Chiding the Obama administration for refusing to defend DOMA in court, Scalia scoffed, “There is no justification for the Justice Department’s abandoning the law in the present case. The majority opinion makes a point of scolding the President for his ‘failure to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress based on a constitutional theory not yet established in judicial decisions … But the rebuke is tongue-in-cheek, for the majority gladly gives the President what he wants.”
4) ‘Legalistic Argle-Bargle’
Referring to the issue of standing, Scalia wrote, “I find it wryly amusing that the majority seeks to dismiss the requirement of party-adverseness as nothing more than a ‘prudential’ aspect of the sole Article III requirement of standing.”
“As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by ‘bare … desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages.”
cont'
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/scalia-doma-dissent.php?ref=fpa
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA: THANK YOU JOHN BOEHNER, For DOMA's REPEAL
It breaks my heart to watch a grown orange cry......
House Speaker John Boehner spent $3 million of taxpayer money to hire Paul Clement for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Turns out, that was a pretty good investment for our side. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, tells us that once the Justice Department dropped the defense of DOMA, the Court needed someone to step up so they had standing to actually decide the case.
If not for Boehner's intervention, and the $3 million of taxpayer money he decided to pour into this case, the Court might not have even been able to rule on it. So, thanks, John Boehner!
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/26/1219086/-Thank-you-John-Boehner-for-DOMA-s-nbsp-repeal
TX GOP Senate Tries to CHEAT Their Way To ABORTION BAN
About 11 hours into Davis' 13-hour filibuster, Texas Republicans, aided by Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, suspended all belief along with the usual order of the Senate and tried very, very hard to end the filibuster by accusing Davis of bogus violations of the filibuster rule. Under the fiibuster rules, Davis was required to remain on the topic of the bill. When she began to discuss forced ultrasound tests for women seeking abortions, the Republicans ruled it was not germane to the bill, which would have been her third violation and would have led to a vote to end the filibuster.,Democrats began raising points of order, objections, and making motions. Without jumping deep into the weeds here, let's just say they were successfully able to continue the delays until about 10 minutes before midnight. Republicans, on the other hand, decided tossing the regular order was warranted to get this very unpopular piece of legislation passed.
Meanwhile, there were hundreds of Wendy Davis supporters in the upper gallery and hundreds more outside the chamber itself. GOP men were shouting down Democratic women as things heated up. Finally Senator Leticia Van de Putte, who came from her father's funeral in order to oppose the bill, asked what it took for a Democratic woman to be heard over the shouts of Republican menThe chamber exploded. The video from the last ten minutes is must-see TV. Watching here at home, I was counting down right along with them, because if they did not hold a vote before midnight, the bill was dead. At 12:02 AM there was a voice vote heard on the live feed. Shortly after that, the AP published a breaking news blurb claiming the bill had passed.
THEN THIS HAPPENED:
Yes, your eyes aren't lying. That is evidence that someone changed the official record to backdate the vote, which took place beginning at 12:02 AM on June 26th to before 11:59 PM on June 25th. That's stealing the vote. Or cheating. Or being a Republican. Social media is cruel to cheaters, though. There was a YouTube live stream, there was a paper record with a timestamp of 12:02 AM for the vote, there was this image of the date discrepancy, and there were plenty of reporters who put it together and deduced that hijinks were afoot. Just after 2 AM Texas time, the Senate was called into a caucus. After some discussion, this flew across Twitter:
RT @becca_aa: It's officially official, #SB5 did not pass; Senators on the floor to make public announcement soon #txlege
3:55 AM - 26 Jun 2013
cont'
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/texas-senate-erupts-chaos-over-gop-cheating
Obama's Insider Threats: Leaking to the Press is ESPIONAGE
McClatchy, known for breaking many of the most important stories in Washington DC, has broken another one: the Obama administration's "Insider Threat Program." Federal employees were encouraged to spy on co-workers in an environment of intimidation and submission to the government. Did the program even work? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
HACKING A CAR Is Way Too Easy
Could Michael Hasting's car crash have been caused by a remote attack? Technically, yes
Conspiracy theories about the cause of the car crash that killed investigative reporter Michael Hastings on June 18 started sprouting immediately after the news of his death broke. So far, no conclusive evidence supports foul play, but on Monday, counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke made news when he told the Huffington Post that the circumstances of Hasting’s car chase were “consistent with a car cyber attack.” While hastening to state that he was not saying he believed the crash was a purposeful attack, Clarke did observe, reported the Huffington Post, that “‘There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers’” — including the United States — know how to remotely seize control of a car.”
Clarke served during both Bush presidencies and under Bill Clinton, so presumably he wasn’t speaking completely off the cuff. But just what is a “car cyber attack”? The answer can be found in two alarming papers by researchers at the University of Washington and the University of California, San Diego, “Experimental Security Analysis of a Modern Vehicle,” and Comprehensive Experimental Analyses of Automotive Attack Surfaces. Taken together, the papers make for scary reading. In the first the researchers demonstrate that it is a relatively trivial exercise to access the computer systems of a modern car and take control away from the driver. The second demonstrates that such mayhem can be achieved remotely, via a variety of methods. The inescapable conclusion: The modern car is a security disaster.
Modern automobiles are no longer mere mechanical devices; they are pervasively monitored and controlled bydozens of digital computers coordinated via internal vehicular networks. While this transformation has driven major advancements in efficiency and safety, it has also introduced a range of new potential risks… We demonstrate that an attacker who is able to infiltrate virtually any Electronic Control Unit (ECU) can leverage this ability to completely circumvent a broad array of safety-critical systems. Over a range of experiments, both in the lab and in road tests, we demonstrate the ability to adversarially control a wide range of automotive functions and completely ignore driver input — including disabling the brakes, selectively braking individual wheels on demand, stopping the engine, and so on.
We have endeavored to comprehensively assess how much resilience a conventional automobile has against a digital attack mounted against its internal components. Our findings suggest that, unfortunately, the answer is “little.” The researchers’ findings are not theoretical. They were able to attack a 2009 model sedan and render its brakes ineffective while a test driver was operating the car. The computerization of the modern car has been aggressively evolving for decades. (Ironically, the researchers credit California’s clean air laws in the 1970s with providing the first incentive for moving car engines into the digital era.) But it might come as a surprise to the average person just how interconnected and accessible today’s high tech cars are. “Such [computer] systems have been integrated into virtually every aspect of a car’s functioning and diagnostics, including the throttle, transmission, brakes, passenger climate and lighting controls, external lights..”
cont'
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/hacking_a_car_is_way_too_easy/
Could Terrorists REMOTELY Crash Your Car?
Could a 14-year-old computer hacker in Indonesia remotely take over control of your car as you drive down the Interstate, cause the car to dangerously accelerate and and kill you by crashing it? That's the scenario raised and explained by AOL Autos in a story about the threat of terrorists and cars -- and one that drew a fairly quick rebuke from auto site Jalopnik as unwarranted "fearmongering." The government is taking threats of carhacking seriously enough that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened up a "cyber terrorism department" to sort out software issues that could make cars vulnerable to attack, AOL Autos says.
When Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., raised the issue of cyber car terrorism at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, he was told that university researcher had succeeded in hacking into car's electronics systems and were able to perform stunts like turning the engine on and off. Jalopnik, however, in its typically unvarnished way, calls the findings into question. "While technically some of what's described in the article is certainly true, the fear-mongering tone, calculated to terrify the rapidly aging AOL dial-up readership, is uncalled for at this point," its post says.
Yes, cars are packed with computers, but few can be accessed wirelessly from outside the car. It noted that researchers said they probably would need an additional attachment to car's computer brains to really take it over. Plus, some of the kinds of systems that might make a car vulnerable aren't really deployed yet. Nissan, for instance, is one of the first with drive-by-wire steering, and so far, it's is limited to one luxury model, the Infiniti Q50. There are also backup safety systems and the software is written in a way that emphasizes safety and redundancy.
cont'
http://www.usatoday.com/story/driveon/2013/06/23/terrorists-crash-car/2446151/
But Dr. Kathleen Fisher from DARPA's High Assurance Systems begs to differ and explains some hitech methods in service today. Worth a watch!
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
