What Showed Up on the Internet Today.

This is from The Patriot Post:
'I Will Obey the Constitution'
and this is what turned up about the same time on Firedoglake:
Obama Admin Claims to Support Cellphone Unlocking but TPP Leak Shows Opposite

Here's an excerpt of both pages, first The Patriot Post:

“This is part of the theory of George Bush, that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution. I will obey the Constitution of the United States.” In case you needed a reminder, these words were spoken by none-other than then-Senator Barack Obama in May of 2008.

and from Firedoglake:

When you buy something from someone you own it, right? Not if President Obama has his way on cellphones. And by his way, I mean the telecom monopolies that pull his strings’ way. Cellphone unlocking, which allows owners to alter the phone they purchased and use it with other carriers should they so desire, is a front line issue on the fight for rational copyright laws. Telecom companies want the practice of unlocking a cellphone to lead to prosecutions and imprisonment because free competition somehow means government granted monopolies.

While the Obama Administration has publicly backed cellphone users rights to unlock their cellphones  – the information published by Wikileaks on the Trans-pacific Partnership (TPP) tells a different story.

The leaked treaty draft shows that while the White House was championing restoring free market principles to phones, the U.S. proposed that the TPP lock in the process that allowed the Librarian of Congress to rule this technology as illegal through international law. This would make potential reforms like H.R. 1892 impossible.* It should be noted that Canada did submit an amendment proposal that could allow unlocking, but neither the United States nor any other country supported it.

Surprise. The reason the Obama Administration wanted its TPP positions to be a secret is because they are lying to the public about them. The Most Transparent Administration in History© strikes again.

For the rest of the article continue here.

Who Killed Roger Rabbit a.k.a. The Free Press?

My question is, why are we routinely subjected to unchallenged demeaning and degrading opinions and outright lies produced in the newspapers and on TV as if it is the God's gospel Truth?

Notice the subtitle in the picture: "THE ROBIN HOOD OF HACKING"? Look familiar?

The following article "Opinionator Assassinator Strikes Again" is about the latest local hack attack on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks where the local Times-Standard newspaper and their use of wannabe authority, to pump out consensus propaganda as "natural matter of fact and truth." If Julian Assange is the kind of a person Dave Stancliff says he is then PRODUCE THE PROOF to back it up. The Times-Standard needs to enforce, if not show, a little common consideration and respect for the reader. We'll decide what kind of a person he is. That worthless "opinion" is nothing more than gossip-mongering. Everyone that reads such tripe should be offended and disgusted. So far I haven't found ONE letter to the Editors complaining about this public insult.

The following article by Glenn Greenwald on this subject is not only an "Update" continuing to refute this unchallenged propaganda, but to demonstrate a non-offensive presentation of the facts. Here's the link:

The merger of journalists and government officials

The following excerpt is offered here because it directly addresses our local problem:

(2) From the start of the WikiLeaks controversy, the most striking aspect for me has been that the ones who are leading the crusade against the transparency brought about by WikiLeaks -- the ones most enraged about the leaks and the subversion of government secrecy -- have been . . . America's intrepid Watchdog journalists.  What illustrates how warped our political and media culture is as potently as that?  It just never seems to dawn on them -- even when you explain it -- that the transparency and undermining of the secrecy regime against which they are angrily railing is supposed to be . . . what they do.

--Joe

Opinionator Assassinator Strikes Again

[UPDATE Below] [UPDATE II]

After weeks of serving up servile pablum to the readers of the Sunday Times-Standard's so-called "Opinion" As It Stands they all collaborated to take a shot at trying to murder the character of someone with more guts and courage then the whole pack of them put together. Herein lies the wisdom for, and the lesson on, "how to cut your own throat and blame it on someone else for the despicable act of killing you."

So, let me introduce you to the Local Master's latest lesson on Character Assassination: "Is Assange a Robin Hood trying to take the high road by thievery?" This is as pure and as rank a personal attack on an individual person as you could ever want. Take lessons! He pushes all the right buttons, but not one comment on the undisputed facts, the so-called "leaks, that speak for themselves. Maligning, lying and falsely accusing the messenger, trying to destroy the credibility and reputation of decent, honest and worthy people, so as to justify their murderer, is as age old as Jesus Christ, the Garden of Eden and the original murder who killed by lies and filthy false accusations. Might as well put a gun the their head and pull the trigger - there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE.

On that same A5 page the editors managed to post the perfect counterpoint with Amy Goodman's "'Assangination': from character assassination to the real thing" - The Report could have let her commentary on this issue be the indirect answer, but the very publishing of Dave Stancliff's allegoric attack by the Times-Standard newspaper requires additional consideration for their responsibility for conduct not dissimilar to the New York Times. They justify such abhorrent conduct hiding behind the First Amendment while that very conduct works to delegitimize that very Amendment.

If you haven't read Amy Goodman's article in the newspaper, here's the link. Amy concludes by asking this very important question, a question that goes right at the heart of this article's real agenda.

WikiLeaks, for that matter, is not just Julian Assange, but a geographically distributed network of people and servers, and it has promised that the work of facilitating the release of documents from governments and corporations will continue. The U.S. Justice Department, if it pursues a case, will have to answer the question: If WikiLeaks is a criminal organization, what of its media partners, like The New York Times?

While that's an important question for the Nation, what about here locally? How complicit is the Times-Standard and their editors for publishing Dave Stancliff's As It Stands wanton character assassination that assaults the very legitimacy of the U.S Constitution? When the U.S. government can accuse, prosecute, convict and throw people in jail and torture them for life for what they "supposedly" think, not do, character assassination is extremely serious and potentially life-threatening.

Normally, the Joe Blow Report is only interested in observing facts and related issues - NOT PERSONALITIES - asinine, belief-motivated, worthless opinions. But since it is a proven fact that the writer is incapable of making the distinction and since what he says on the record is personal and all about character assassination, and is so totally corrupt and craven in its attack on decency and reason, it behooves me to address a couple of issues without, hopefully, giving any kind of credence to the writer or the paper it's written on.

Notice his use of the word "thievery." Anyone that knows anything about WikiLeaks knows for a fact that Julian Assange never stole anything, but that's atypical of this guy. He asks, "Is assange a moderern-day Robin Hood stealing information for the masses?" Where's his proof or evidence to substantiate this lie?  He quotes the words of some "law professor's" opinion as if this "opinion" is the last word and asserts with total conviction, because of that opinion, that for an absolute fact "the initial thief" (as yet ONLY accused Pfc. Bradley E. Manning) is for a fact a convicted and guilty "thief." According to their brilliantly convoluted deductive reasonings based upon their worthless opinions they conclude WikiLeaks and by inference Julian Assange are "thieves and co-conspirators in the theft." Absolutely no evidence or proof provided, only perverted and disputed opinions. More importantly, not once does Stancliff talk about what the United States is doing to Bradley Manning as they try to torture some kind of incriminating accusations from him that they can use against Julian Assange.

He also says, "His (Assange) followers threaten governments and corporations with impunity." Another ambiguous statement! Who says these people are "his" "followers"? What is it that he says threatens "governments and corporations with impunity"? Is it people, so-called, unidentified "followers" or INFORMATION, FACTS, OR TRUTH that threatens? Information that has absolutely nothing to do with Julian Assange or WikiLeaks.

As someone that has felt the closeness of the missiles of this guy's many attempts to assassinate my character whiz by, I can speak with some authority when I tell you the following statement is classic. Without a shred of proof other than his all-knowing, manifest god-complex he says: "Even calling him a whistle-blower is misleading, because he's pursuing a personal agenda against the United States." No where does Julian Assange assert that "agenda." There are many outright lies and false lying accusations made against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, most of them identified, exposed and refuted by Glenn Greenwald over the past weeks in his articles posted on Salon.com, so I'm not going to repeat any of that here.

The tragic reality of these kinds of useless imbecilic tirades is they directly attack all our First Amendment rights and do irreparable damage to the legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution. A fact the Local Master Assassinator readily acknowledges when he makes his first three lies in his second sentence, "He spread illegally obtained raw classified information on his website for the world to view." "He" did not "spread" anything. The information was not "raw" and the information was published in major newspapers first.

If Julian Assange is a thief, a criminal, a terrorist or a spy then so is the New York Times along with a half-a-dozen or so other major newspapers and all their collaborating news reporters. The greatest threat to everyone and everything this country was founded upon is viciously attacked by these kinds of people and their supporters. The greatest threat to the "journalism world" is defined by the very actions of these kinds of opinionated hacks that believe in and fight for the Darkness using lies, innuendo, false accusations and murder.

The following is a compilation of links to the many Glenn Greenwalds articles dealing with this specific issue. First, consider this posted today: 1) Why Julian Assange is a journalist - And why WikiLeaks is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as The New York Times. By Scott Gant. 2) The government's one-way mirror.

Here is the list of articles:

1. Joe Biden v. Joe Biden on WikiLeaks
2. Getting to Assange through Manning
3. The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning's detention
4. Attempts to prosecute WikiLeaks endanger press freedoms
5. The media's authoritarianism and WikiLeaks 
6. The crux of the WikiLeaks debate
7. Anti-WikiLeaks lies and propaganda - from TNR, Lauer, Feinstein and more
8. The lawless Wild West attacks WikiLeaks
9. WikiLeaks debate with Steven Aftergood
10. More Joe Lieberman-caused Internet censorship
11. Joe Lieberman emulates Chinese dictators
12. The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics
13. WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets
14. The wretched mind of the American authoritarian
15. More on the media's Pentagon-subservient WikiLeaks coverage
16. NYT v. the world: WikiLeaks coverage
17. How propaganda is disseminated: WikiLeaks Edition

The war is engaged and the conspirators and their enablers are self-identifying. It isn't just a war of the Power Elite against the American people, looting their money, their right to own property and ability to feed themselves, but a war against everything they hold dear, truth, honor, honesty, dignity, pride, ability-granting freedom to think for themselves and the self-worth of their individuality that makes them a people of value.

[UPDATE :: Friday, December 24, 2010]
A Christmas gift from WikiLeaks via Glenn Greenwald: What WikiLeaks revealed to the world in 2010 - 
This blog article about the As It Stands newspaper article's assault on the messenger is typical of a more widespread disease as illustrated in the following quotes. They demonstrate, to a large extent, why I shined a light on the character assassination by the As It Stands opinion:

To understand why I've (Greenwald) done so, and to see what motivates the increasing devotion of the U.S. Government and those influenced by it to destroying that organization, it's well worth reviewing exactly what WikiLeaks exposed to the world just in the last year:  the breadth of the corruption, deceit, brutality and criminality on the part of the world's most powerful factions.

As revealing as the disclosures themselves are, the reactions to them have been equally revealing.  The vast bulk of the outrage has been devoted not to the crimes that have been exposed but rather to those who exposed them: WikiLeaks and (allegedly) Bradley Manning.

*** Greenwald's expose defines why I had to engage this issue with local newspaper, the Times-Standard.

It's unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them.  Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold.  But what's startling is how many citizens and, especially, "journalists" now vehemently believe that as well.  In light of what WikiLeaks has revealed to the world about numerous governments, just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen -- and especially a "journalist" -- to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it'd be better if we didn't know; and, most of all, to demand that those who made us aware of it all be punished (the True Criminals) while those who did these things (The Good Authorities) be shielded. 

To see the list of just some of what WikiLeaks has offered, click this link.

---

[UPDATE :: Saturday, December 25, 2010 - What is a "HACKER?"]

The following excerpt from an essay by Bruce Sterling, The Blast Shack, is well worth reading the whole essay. It adds a lot of context to the above article. He concludes by saying:

Well… every once in a while, a situation that’s one-in-a-thousand is met by a guy who is one in a million. It may be that Assange is, somehow, up to this situation. Maybe he’s gonna grow in stature by the massive trouble he has caused. Saints, martyrs, dissidents and freaks are always wild-cards, but sometimes they’re the only ones who can clear the general air. Sometimes they become the catalyst for historical events that somehow had to happen. They don’t have to be nice guys; that’s not the point. Julian Assange did this; he direly wanted it to happen. He planned it in nitpicky, obsessive detail. Here it is; a planetary hack.

I don’t have a lot of cheery hope to offer about his all-too-compelling gesture, but I dare to hope he’s everything he thinks he is, and much, much, more.

--Joe

Ron Paul and WikiLeaks

The following was highlighted on MEDIAite.com and says an awful lot about Ron Paul:

Ron Paul’s Passionate Defense Of Julian Assange And WikiLeaks On House Floor

Mr. Paul concluded his speech with a list of questions for the American citizens to consider, the transcript of which is below (via FromTheOld.)

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

What are your answers?

--Joe

As It Stands II

[UPDATE Below]

After Thanksgiving, you'd think all this Report has to do is write about Dave Stancliff's Opinion “As It Stands” in the Sunday Times-Standard. Not true. After taking a couple of weeks off I needed something easy to deal with. His artful article for November 28, 2010, is: As It Stands: Thank you, Janet Napolitano, for saving us from pot terrorists – a rather satirical commentary and good for a laugh or two.

He makes a valid point or two and concludes:

As It Stands, forgive my sarcasm, but sometimes I have the feeling our government marches to a different tune than the rest of us.

Since “our government” is a representative democracy, I wonder what “government” he's talking about. It certainly couldn't be that one a majority of voters put into office a couple of years ago, now could it? Or maybe it was the one just put in and recently finalized a major change. So, who's really marching “to a different tune than the rest of us”? That minority that didn't vote for the present administration? In a Democracy their supposed to roll-over and submit to the will of the majority, aren't they? Of course, in the Obama Administration that means he does everything the Republicans want.

We all know that President Barack Obama has done everything he promised America that he would do – been a bastion of HOPE & CHANGE for the country. Everyone that bought into his spiel deserves what they get. Personal accountability starts with and ends with the VOTER. If it actually is, and it certainly seems to be, as Dave Stancliff alludes, then maybe it's time to start holding these voters accountable. Maybe next time they'll demand a choice of substantive people they can actually believe in. A good place to start is right here in Humboldt County with EVERY elected official.

The reason why is outlined in this interview with Noam Chomsky where he show how the WikiLeaks cables reveal a “Profound hatred for democracy by US and Israeli political leadership.” And we certainly know who they represent, the political and religious Elite.

Dave Stancliff's satire is well taken, but there are some serious SUBSTANTIVE issues confronting everyone of us in this country that needs to be thought about, considered and addressed. Ultimately Democracy works when responsibility and ACCOUNTABILITY are applied to the people. Maybe it's time to start thinking about your authoritarian, mean-spirited Republican neighbor that wants to take away your Social Security and Medicare benefits or your complicit, gutless, milquetoast Democrats in the looting and destruction of America.
[Source]

[UPDATE :: Tuesday, November 30, 2010]

Glenn Greenwald in his WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets - lays out what some of these "serious substantive" issues are. He begins by saying:

The WikiLeaks disclosure has revealed not only numerous government secrets, but also the driving mentality of major factions in our political and media class.  Simply put, there are few countries in the world with citizenries and especially media outlets more devoted to serving, protecting and venerating government authorities than the U.S. [Emphasis added]

His sober assessment of what's happening in America should be a real eye-opener. He lays the fault right at the feet of those responsible for the ongoing war on Democracy. Be nice to see local Dave Stancliff types step up and substantively distinguish themselves here on the North Coast for a change.

--Joe

Joe Blow Walks In Tall Clover

In many ways it is always nice to know that there are others out there in this world that share similar experiences as you - both good and bad. So, when I read Glenn Greenwald's latest article, More on the media's Pentagon-subservient WikiLeaks coverage dealing with The New York Times' John Burns and his non-story about the latest WikiLeaks revelations: WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety, I began to wonder if some of our local Opinionators were taking lessons from John Burns.

Glenn Greenwald deals with the same kinds of issues as I have and he lives in Brazil. I guess not everyone thinks he's a "media critic." Glenn updated his article with this comment:

I don't have much to add to what either reporter said there, as I think my critiques stand on their own, and I've already addressed most of the excuses offered. I will, however, note two points: (1) one the cheapest, most slothful and most intellectually dishonest methods for refuting an argument is to mockingly slap the label of "conspiracy theory" on it, as though the argument then becomes self-refuting; that's virtually always a non-responsive strawman, and that's exactly what Burns does in purporting to address my criticisms even though, manifestly, nothing I said qualifies as such; and (2) it's a very significant -- and positive -- change even from a couple of years ago that these reporters are not only loudly exposed to criticisms of their work, but feel compelled to expend substantial efforts engaging them and responding.

Sound familiar?

The picture? That comes from Wikipedia and the Study of Saints, "Hagiography." Glenn explains:

"Hagiography" is exactly what the American establishment media does, when it comes to powerful American political and military leaders.  Slimy, personality-based hit pieces are reserved for those who are scorned by the powerful ..."

"Powerful." Like local newspapers, their reporters and Opinionatores that "feel compelled to expend substantial efforts engaging them and responding" to their critic's "criticisms of their work"? Glenn's point, if they had any personal integrity or loyalty to the truth, they wouldn't need to defend themselves, now would they?

---

Integrity:
1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished.
3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition.

--Joe

Blow's It Off

The Best They Can Do

Probably one of the more important historical events that's happened in decades, took place over the weekend, at least as far as America and it's allies are concerned, and all the Times-Standard could manage to do was publish a cartoon depicting the poor Pentagon getting pissed on. Never mind the more serious reality that the American forces reported and recorded, during this specific time period, 66,000 civilian deaths. 

That event, if you didn't already know, was the Wiki Leaks' publishing of the Iraq War Logs:
[from their website - http://wikileaks.org/ ]

At 5pm EST Friday 22nd October 2010 WikiLeaks released the largest classified military leak in history. The 391,832 reports ('The Iraq War Logs'), document the war and occupation in Iraq, from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by soldiers in the United States Army. Each is a 'SIGACT' or Significant Action in the war. They detail events as seen and heard by the US military troops on the ground in Iraq and are the first real glimpse into the secret history of the war that the United States government has been privy to throughout.

The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces). The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths. That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period. For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivalent population size.

This, of course, is consistent with their role as “establishment media.” Glenn Greenwald defines their role in providing our Constitutional rights of “free speech” in his October 25, 2010: “NYT v. the world: WikiLeaks coverage.”

Here's an excerpt on how the Sunday news shows responded:

UPDATE III:  Michael Calderone of Yahoo! News documents how the Sunday news shows barely bothered to discuss the substance of the WikiLeaks documents at all.  Even worse, on ABC News, Diane Sawyer demands to know whether WikiLeaks -- but not the U.S. Government officials responsible for perpetrating and sanctioning torture in Iraq -- will be arrested.   To paraphrase that exchange:

WikiLeaks documents: There was mass torture, abuse, government deceit, reckless civilian deaths in Iraq.

Diane Sawyer: Will WikiLeaks be arrested?

As I wrote yesterday:  "serving the Government's interests, siding with government and military officials, and attacking government critics is what they do. That's their role. That's what makes them the 'establishment media'."

It's been nothing but lies and more lies right from the beginning. It's apparent that President Barack Obama's Presidency is also based on nothing more than one lie after another. Here is a very good article by Ellen Knickmeyer, who was there, on the deliberate lying reported in The Daily Beast.

[Source - TS]

--Joe