Ethan A. Huff Natural News
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
The social media empire Facebook has unveiled some new “features” on
its platform in recent days that many allege are a total and compete
privacy-breaching nightmare. But one hidden feature, discovered by Nik
Cubrilovic, an Australian entrepreneur and writer, that few people are
aware of is the fact that Facebook now monitors your online activity,
even when you are not logged in to the service.
With each new change Facebook makes, users’ privacy becomes a little
less … nonexistent, if you will. The most recent “News Feed”
modifications, for example, display everything you say and do on the
site to all of your “friends,” and even to the public. And now, even
after logging out of Facebook, permanent “cookies” track all your
movements on websites that contain Facebook buttons or widgets.
“Even if you are logged out, Facebook still knows and can track every
page you visit,” Cubrilovic wrote on a recent blog posting. “The only
solution is to delete every Facebook cookie in your browser, or to use a
separate browser for Facebook interactions” (http://nikcub-static.appspot.com/lo…).
But how many Facebook users will actually know to do this? The site
has never announced to its users that it is even tracking them in the
first place, let alone given them any instructions on how to “opt-out”
of this egregious invasion of privacy. (CONTINUE READING)
Since my 2008 campaign for
the presidency I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president
go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional
republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map
and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom
agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government.
Of course, just as the
welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be
dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce
the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our
immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we
should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would
harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we
would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to
prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those
organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help —
churches and private charities.
Now, this need for a
transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would
have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import
Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much
sympathy for the CEO's of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.
No matter what the
president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require
legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a
constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a
majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of
several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and
representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of
self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who
would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to
eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very
unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress. (CONTINUE READING)
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com
May 19, 2011Mr Bill “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” Clinton, a man who knowingly lied to the nation on live television at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, has called for the creation of an Internet ‘ministry of truth’ style organization that would be run by the federal government or the UN to address “misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet.”
Couching the idea in the kind of doublespeak rhetoric that would make George Orwell roll in his grave, Clinton said that the agency would have to be “independent” and “transparent,” but that it would be created and run by the federal government – a complete oxymoron.
The former president said that the organization “Would have to be an independent federal agency that no president could countermand or anything else because people wouldn’t think you were just censoring the news and giving a different falsehood out.”
No matter how many fluffy, friendly and democratic words he attaches to the proposal, Clinton is basically calling for the creation of a state-run media outlet in the mould of Communist China. He says it should operate like, “National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors.”
In other words, as his wife Hillary bemoaned recently, the US military-industrial complex is “losing the information war” to independent media outlets and something needs to be done to redress the balance because too many people are stumbling across that habitual irritant to the power elite – the truth.
Despite admitting that the organization would have “no credibility whatever, particularly with a lot of the people who are most active on the internet,” Clinton said that such an agency was necessary to counter “misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet,” reports Politico.
This is Cass Sunstein’s “cognitive infiltration” on steroids. Harvard law professor Sunstein, Obama’s information czar, has demanded websites be mandated by law to link to opposing information or that pop ups containing government propaganda be forcibly included on political blogs. (CONTINUE READING)
Natural News
