Tuesday, January 15, 2013

13-01-16 Palestine - beginning of a new intifada?

IDF kills teenager in West Bank, fourth Palestinian death in a week

Palestinian sources say youth was shot in torso and legs; incident comes a day after Palestinian farmer reportedly killed in Gaza Strip.

By  and Reuters Jan.15, 2013 | 8:16 PM |
West Bank - AP
Archive photo of a Palestinian demonstrator near the West Bank city of Ramallah. Photo by AP

A 16-year-old Palestinian was killed by Israel Defense Forces fire on Tuesday near the village of Budrus in the West Bank, Palestinian sources said.

According to the reports, the youth, Samir Awad, was shot four times and hit in his torso and legs.

Awad is the fourth Palestinian killed by IDF fire in recent days.
The IDF confirmed opening fire at protesters, saying some had cu tthrough a section of the barrier fence. Military spokesman Capt. Eytan Buchmansaid troops "initiated standard rules of engagement, which included live fire .An investigation into the shooting has been ordered, and Buchman said he could not comment further on the open-fire order.estinian demonstrator near the West Bank city of Ramallah.

13-01-16 Hello World!

Recent [?]
Wednesday, January 16 @ 01:20 : Auburn, Alabama, US
Wednesday, January 16 @ 01:08 : Washington, District of Columbia, US
Wednesday, January 16 @ 00:28 : Chicago, Illinois, US
Wednesday, January 16 @ 00:27 : Sunnyvale, California, US
Wednesday, January 16 @ 00:03 : Serbia, RS
Tuesday, January 15 @ 23:39 : Wellington, NZ
Tuesday, January 15 @ 23:35 : Te Kauwhata, NZ
Tuesday, January 15 @ 23:03 : El Salvador, SV
Tuesday, January 15 @ 21:28 : Ottawa, CA

13-01-16 US and guns: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer

The controversy continues. News reports that in the absence of legislation, Obama plans on implementing gun control through Executive Orders.  Typical reactions are shown below.  Gun rights advocates are clear about their rational:  Guns are intended for shooting tyrants, not deer.  In this matter and others, opponents of the US government hope that the county sheriffs would use their authority for protection of the People's rights.  However, in many counties, the sheriffs are central parts in the corruption of government. jz

Monday, January 14, 2013
Kentucky Sheriff to Obama: No Gun Disarmament in My County
Posted By: Susoni [Send E-Mail]
Date: Sunday, 13-Jan-2013 14:57:44
Jackson County Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman is making it clear that no law that violates the Constitution will be upheld in his county.
This especially applies to new gun control edicts Obama & Co. are trying to push onto the American people.

Said Peyman: “My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore uphold.”

And far from worrying about repercussions for doing this, Peyman sees the gun control push as a sign of weakness that will crumble in the face of real opposition: “Just a few of us have to be willing to stand up to political opposition putting our people at risk. The other side will back down.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have found a patriot. And his name is Sheriff Denny Peyman.

NAPOLITANO: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer

The Second Amendment is the guarantee of freedom

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Thursday, January 10, 2013
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.
As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.
The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.
The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.
Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.
To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.
There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.
The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king's government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.
Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

Gosh, I wonder what the California State Legislature had to say about it?


11120. It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed.

In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly.

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.

§54950 DECLARATION OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created”.

Well isn't that special?! Not only did they write it once, but twice. I guess they mean what they wrote and did it twice just in case some moron didn't understand it the first time. 

13-01-16 The technicalities of drone killings of US citizens

Senator Asks CIA Nominee When Drones Can Kill Americans
By Spencer Ackerman
"Does the President have to provide individual Americans with the opportunity to surrender before killing them?"

13-01-16 US - transition to a third world nation - Long-Term Unemployment at Highest Level Since World War II


13-01-15 Lack of integrity of the electronic record system of the Courts in Israel, noted in the 2013 Human Rights Council Staff Report

Over the past decade, corruption was institutionalized in the Israeli courts through the development and implementation of new fraudulent electronic record systems in the courts of the State of Israel by the office of Administration of the Courts, patronized by the highest levels of the Israeli judiciary, Ministry of Justice, and Israel Bar Association. The Israeli courts' fraudulent electronic record systems copied key features of their counterpart fraudulent systems in the United States, developed and implemented a couple of decades earlier:  Invalid implementation of electronic signatures and undermining the authority and accountability of the offices of the clerks of the courts.  According to the State of Israel 2010 Ombudsman Report, the Israeli systems were developed and implemented by two US-based corporations – IBM and EDS – in violation of the law of the State of Israel. Under the tenure of Supreme Court Presiding Justice Aharon Barak and Dorit Beinisch, the courts experienced unprecedented corruption.


Human Rights Council of the United Nations, Supreme Court of the State of Israel

View as PDF: http://he.scribd.com/doc/120461368/

Jerusalem, January 15 -  the 2013 Human Rights Alert (HRA) submission to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the State of Israel by the Human Rights Council (HRC) of the United Nations was incorporated into the Human Rights Council (HRC) Staff Report. [1]  The 2013 Human Rights Alert (HRA) submission details large-scale fraud on the People in implementation of electronic record systems in the courts over the past decade,

The relevant section in the Staff Report says [red added- jz]:
3. Administration of justice, including impunity
24. HRW recommended to: conduct independent, thorough and impartial investigations into all incidents in which Israeli military or police forces may have been responsible for human rights violations, including in the Gaza Strip and; ensure adequate steps to investigate and prosecute Israeli civilians who attack Palestinians or their property.32
Similar recommendations were made by Mossawa Center. 33
25. Human Rights Alert (HRA) submission focused on  the lack of integrity of the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court, District Court and Detainees Courts in Israel. 34
26.  JS3-PHROC noted that since Israel s UPR in 2008, no legislative or practical measures have been taken to ensure that trials of Palestinians in military courts conform to the minimum fair trial standards enshrined in international law. 35
Compared to the 2010 Human Rights Alert (HRA) report on the United States, the 2013 HRA report on Israel was placed almost at the top of the UN Staff Report, and it was given a special paragraph number, in a very respectable section -  "Administration of Justice", on page 4:

It should also be noted that:
·       The title of the HRA submission used understated language - "integrity or lack thereof".  The UN report found it sufficient to use the language "lack of integrity"...
·       The HRA report did NOT include case studies. It was almost entirely based on data mining and system analysis.  In later papers, I included case studies, such as the case of Moshe Silman, Stanley Fischer, which took place after the deadline.

Additional official records of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations on this matter are expected later this month or in early February, at the conclusion of the 15th Session of the Universal Periodic Review process.

[1] Summary prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 5 of the
annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21
On the UN site:
On Human Rights Alert archive:
[2] Human Rights Alert (HRA) Submission, Appendices, including case studies:
[1] 12-06-04 Human Right Alert, Submission;  2013 UPR of the State of Israel - "Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel"
[2] 12-05-10 Human Right Alert,  Appendix I to Submission; 15th UPR - State of Israel - "Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the courts of the State of Israel"
[3]  12-07-18 Human Right Alert, Appendix II to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel - "Additional Responses by National Authorities/Experts, Re: ComSign, LTD - sole certifier and hacker of the digital signatures of the State of Israel".pdf
[4] 12-10-10 Human Right Alert, Appendix III to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel - "Integrity, or lack thereof, in the electronic record systems in the courts of the State of Israel - peer-reviewed and published in Data Analytics 2012"
[5] 12-10-11 Human Right Alert, Appendix IV to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel - "The case of Moshe Silman"
[6] 12-10-15 Human Right Alert, Appendix V to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel - "Integrity, or lack thereof, in the electronic records of the Bank of Israel-Banking Regulation Consumer Complaint procedures"
[7] 12-12-18 Human Right Alert, Appendix VI to Submission; 2013 UPR of the State of Israel - "Integrity, or Lack Thereof, in the Electronic Records of the Courts of the State of Israel  CYBERLAW 2013 paper - peer-reviewed and accepted"
[8] 12-05-10 Human Rights Alert (NGO) UPR Human Rights  State of Israel, HEBREW Short Submission

13-01-15 'US govt haunts activists like Swartz, ignores banksters & prison torture'

'US govt haunts activists like Swartz, ignores banksters & prison torture'

RussiaToday uploaded a video 4 hours ago

Published on Jan 14, 2013
A federal court in Massachusetts has dismissed the hacking case against Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide on January 11 while facing decades behind bars and a $1 million fine.

Aaron Swartz on the Fight for Internet Freedom

Cyber activist Aaron Swartz took his life on Friday. We air an address of Swartz’s from last May where he speaks about the battle to defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Cyber activist and computer programmer Aaron Swartz took his life on Friday at the age of 26. We air an address of Swartz’s from last May where he speaks about the battle to defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act, orSOPA — a campaign he helped lead. "[SOPA] will have yet another name, and maybe a different excuse, and probably do its damage in a different way. But make no mistake: The enemies of the freedom to connect have not disappeared," Swartz said. "Next time they might just win. Let’s not let that happen."
AARON SWARTZ: So, for me, it all started with a phone call. It was September—not last year, but the year before that, September 2010. And I got a phone call from my friend Peter. "Aaron," he said, "there’s an amazing bill that you have to take a look at." "What is it?" I said. "It’s called COICA, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeiting Act." "But, Peter," I said, "I don’t care about copyright law. Maybe you’re right. Maybe Hollywood is right. But either way, what’s the big deal? I’m not going to waste my life fighting over a little issue like copyright. Healthcare, financial reform—those are the issues that I work on, not something obscure like copyright law." I could hear Peter grumbling in the background. "Look, I don’t have time to argue with you," he said, "but it doesn’t matter for right now, because this isn’t a bill about copyright." "It’s not?" "No," he said. "It’s a bill about the freedom to connect." Now I was listening.
Peter explained what you’ve all probably long since learned, that this bill would let the government devise a list of websites that Americans weren’t allowed to visit. On the next day, I came up with lots of ways to try to explain this to people. I said it was a great firewall of America. I said it was an Internet black list. I said it was online censorship. But I think it’s worth taking a step back, putting aside all the rhetoric and just thinking for a moment about how radical this bill really was. Sure, there are lots of times when the government makes rules about speech. If you slander a private figure, if you buy a television ad that lies to people, if you have a wild party that plays booming music all night, in all these cases, the government can come stop you. But this was something radically different. It wasn’t the government went to people and asked them to take down particular material that was illegal; it shut down whole websites. Essentially, it stopped Americans from communicating entirely with certain groups. There’s nothing really like it in U.S. law. If you play loud music all night, the government doesn’t slap you with an order requiring you be mute for the next couple weeks. They don’t say nobody can make any more noise inside your house. There’s a specific complaint, which they ask you to specifically remedy, and then your life goes on.
The closest example I could find was a case where the government was at war with an adult bookstore. The place kept selling pornography; the government kept getting the porn declared illegal. And then, frustrated, they decided to shut the whole bookstore down. But even that was eventually declared unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment.