noworldsystem.com


Leaked Emails Prove Global Warming is a Hoax

MUST READ!
CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker Leaks E-Mails Exposing the Global Warming Hoax

Corbett Report / Taxpayers’ Alliance
November 20, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

A hacker has leaked thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University that appear to show how climate change data was fudged and the peer review process skewed to favor the manmade climate change hypothesis.

The link to the data appears to have been posted to a number of climate science websites yesterday by an anonymous hacker or insider going by the name “FOIA,” an apparent allusion to the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. One of the first sites where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent. It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and other climate science sites.

The information contained in the leaked emails and documents are as shocking as they are damning of the scientists who have been most vocal about the manmade global warming scare. Some of the excerpts include this email, from one of the world’s leading climate scientists, Phil Jones writing to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist Michael Mann of “Mann’s hockey stick” fame to “hide the decline” in recent global temperatures. The recent global temperatures show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but Jones ADMITS in this excerpt that he replaced the real global temperatures with Mann’s “hockey-stick” up-slope to fit their climate change viewpoints.:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

In another email from Phil Jones to climate scientist Michael Mann about ousting academics that question the link between human activities and global warming out of any peer-reviewed IPCC reports.:

    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

More evidence of the ousting of global warming skeptics is found in this excerpt in which researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal because he seems to be sympathetic to global warming skeptics.:

    “Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.< Even this would be difficult."

The scientists at the CRU have been waging a running battle against releasing any information under the Freedom of Information Act. A number of people had been making requests for the release of their data and correspondence – a legitimate target for an FoI, particularly given the large amounts of taxpayers’ money flowing into the CRU, the controversy of the topic and the sizeable impact on public policy that the Unit seeks to have.

These emails reveal the horrendous attitude of the CRU towards these requests behind the scenes, and their furious efforts to defy and even break the FoI Act.

Prof Jones’s colleague, Prof. Keith Briffa – who is a Reader at the CRU – spells out their attitude towards Freedom of Information quite neatly.:

    “I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private ,
    inter-collegial discussion is just that – PRIVATE. Your communication with individual
    colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC
    process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these
    “demands” undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is
    for this reason, and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe
    none of us should submit to these “requests”.”

This is of course absolutely disgraceful behaviour on the part of these academics and their institution. They might have felt this was an imposition or an invasion, and they may have felt that their research should have been out of the grubby grasp of the general public, but the law is clear.

This is a rare insight into the attitude within many public bodies towards transparency, and the refusal to accept the principle of the FoIA is undoubtedly all too common. While the people and the media love FoI for the power it disseminates, those who have lost their privileged status still resent it deeply.

Even more serious than their appalling attitude is the instruction by Prof Jones to his colleagues to delete emails that are apparently subject to an FoI request! Which is illegal. . .

In a January 2nd, 2005 Prof Phil Jones tells colleague Michael Mann in an email that he should delete CRU station data before climate skeptics can get a hold of it via Freedom of Information Act.:

    don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!

Jones just admitted he was warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre (MM), but that’s not the only evidence of ‘cooking the books’. On May 29th 2008, Prof Jones instructs colleagues to delete emails in a message helpfully titled “IPCC & FOI”:

    “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

AR4 is an IPCC report that Keith Briffa and others at the CRU worked on together, and at least one FoI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted by a David Holland on May 5th 2008.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 expressly forbids – on pain of criminal conviction – destroying information that has been requested under FoI. As the Information Commissioner puts it:

If information is held when a FOIA request is received, destroying it outside of your normal records management policies will result in a breach of the Act. You must confirm that you hold the information and consider disclosure, subject to any exemption. It will also be a criminal offence to conceal or destroy information if this is done with the intention of preventing disclosure under either FOIA or EIR.

This offence is punishable with a fine of up to £5,000.

Tellingly, another email from Prof Jones later that year shows that UEA’s internal FoI team had evidently become concerned about his secretive actions:

    “I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails”

If the FoI team were concerned that Prof Jones might be breaking the law – and even committing a criminal offence – on an area that they are legally responsible for, they should have reported him to the Information Commissioner. Perhaps his flowering relationship with the FoI officer and the Chief Librarian precluded this.

Happily, he’s never tried to become matey with us, so we’re reporting him and his colleagues to the Information Commissioner this afternoon.

Irrespective of how important your subject area is, what your views on the topic might be, or how much you dislike the person making the request, Freedom of Information is too valuable and too important to just be ridden over roughshod like this. [Source]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8CVh2deXTI

Unsurprisingly, there has so far been deafening silence on this issue in the controlled corporate media, but in light of the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty talks, it is imperative that we have a true and open debate about climate change before we make potentially world-changing decisions based on this science. It is up to all of us to push this story and its staggering implications into the mainstream.

 

Climategate: Why it matters

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
November 23, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx3q2arm_ek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4f98fBCfk

Globalist minion Al Gore and the United Nations climate change shysters led by Phil Jones are in trouble. Last week hackers uncovered a pile of email and documents revealing what many of us already knew — the climate change agenda is based not only on easily debunked junk science, but outright lies and deception.

In the wake of the damning revelations exposed by these anonymous hackers, the climate change snake oil salesmen Gore and his complaisant entourage of now discredited scientists are in full retreat. Even the corporate media — guilty of peddling the fabrication of man-made climate change for years with the best propaganda money can buy — are desperately scrambling to put the best spin possible on the emerging travesty.

In the above video, Alex Jones examines the startling revelations of the CRU files and spells out what it means for the global elite who have planned to use the ruse to impose crippling carbon taxes and put the finishing touches on their global totalitarian super-state and its accompanying control and slave grid.

Infowars and Prison Planet are now feverishly going through the documents and will post the result in the hours and days ahead. In the meantime, here are a few quotes from the perpetrators:

Kevin Trenberth
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Phil Jones
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible.

Mike MacCracken
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

Tim Johns
Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published).

Christoph Kull
Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to concensus [sic] and progress.

Keith Briffa
Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist.

Michael E. Mann
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.

Ben Santer
I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

“Climategate”: Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists

 



Homeland Security Calls Free Speech Terrorism

Homeland Security Calls Free Speech Terrorism

Noworldsystem.com
May 11, 2009

The American way of life is under attack by the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Government. There are 2 pending bills in the U.S. House of Representatives that may eventually pass the Senate and become law. These bills will make “hostile speech” and prejudice a felony, it is the first step in ensuring the destruction of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The House already passed a bill titled “The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009” (HR 1913) allowing the federal government to aid local/state and tribal governments to prosecute any crime motivated by prejudice (in terms of race, religion, personal sexual orientation, gender identity and disability). The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect offensive speech, not polite speech. If this bill passes the Senate this will mean the official end of free speech in America as we know it.

This bill could lead to an age of “Pre-Crime”, if say the FBI suspects you of potentially committing a hate crime you can be prosecuted even if no crime was even committed. But still this remains to be seen.

The other bill that was introduced by the House recently is called the “Megan Meier Cyber-bullying Prevention Act” (HR 1966) if passed the Senate it will lead to fines and up to 2 years in prison if anyone uses popular online media outlets (such as blogs, myspace, facebook, twitter etc.) to cause “substantial emotional distress through severe repeated and hostile speech”. In other words, if you hurt someones feelings on the internet you could be put in prison or fined!

There was a somewhat similar Orwellian piece of legislation that never passed the Senate called the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007” (S.1959, otherwise known as the Thought Crimes Bill) which would have given Homeland Security the authority to fund Universities to study ways to stop “extremist belief systems” and “radical ideologies” of Americans. [Source]

Homeland Security released 3 new memos claiming civil disobedience, the alternative news media and dissent against the U.S. government are extremist activities.

The most recent memo titled the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon”, mixes peaceful activists in with prison gangs and criminals. Here is a small list of so-called extremists according to the DHS and I&A:

Alternative Media – Various information sources (online) that interpret events that are different from the mainstream media.

Rightwing Activists – Those who are anti-income tax, pro-sovereignty, anti-illegal immigration, support the U.S. Constitution and bill of rights, pro-militias, anti-new world order, anti-north american union, anti-abortion protesters.

Leftwing Activists – Those who support animal rights, environmentalism, anti-war activism, those who are communist/socialist or anti-capitalists and anarchists. (black bloc are agent provocateurs)

Civil Disobedience – The things Martin Luther King and Ghandi have done are now considered extremism according to Homeland Security! Protesting and the right to assemble in a peaceful manner is now considered an EXTREME act, amazing!

Leaderless Resistance – Individuals acting independently and anonymously outside formal organizational structures. This probably means groups like the Truth/Patriot Movement who fight against the New World Order and question things like the Federal Reserve and 9/11. We are totally non-violent and only seek to wage an information-war against One World Government. But like any leaderless group we are prone to violent infiltrators and Black-ops/Psy-Ops by the mainstream media to paint us as evil and dangerous terrorists.

Hackers – Script kiddies, website defacers, DOS’ers are now a potential extremist threat.

All of these non-violent groups are being lumped-up with prison gangs, criminals, racist groups like white supremacists, black power advocates, Mexican pro-atzlan separatists. They want to demonize 1st amendment activists, blurring the line between free speech and terrorism, blurring the line between crime and terrorism. Basically they are conditioning the public to believe that all crime is now terrorism!

Another new, yet very similar unclassified memo by Homeland Security called the “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” states the: “prolonged economic downturn” could lead to “fertile recruitment” of returning Iraq veterans by “rightwing extremists” to cause violence against the U.S. Government.

The memo says the increase of concern of loss of sovereignty, illegal immigration, emerging gun-control treaties will cause rightwing groups to turn to terrorism, the memo states: “they are highly critical of the U.S. government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend rights to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits or public education.”.

2 points id like to make; 1) There was never a case where a rightwing group has caused terrorism at the southern border, and 2) how else does the government expect Americans to react when our own government supports people who break the law?

The memo also outlandishly claims anti-New World Order “conspiracy theorists” are violent rightwing extremists and the memo claims the New World Order is only based on Communism and has nothing to do with the Anglo-American internationalist’s quest for a world system. They further claim that anti-New World Order theorists are violent and strongly anti-Jewish. They also claim the April 4th shooting of 3 police officers in Pittsburgh was carried out by a conspiracy theorist that was against “Jewish-controlled One World Government”. This is just some more demonization of people who are having an effect and speaking truth to power.

This memo is a lot similar to a 2006 document revealing the Bush Administration was targeting 9/11 “conspiracy theorists” claiming al-qaeda terrorism springs from: “subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation,” and that “terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.” [Page 10]

The last new-memo I will summarize is the MIAC Strategic Report that was given to Missouri law enforcement officers indicated that presidential candidates; Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul and Bob Barr are terrorists!

Infowars.com broke the story when radio talk-show host Alex Jones received a copy of the MIAC report from an anonymous source in the Missouri police department. Infowars.com writes: “The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as ‘militia’ influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties,”. [Source]

State law enforcement across the nation already have “fusion centers” to crack down on the patriot/liberty movement. [Source]

These are stunning events in the history of America, more and more ordinary peaceful Americans are being hassled for having a belief that freedom is an individual’s inalienable constitutional right and should not be controlled by the bureaucracy of big government.

This month in Louisiana a driver was stopped, questioned and detained for having a “Don’t Tread On Me” bumper sticker on his car. The driver’s sister-in-law reported that the police officer told him “he had a subversive survivalist bumper sticker on his car.” and that the driver was suspect of “extremist” activities, she continued: “They proceeded to keep him there on the side of the road while they ran whatever they do to see if you have a record, keeping him standing by the side of the road for 30 minutes,”. [Source] Another bumper sticker stop happened in Las Vegas in 2008, a driver was pulled over and questioned. After, the driver headed to his car and the officer said “you know why we had to do this right?”, the officer repeated his comment and pointed at RON PAUL and INFOWARS.COM bumper stickers on the back of his vehicle. [Source]

Want more? A Michigan man stopped, handcuffed, assaulted and branded “unpatriotic” and was subjected to a search of his car, during the search drugs were allegedly planted, all for distributing DVD’s about 9/11 Truth. [Source] In 2004 a Kentucky carpenter distributed Ron Paul and Alex Jones videotapes to a state trooper. A week later he was pulled over, arrested and almost faced a year in jail. [Source] A bible college student in Texas was accused by Homeland Security and FBI agents of “committing acts of terror and espionage” after talking to Boy Scouts about the U.S. Constitution! [Source]

I hope many of you feel dejected enough by this information to take some action. But if not, there are a few other documents you should take a look at:

The “Texas Department of Public Safety Criminal Law Enforcement Pamphlet” identifies citizens who buy baby formula, beer, wearing Levi’s Jeans, traveling with a drivers license and traveling with women and children to considered to be dangerous terrorists! A Virginia Training Manual used to help state employees help identify terrorists, it lists anti-government, property rights activists, people who use binoculars, video cameras and notepads. And last but not least, a Pheonix 9/11 Manual disseminated amongst federal employees revealed potential terrorist as “defenders of the U.S. Constitution against federal government and the United Nations,” and individuals who “make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution.”.

The U.S. Government has become so tyrannical, so corrupt, it has transformed from a “government of the people” into a bureaucratic big brother police state because we allowed ourselves to become distracted from what is of utmost importance; freedom and the preservation of liberty for future generations.

We are now entering the final phase of a New World Order, where internationalist elite control all government to be in favor of a One World Fascist Dictatorship, worse than what George Orwell ever wrote about. A modern era of totalitarianism maintained by a technology-driven control grid, where infra-red spy satellites used by law enforcement can see through your house, drones that can keep an eye on your vehicle, taxing you by the mile, ticketing you when you run a red light. Iris-scanners and bio-scanner cameras at airports measuring your body temperature, pulse and breathing to make sure you aren’t a terrorist. Microchips that control every aspect of your daily life.

George Orwell’s chilling warning of a regime out of control seeking to rule every waking moment of a persons life is not so far off from today and the future of the 21st century. The question is, will this be the picture of what is to come.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face –forever.” -George Orwell.

 



Credit Card Companies Refuse Mythbusters to Test RFID

Credit Card Companies Refuse Mythbusters to Test RFID

 



Diebold Admits Voting Machines Don’t Count Votes Correctly

Diebold Admits Voting Machines Don’t Count Votes Correctly

 

Diebold Coverup, Says SAIC Report And Stephen Spoonamore

 



Here’s how they steal your vote

Here’s how they steal your vote

 



CNN Lies About Gori Bombings by Russia

Info War – CNN Lies About Gori Bombings by Russia

 

Russian Cameraman: CNN Aired Misleading Footage
Broadcaster showed Georgian forces attacking South Ossetia, claimed it was Russians attacking Gori

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
August 12, 2008

CNN is airing misleading footage of the war between Georgia and Russia, skewing public opinion in favor of the Georgians, according to a Russia Today cameraman interviewed this morning.

The Russia Today satellite TV company aired the interview on its English language news channel but the story is yet to appear on the Internet or in any other news outlet.

The Russian cameraman charged that CNN had used his footage of Georgian forces attacking Russian civilians in Tskhinvali, the provincial capital of South Ossetia, but then claimed it showed Russians attacking Georgians in the Georgian town of Gori.

The Georgian assault on Tskhinvali, described as an act of genocide and a war crime by Russian officials and other eyewitnesses, led to the slaughter of at least 2,000 civilians. The fact that Georgia, backed by the U.S. and Israel, were responsible for the provocation that led to the Russian response, has been buried by the majority of western corporate media.

Western media bias to skew popular opinion in favor of the U.S. and NATO client state Georgia was evident from the very start of the conflict.

As we reported yesterday, a prime example of media bias in shielding Georgia from responsibility for the carnage is the fact that news outlets like the BBC continue to report that thousands of civilians were killed in Georgia, ith the obvious inference being that these are victims of the Russian onslaught. But these victims were not killed in Georgia, they were killed in Ossetia – by Georgian forces.

As the Chimes of Freedom Blog elaborates, “While the Ossetians claimed over 1000 dead the BBC neither reported this or any newsreel coming out of Ossetia showing the destruction caused by the Georgian shelling of the breakaway republic. All we are getting is one-sided reports of the destruction being caused by the Russians.”

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev this morning ordered an immediate halt to Russia’s military operations against Georgia.

“The purpose of the operation has been achieved…. The security of our peacekeeping forces and the civilian population has been restored,” Interfax quoted him as saying.

UPDATE: Russia Today has now posted the following on their website and uploaded a video.

 

Russian media suppressed in Georgia

Russian Hackers Continue Attacks On Web Sites
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..1NwOoTO6GRL.Z38vINk24cA

Russia points to media bias in coverage of S.Ossetia conflict
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080810/115936076.html

Russia Today’s Web Site Attacked
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28835

Georgian president’s Web site moves to Atlanta
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92G6SGO0&show_article=1

Georgia: Russia ’conducting cyber war’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/..-Russia-conducting-cyber-war.html

U.S. Media Distorts Reality Of Georgia/Russia Conflict
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=11387

 



Law Professor: There’s going to be an Internet 9/11

Law Professor: Counter Terrorism Czar Told Me There Is Going To Be An i-9/11 And An i-Patriot Act

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
August 5, 2008

Amazing revelations have emerged concerning already existing government plans to overhaul the way the internet functions in order to apply much greater restrictions and control over the web.

Lawrence Lessig, a respected Law Professor from Stanford University told an audience at this years Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference in Half Moon Bay, California, that “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event” which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.

Lessig also revealed that he had learned, during a dinner with former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, that there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an “i-Patriot Act” if you will, and that the Justice Department is waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions.

During a group panel segment titled “2018: Life on the Net”, Lessig stated:

There’s going to be an i-9/11 event. Which doesn’t necessarily mean an Al Qaeda attack, it means an event where the instability or the insecurity of the internet becomes manifest during a malicious event which then inspires the government into a response. You’ve got to remember that after 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.

The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.

Of course, the Patriot Act is filled with all sorts of insanity about changing the way civil rights are protected, or not protected in this instance. So I was having dinner with Richard Clarke and I asked him if there is an equivalent, is there an i-Patriot Act just sitting waiting for some substantial event as an excuse to radically change the way the internet works. He said “of course there is”.

Watch Lessig reveal the details at 4.30 into the following video:

Lessig is the founder of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. He is founding board member of Creative Commons and is a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.

These are clearly not the ravings of some paranoid cyber geek.

The Patriot Act, as well as its lesser known follow up the Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003, also known as USA Patriot Act II, have been universally decried by civil libertarians and Constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum. They have stripped back basic rights and handed what have been described by even the most moderate critics as “dictatorial control” over to the president and the federal government.

Many believed that the legislation was a response to the attacks of 9/11, but the reality was that the Patriot Act was prepared way in advance of 9/11 and it sat dormant, awaiting an event to justify its implementation.

In the days after the attacks it was passed in the House by a majority of 357 to 66. It passed the Senate by 98 to 1. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) told the Washington Times that no member of Congress was even allowed to read the legislation.

Now we discover that exactly the same freedom restricting legislation has already been prepared for the cyber world.

An i-9/11, as described by Lawrence Lessig, would provide the perfect pretext to implement such restrictions in one swift motion, as well as provide the justification for relegating and eliminating specific content and information on the web.

Such an event could come in the form of a major viral attack, the hacking of a major city’s security or transport systems, or some other vital systems, or a combination of all of these things. Considering the amount of unanswered questions regarding 9/11 and all the indications that it was a covert false flag operation, it isn’t hard to imagine such an event being played out in the cyber world.

However, regardless of any i-9/11 or i-Patriot Act, there is already a coordinated effort to stem the reach and influence of the internet.

We have tirelessly warned of this general movement to restrict, censor, control and eventually completely shut down the internet as we know it, thereby killing the last real vestige of free speech in the world today and eliminating the greatest communication and information tool ever conceived.

Our governments have reams of legislation penned to put clamps on the web as we know it. Legislation such as the PRO-IP Act of 2007: H.R. 4279, that would create an IP czar at the Department of Justice and the Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007: S. 522, which would create an entire ‘Intellectual Property Enforcement Network’. These are just two examples.

In addition, we have already seen how the major corporate websites and social networks are decentralizing and coming together to implement overarching identification, verification and access systems that have been described by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as “the beginning of a movement and the beginning of an industry.”

Some of these major tech companies have already joined efforts in projects such as the Information Card Foundation, which has proposed the creation of a system of internet ID cards that will be required for internet access. Of course, such a system would give those involved the ability to track and control user activity much more effectively. This is just one example.

In addition, as we reported yesterday, major transportation hubs like St. Pancras International, as well as libraries, big businesses, hospitals and other public outlets that offer wi-fi Internet, are blacklisting alternative news websites and making them completely inaccessible to their users.

These precedents are merely the first indication of what is planned for the Internet over the next 5-10 years, with the traditional web becoming little more than a vast spy database that catalogues people’s every activity and bombards them with commercials, while those who comply with centralized control and regulation of content will be free to enjoy the new super-fast Internet 2.

We must speak out about this rampant move to implement strict control mechanisms on the web NOW before it is too late, before the spine of the free internet is broken and its body essentially becomes paralyzed beyond repair.

Homeland Security Invokes Internet Nuclear Bomb Senario
http://earthhopenetwork.net/forum/printthread.php?tid=572

The Future of the ‘iPatriot Act’
http://futureoftheinternet.org/the-future-of-the-ipatriot-act