search
top
Currently Browsing: Education

Net Neutrality Is A Very Bad Idea

The Net Neutrality regulations, according to our government, will give us a free and open Internet by granting them the power to regulate it. Wait… what? Isn’t the internet already free and open. So just what is this proposed Net Neutrality plan? Well that is the problem. Nobody seems to know for sure. The FCC has made it clear that they will not release the 332 page plan to “regulate” the Internet until after the agency votes on it. does that make you think of Nancy Pelosi’s infamous statement about the Affordable Care Act: Congress had to pass it for Americans to learn what it would do. Trust me when I say this…. This is bad for the Internet! Sooner or later, under FCC regulation of the Internet, there will be “regulatory capture”—large established firms exploiting regulations to suppress the emergence of small, creative startups. Because it will be impossible for the FCC to keep close tabs on thousands of Internet companies, they will find it expedient to limit the number of participants, finding it easier to oversee a few large corporations than countless smaller ones. Think of the investment implications here: Who knows how many would-be startups that might have become the next Facebook or Twitter may be strangled in their cribs by FCC regulators? Think of all the new millionaires that won’t be created. Successful investing in the Internet will be influenced greatly by which companies the FCC’s policies favor, meaning that the homework needed to discover which companies have the best business plan may not be as important as following what the FCC regulators do. Our entire system of government is owned and ran by politicians who pass legislation according to who is giving them the most money. And after seeing how government runs our healthcare, medicare and social security, do you really want them taking over the Internet? They can’t deliver our mail without going broke. Furthermore, imagine the power they have now and times it by a billion. We could easily see content being blocked, regulated and manipulated. Especially if it helps government and their agenda. How about reelection time? They could push whatever agenda they want right to your desktop. They already do this to us on our TV’s. Net neutrality wants to stop companies from assigning priorities to Internet traffic. The problem is, prioritization is the most elementary and necessary feature of economic activity and free markets. In a world of finite... read more

Public Servant or Bully?

Nothing makes me more angry than seeing videos of police using force and intimidation on innocent people. A man driving through an Illinois checkpoint attempted to exercise his Constitutional rights to question officers on whether he was being detained or free to go. The first Illinois State Police officer remained calm, especially considering the driver had informed him he was being recorded from the get-go. But a second officer who walked up to the car after the initial exchange, only to hear the man telling the cop that it was an unconstitutional stop, became so enraged that he yanked the door open and began yelling in his face. This officer doesn’t even know the law he is supposed to uphold. Driving is not a privilege. Travelling is a right, AND LOCK YOUR DOORS! “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22. (“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.) “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179. “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293. Just saying he is wrong and a stupid road side thug. Are you awake Yet? As a reader you deserve to know the truth behind the disasters America and the rest of the world faces. If you want to learn more about what is going on in America then consider joining America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. These newsletters are free and... read more

Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccination Claims

Merck is currently facing serious allegations in regards to the efficacy of its MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine. The claims are put forth by two former Merck scientists-turned-whistleblowers, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, who filed a False Claims Act complaint in 2010, along with a senior Centre for Disease Control (CDC) scientist by the name William Thompson. The complaint claim that they “witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings.” According to the court documents Merck’s misconduct is occurring in many different ways including: Failed to disclose that its mumps vaccine was not as effective as Merck represented Manipulated testing methodology Abandoned undesirable test results Falsified test data Failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine Falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling Falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA Falsely certified compliance with the terms of the (Centre for Disease Control) CDC purchase contract Mislabeled, misbranded and falsely certified its mumps vaccine and The suit also alleges: “As the single largest purchaser of childhood vaccines (accounting for more than 50 percent of all vaccine purchasers), the United States is by far the largest financial victim of Merck’s fraud. But the ultimate victims here are the millions of children who every year are being injected with a mumps vaccine that is not providing them with any level of protection against mumps. Merck’s Dismissal Attempt Denied. U.S. District judge threw out Merck’s dismissal attempts earlier this month, which means that this pharmaceutical giant will have to defend itself in at least two Federal court cases. Something To Consider These whistleblowers gave up everything to share this information – their jobs, their credibility, and their reputation. What would they have to gain from falsifying any of this information? They were directly involved in this cover-up and decided to speak out and share the truth. I think it is very important that we pay attention to what they are trying to say. When you really think about it, these are some pretty serious allegations put forth by former Merck and CDC employees, and this is some pretty big news. Why isn’t this information being reported in mainstream news? The media seems to hold a very one-sided view of vaccinations and they aren’t interested in reporting anything that may appear to delegitimize their... read more

Civil Disobedience

While having a perfect law enforcement sounds great, who keeps government in check? It is true that governments do not reform themselves. It requires the people, activism and organizing to preserve our rights. And damn the American people if we ever forget it. When we look back on history, the progress of Western civilization and human rights is actually founded on the violation of law. America was of course born out of a violent revolution that was an outrageous treason against the crown and established order of the day. History shows that the righting of historical wrongs is often born from acts of unrepentant criminality. Slavery. The protection of persecuted Jews. But even on less extremist topics, we can find similar examples. How about the prohibition of alcohol? Gay marriage? Marijuana? Traffic and parking tickets? “Where would we be today if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had—entirely within the law—rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed all of these lawbreakers? Civil Disobedience! Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren’t just giving up power and control of our rights to government, but our agency in determining their futures. Governments today are power hungry machines and they ignore their citizens’ problems and instead control their citizens’ behavior. How do we combat this? We need to remove any interference in our elected leaders enforcement our rights and liberties. You can see this dynamic today in the statements of government officials complaining about the adoption of encryption by major technology providers. The idea here isn’t to fling ourselves into anarchy and do away with government, but to remind the government that there must always be a balance of power between the governing and the governed, and that as the progress of science increasingly empowers communities and individuals, there will be more and more areas of our lives where—if government insists on behaving poorly and with a callous disregard for the citizen—we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new—and permanent—basis. Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it’s entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy. We haven’t had to think about that much in the last few decades because quality of life has been increasing across almost all measures in a significant... read more

Yes, Your Samsung Smart TV Does Listen To Your Private Conversations

The revelation that Samsung’s Smart TV can and will listen to your conversations, and will share the details with a third party is just more proof we are ignorant about what is going on around us. Yes, you read that right. Samsung’s Smart TV can will listen to your conversations. Here’s the actual language from the privacy policy itself: Voice Recognition: You can control your SmartTV, and use many of its features, with voice commands. If you enable Voice Recognition, you can interact with your Smart TV using your voice. To provide you the Voice Recognition feature, some voice commands may be transmitted (along with information about your device, including device identifiers) to a third-party service that converts speech to text or to the extent necessary to provide the Voice Recognition features to you. In addition, Samsung may collect and your device may capture voice commands and associated texts so that we can provide you with Voice Recognition features and evaluate and improve the features. Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition. This is direct from Samsungs privacy policy and can be viewed here… http://www.samsung.com/sg/info/privacy/smarttv.html While the privacy policy statement is disturbing in its own right, the extent of how crazy it is has to do with the fact that this information will be shared with a “third party.” This begs the question, who is this third party? You should have concerns. First, this seems very vulnerabal to hackers. So even if we can be assured that Samsung and the third party isn’t up to anything sneaky, is the entire process secure enough to protect ourselves from hackers, or an intelligence agency like the NSA? I have my doubts. Beyond this, there is an equally important concern regarding how this trend might progress into the future, and how it will future erode personal privacy if we don’t address it now. Take Facebook for example. In its early days it was a seemingly benign, efficient and enjoyable way to stay in touch with friends and reconnect with old ones. It lured in over a billion users and then essentially decided to turn on all of them without really ever letting anyone know in order to make an incredible amount of money. Although it might be completely innocent right now, that in no way,... read more
top