The Dissenting Heretic

DOX: Westboro Baptist Church

2012-02-10T10:46:00.002-05:00

Westboro Baptist Church
3701 SW 12th St
Topeka, KS 66604
(785) 273-0325
Fred W. and Margie M. Phelps, Sr.
Westboro Baptist Church
3701 S.W. 12th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66604
phone: 785-273-0325 and 785-273-0338
fax: 785-273-9228
Fred W. Phelps. Jr. and Betty Phelps
3600 S. W. Holly Lane
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-272-4135
Jr.’s work: 785-296-3195
Margie J. Phelps
3734 S.W. 12th
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-273-7380
work: 785-296-3317
Ben Phelps
3632 S.W. Churchill
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-233-4162
Rebekah Phelps-Davis and Chris Davis-Phelps
1216 S.W. Cambridge
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-272-7741
Shirley Phelps-Roper and Brent Roper-Phelps
Sam Phelps-Roper
3640 S.W. Churchilll
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-273-1445/273-0277/272-1619
Shirley’s work: 785-233-4162
Brent’s work (Foot Locker) 785-273-0068
Jonathan and Paulette Phelps
840 S.W. Watson
Topeka, Kansas 66606
Jonathan’s work: 785-233-4162
Elizabeth Phelps
2001 S.W. 2nd Street
Topeka, Kansas 66606
home: 785-234-9694
work: 785-233-0822
Abigail Phelps
3636 S.W. Churchill
Topeka, Kansas 66604
785-273-7262
work: 785-296-7709
Charles W. and Mary Hockenbarger
711 N.W. Page
Topeka, Kansas 66617
home: 785- 246-1567
Rachel Phelps Hockenbarger and Charles F. Hockenbarger
1284 S.W. Hillsdale
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-271-1619
Tim and LeAnn Phelps
3743 S.W. 12th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66604
home: 785-273-4780
Tim’s work: 785-291-5100
Leann’s work: phone: 785-233-4162
Theresa Davis
3632 S.W. 12th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66604
work: 785-291-700
Credit @Infamous_Anon

Westboro Baptist Church- Phone, Names, Addresses, &Info

By: a guest | Feb 9th, 2012 | Syntax: None | Size: 1.63 KB | Hits: 4,202 | Expires: Never

SOURCE: http://pastebin.com/NYNQXtps

Why Young People Are Fleeing Conservative Evangelicalism

2012-02-10T04:31:00.001-05:00

By Eleanor J. Bader

[REPRINT]

Some leave because they oppose the church's doctrinal stance. Others are turned off by its hostility to science. Others reject the limitations placed on sex.

February 9, 2012 |

The results of a five-year study of the Millennial Generation—people born between 1982 and 1993—are in. Thanks to the Barna Group, a 28-year-old, California-based, Christian research firm, we now know that conservative evangelical churches are losing formerly–affiliated “young creatives:” Actors, artists, biologists, designers, mathematicians, medical students, musicians, and writers.

Some leave because they oppose the church’s doctrinal stance. Others are turned off by its hostility to science, and still others reject the limitations placed on permissible sexual activity. The report cites the tension felt by young adults who find it difficult—if not impossible—to remain “sexually pure,” especially since most heterosexuals don’t marry until their mid-to-late twenties. “Young Christians are as sexually active as their non-Christian peers,” Barna concludes. What’s more, the report admits that Millennials see the evangelical church as an exclusive club, open only to those who adhere to every rule. This runs counter to values that rank high on the Millennial playlist—among them, open-mindedness, tolerance, and support for diversity.

These findings, of course, don’t necessarily mean that young evangelicals are becoming progressively engaged, but they do suggest that an opening exists for prochoice, feminist, and pro-LGBTQ activists to touch the hearts and minds of Generation Y. Angela Ferrell-Zabala, director of Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom, a project of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, says that former Evangelicals are hungry for information about alternative faith and lifestyle options. “Technology has given Millennials access to philosophies and people from all over, and they tend to think in ways that are bigger than where they came from or how they were raised,“ she begins.” At the same time, “young folks are not necessarily throwing in the towel on their faith. They’re working to reconcile the pieces of their lives, asking, ‘Who am I?’ and ‘What is my place in the world?’“

The relationship between seemingly disparate issues, or intersectionality, holds great appeal to Millennials, Ferrell Zabala continues. “When we speak about reproductive justice we’re speaking about the whole person--being able to access jobs and higher education as well as contraception. When we talk about voter suppression or immigration, the conversation leads back to the choices a person is able to make.” And regardless of whether Millennials ultimately join a mainline Protestant church or live as atheists or agnostics, Ferrell-Zabala is adamant that the desire to respect others and be respected is of utmost importance to them.

That said, it is often difficult for ex-evangelicals to break away from family and childhood friends. Carol Hornbeck, an Indianapolis-based Marriage and Family therapist, stresses that when an individual’s worldview begins to unravel they typically feel unsettled. “People’s ideas usually begin to shift when a personal experience runs counter to their expectations,” she begins. “This may be because they’ve learned that a trusted friend or colleague is gay or has had an abortion. As long as the issue is at arm’s length, they can hate it, but it changes the paradigm when it’s your next-door neighbor or your friend’s sister. When the person is one step removed from your inner circle, it’s hard to be judgmental or condemning.”

But it may still be unsettling. “If the young person continues to want a connection to Christianity, he or she will need to find a church that welcomes uncertainty,” Hornbeck concludes.

Writer/activist Brittany Shoot grew up in Anderson, Indiana, the headquarters of the Church of God, in a deeply religious evangelical family. Her move away from the church was gradual. “When I was a child I was told that someone I cared about was HIV-positive. I somehow learned that he was gay and had contracted the virus through sex. There was such shame around the diagnosis. I knew that I shouldn’t tell anyone he was sick because they might shun me. Even as a kid I thought, ‘something is wrong here.’” Later, when Shoot was in high school, a friend disclosed his homosexuality. “You didn’t come out in the Christian culture we lived in,” she says. “He didn’t feel safe; we also knew that no church in the area would love and protect him.”

Now 29, Shoot no longer attends services but frequently writes about religion, feminism, and sexuality. Although she is critical of evangelism, she is also protective of people of faith. “In progressive circles it’s common to trash talk religion. This is damaging,” she says. “Most people who’ve moved away from evangelism still have family members who are religious. Those outside the community need to be sensitive and not make churchgoing people their target.”

Activists should also be open to questions about sexuality, Shoot says. “Despite Internet access, kids raised in the church were told, ‘don’t do anything until marriage,’ so when they finally get to a place where they can talk freely, they need it to be judgment free. Don’t hate on the girl who doesn’t know what a vibrator is or who knows next to nothing about reproduction.”

Writer/activist Mandy Van Deven agrees. Van Deven grew up in small-town Georgia where schools taught nothing but abstinence. “When you grow up in communities where sex outside of marriage is stigmatized, you see the effects of not having access to comprehensive sex education or reproductive health services—high rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted infections.”

While outsiders can certainly organize in these locales, Van Deven puts the onus for outreach on former evangelicals. “It’s helpful for the people who have already started to sway to the reproductive justice end of the continuum to preach to those who haven’t yet made the leap,” she says. “They know better than others what it takes to reconcile a more liberal ideology with the conservatism of their upbringing.”

Whether or not former evangelicals will do this remains uncertain. Nonetheless, the Barna report implies that once Millennials abandon evangelism, the barriers to progressive change can begin to crumble. Stay tuned for developments.

Eleanor J. Bader is a teacher, freelance writer and activist from Brooklyn, NY. She is also the co-author of Targets of Hatred: Anti-Abortion Terrorism, St. Martin's Press, 2001.

Is America a Police State?

2012-02-08T00:05:00.000-05:00

By Sherwood Ross, OpEd News

07 February 12

[REPRINT]

ou know you live in a police state when the president orders the assassination (i.e., murder) of American citizens without bothering to arrest them and bring them to trial. You know you live in a police state when police forces across the country attack unarmed and non-violent citizen protesters with pepper spray and clubs.

You know you live in a police state when the president allows the military to continuously harass a prisoner against whom no crime has been proven by interrupting him every five minutes of the day to ask him, "Are you okay?" and forces him to stand to attention naked at roll call. What it can do to one man it can do to every man.

You know you live in a police state when said prisoner is barred from exercising in his cell and told where he may and may not put his hands when he goes to sleep at night. Only a police state would dictate how an individual can sleep.

You know you live in a police state when the government punishes, rather than honors, whistle-blowers who reveal its crimes such as the U.S. massacre of civilians in Baghdad that Bradley Manning exposed.

You know you live in a police state when wardens force pregnant women prisoners to deliver their babies while in chains. (Not exactly "the new birth of freedom" of which Abraham Lincoln spoke.)

You know you live in a police state when the president orders the assassination (i.e., murder) of American citizens without bothering to arrest them and bring them to trial.

You know you live in a police state when police forces across the country attack unarmed and non-violent citizen protesters with pepper spray and clubs.

You know you live in a police state when hundreds of thousands of citizens are rotting in prisons for victimless "crimes" such as smoking pot and your country leads the world in incarcerations with 2.3 million behind bars and when hundreds of thousands of these prisoners are sexually assaulted.

You know you live in a police state when working people who say overwhelmingly that they want to join a union cannot do so for fear of being fired, and in which the money earned by the poor is taken by the state and given to the rich. If the government can rob one person, it can rob every person.

You know you live in a police state when your government makes terrible, punishing wars on small countries after falsely accusing them of having a "weapon of mass destruction" while it possesses tens of thousands of them.

You know you live in a police state when the president signs into law an Act allowing him to arrest innocent citizens on his say-so and have the military imprison them indefinitely without charge, legal counsel, or trial before a jury of their peers.

You know you live in a police state when you can be barred from flying in an airliner on suspicion of "terrorism" that has not been proven and which is impossible for you to challenge.

You know you live in a police state when you are under surveillance by Federal agencies such as the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the Central Intelligence Agency, among others, for your political views rather than the commission of any crime against the state, and when said agencies can access your medical records, bank statements, and "private" papers, tap your telephone, question your neighbors and employer and follow you around.

You know you live in a police state when the military gets the biggest percentage of your tax dollars so that it can spend as much for war as the next 20 nations combined while claiming it is attacking other countries in the name of peace and order.

You know you live in a police state when the Pentagon has more than a trillion dollars in research projects underway to make sophisticated killing machines that will give it control of the entire planet from 2,000 military bases and outer space and to terrify the world with its arsenals of nuclear weapons and germ warfare.

You know you live in a police state when people write to you to commend you for your "courage" for writing critically against the government when, in fact, you should have every good reason to live in fear of so doing.

Sherwood Ross has worked as a publicist for Chicago; as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and workplace columnist for Reuters. He has also been a media consultant to colleges, law schools, labor unions, and to the editors of more than 100 national magazines. A civil rights activist, he was News Director for the National Urban League, a talk show host at WOL Radio, Washington, D.C., and holds an award for "best spot news coverage" for Chicago radio stations for civil rights reporting. He is the author "Gruening of Alaska,"(Best Books)and several plays about Japan during World War II, including "Baron Jiro," and "Yamamoto's Decision," read at the National Press Club, where he is a member. His favorite quotations are from the Sermon on The Mount.

Goodbye Press Freedoms

2012-02-07T23:54:00.000-05:00

More Journalists Arrested Covering Occupy, Occupy Tweets Subpoenaed

[REPRINT]

Since the Occupy protests began, more and more members of the press have been arrested, harassed, or kept from covering evictions-- raising serious First Amendment alarm bells. Indeed, the US has plummeted to 47th in the world for press freedoms thanks to the law enforcement reaction to those who cover Occupy.

A new campaign from FreePress.net asks supporters to take a stand:

"So far more than 50 journalists, including eight last week, have been arrested in the U.S. while covering the Occupy Wall Street movement. Last Wednesday a documentary filmmaker was arrested for trying to film a congressional hearing; another had his footage erased by police."

And the insanity has even bled over into scrutiny of the tweets of occupiers and journalists.

Gawker reports that the Manhattan DA is actually subpoenaeing Tweets related to Occupy Wall Street in New York. Specifically,

On October 1st, [Malcolm] Harris was arrested along with 700 Occupy Wall Street protestors for blocking the Brooklyn Bridge and charged with disorderly conduct. Now, the Manhattan DA has subpoenaed "any and all user information, including email address, as well as any and all tweets posted" to his account, @destructuremal, from September 15th to December 31st, 2011. According to theNew York Times, the DA asked Twitter not to notify Harris but the company nicely did not comply.

When reached by phone today, Harris said he was baffled by the breadth of the material sought. The Occupy Wall Street protest didn't even start until September 17th....

"This is the legal equivalent of busting a party with loud noise and demanding my phone records for 3.5 months to see if I helped plan it," Harris tweeted recently.

Meanwhile, Occupy continues to plan, organize and debate.

By Sarah Seltzer | Sourced from AlterNet

Occupying Corporations: How To Cut Corporate Power

2012-02-07T00:07:00.000-05:00

By Bill Quigley

06 February, 2012
Countercurrents.org

[REPRINT]

“Corporations are people, my friend.” Mitt Romney at Iowa State Fair

Corporations are obviously not people. But Romney is accurate in the sense that corporations have hijacked most of the rights of people while evading the responsibilities. An important part of the social justice agenda is democratizing corporations. This means we must radically change the laws so people can be in charge of corporations. We must strip them of corporate personhood and cut them down to size so democracy can work. People are taking action so democracy can regulate the size, scope and actions of corporations.

One of the most basic roles of society is to protect the people from harm. The massive size of many international corporations makes democratic control over them nearly impossible.

Corporate crime is widespread. The New York Times, ProPublica and others have revealed Wall Street giants like JPMorgan, Citigroup, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs have been charged with fraud many times only to get off by paying hundreds of millions. Professors at University of Virginia have documented hundreds of corporations which have been found guilty or pled guilty in federal courts.

Corporate abuse is even more widespread. For example, Corporate Accountability International named six to its Corporate Hall of Shame, including: Koch Industries for spending over $50 million to fund climate change denial; Monsanto for mass producing cancer causing chemicals; Chevron for dumping more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Ecuadorian Amazon; Exxon Mobil for being the worst polluter; Blackwater (now Xe) for killing unarmed Iraqi civilians and hiring paramilitaries; and Halliburton, the nation’s leading war profiteer.

Making corporations responsible to democracy of the people is challenging considering Wal-Mart, the world’s biggest corporation, does more business itself annually than all but two dozen of the two hundred plus countries in the world. Without dramatic changes, how can we expect people in small or even big countries to force corporations like Wal-Mart, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP, Toyota or Chevron to live by the same rules all the people have to?

Justice demands we make sure corporations do not harm people. Democracy must require that they operate for the common good.

In order to cut corporations down to size, the people must strip corporations of the special artificial legal protections they have created for themselves.

The story of how corporations took the full rights of legal persons in one of the great perverse tragedies in legal history. Corporations have worked the courts mercilessly since 1819 to take a wide variety of constitutional rights that were designed to cover only people. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868 to make sure all citizens, particularly freed slaves and people of color, had full rights. There was no mention of protecting corporations. But corporations jumped on this opportunity resulting in a questionable Supreme Court decision that granted them legal personhood. At roughly the same time, the Supreme Court approved “separate but equal” racial segregation. Thus in thirty years, African Americans lost their legal personhood, while corporations acquired theirs.

Corporations now claim: 1st amendment free speech rights to advertise and influence elections: 4th amendment search and seizure rights to resist subpoenas and challenges to their criminal actions; 5th amendment rights to due process; 14th amendment rights to due process where corporations took the rights of former slaves and used them for corporate protection; plus rights under the Commerce and Contracts clauses of the constitution.

The most recent corporate judicial takeover of constitutional rights is the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission. The court ruled that corporations are protected by the First Amendment so they can use their money to influence elections.

Because of the bad Supreme Court decisions, it takes a constitutional amendment by the people to change the laws back. An amendment requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress to agree then three-quarters of the states must vote to ratify. This will take real work. But despite the growing size and unrestricted power of corporations, people are fighting back.

Dozens of groups are working to reverse Citizens United and restore limits on corporate election advocacy. In January 2011, groups delivered petitions signed by over 750,000 people calling on Congress to amend the Constitution and reverse the decision. More than 350 local events were held in late January 2012 to challenge the Citizens United decision.

Groups challenging this injustice include Code Pink, Common Cause, Free Speech for People, Moveon.org, Move to Amend, National Lawyers Guild, POCLAD, Public Citizen, People for American Way, The Center for Media and Democracy, and Women’s League for Peace and Freedom.

Many groups are asking for a broad constitutional amendment that makes it clear that corporations are not people and should not be given any constitutional rights. Representatives Ted Deutsch of Florida, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont have sponsored bills in Congress to start the process for a constitutional amendment to make it clear that corporations are not people, are not entitled to the rights of people, and cannot contribute to political campaigns.

There are also many energetic actions at the state level. People for the American Way list organizational efforts in nearly all 50 states to end corporate influence in elections or amend the constitution.

Massive corporations now rule the earth. But they are recent arrivals which can and should be dispatched. It is time for people to again take control. The legal fiction of corporate personhood and the constitutional rights taken by corporations must cease. Join the efforts to cut them down to size and restore the right of the people to govern.

Bill is a human rights lawyer who teaches at Loyola University New Orleans and works with the Center for Constitutional Rights. A version of this article with full sources is available. You can reach Bill at quigley77@gmail.com

Things Are Not O.K.

2012-02-07T00:00:00.000-05:00

Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)

[REPRINT]

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

06 February 12

n a better world - specifically, a world with a better policy elite - a good jobs report would be cause for unalloyed celebration. In the world we actually inhabit, however, every silver lining comes with a cloud. Friday’s report was, in fact, much better than expected, and has made many people, myself included, more optimistic. But there’s a real danger that this optimism will be self-defeating, because it will encourage and empower the purge-and-liquidate crowd.

So, about that jobs report: it was genuinely good, certainly compared with the dreariness that has become the norm. Notably, for once falling unemployment was the real thing, reflecting growing availability of jobs rather than workers dropping out of the labor force, and hence out of the unemployment measure.

Furthermore, it’s not hard to see how this recovery could become self-sustaining. In particular, at this point America is seriously under-housed by historical standards, because we’ve built very few houses in the six years since the housing bubble popped. The main thing standing in the way of a housing bounce-back is a sharp fall in household formation - econospeak for lots of young adults living with their parents because they can’t afford to move out. Let enough Americans find jobs and get homes of their own, and housing, which got us into this slump, could start to power us out.

The Peril of Idolizing Our Military

2012-02-05T22:50:00.000-05:00

By William Astore
[REPRINT]

Do you believe with President Obama that our military today constitutes a "generation of heroes" and that their teamwork and courage in battle show us the proper path forward in civilian life? Do you believe that the deadly effectiveness of the Navy SEAL team that killed Osama bin Laden should inspire us to put aside differences in politics and to work together as a people?

As a retired veteran, such pro-military rhetoric in the president's state of the union address resonates with me, but as a student of history it makes me more than uncomfortable. In democratic societies, armed forces are funded and fielded to preserve liberties, not to provide templates for personal and societal behavior.

When civil aspirations are guided by and defined within military matrices, one gets the Iraq war of yesterday, the Afghan war of today, and the Iran (or Syria or insert-new-terrorist-nation here) war of tomorrow. Forever war is indeed the price for a nation that glorifies its military as the very best of its people and their ideals.

The kinetic (killing) competency of our military is certainly impressive, yet it's a competency that we must use judiciously and with restraint. When we elevate it as an example of "I've got your back" teamwork that all should be emulating, we tend to devalue diplomacy and the level of patience and perspective our country needs to display in an increasingly turbulent world.

Our dedicated military and its matchless strength should afford us the luxury of being patient and of keeping threats in perspective. But our unbridled extolment of the military -- our deeply personal investment in its power and methods as pointing the way forward in all walks of life -- encourages us instead to deploy our armed forces time and time again. We act impatiently, injudiciously, against threats we often exaggerate.

Iran is the latest such threat that has the drums of war beating. Iran is supposedly an incipient nuclear terrorist; defined as such, the preferred solution for our nation of military enthusiasts is decapitation by kinetic action.

But is the solution really that simple? Past events suggest otherwise. Military enthusiasts like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld believed they could torture and kill their way out of the war on terror. They embarked on a deadly game of "Whac-A-Mole" with results as frustrating as that game. After criticizing them for this, the Obama Administration joined them. Like Michael Corleone in the Godfather saga, we keep whacking our enemies, yet a state of war and terror drags on, insidiously warping our nation's core beliefs and freedoms.

If we continue to focus on whacking terrorists (or terroristic nations), we suppress any chance of charting a less violent, less terrifying, course. Like Michael Corleone in The Godfather: Part III, just when we think we're out of the war on terror, they'll pull us back in.

What we won't recognize is that the "they" doing the pulling will be us. We won't recognize it because we've invested so much of our national hopes and dreams into the killing abilities of our armed forces.

Yet however much we admire their competence in war, we must not allow that competence to inform our attitudes and aspirations for civil society. For when warriors become the civil elite, the role models par excellence, democracy is imperiled.

Professor Astore writes regularly for TomDispatch.com and can be reached at wjastore@gmail.com.

This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/peril-idolizing-our-military-1328451169. All rights are reserved.

Video Collection of Crazy Christians

2012-02-05T06:29:00.000-05:00

On a whim, I searched on YouTube "Crazy Christian," and below are a few of the results. Of course, you can find many, many more. The suggested videos, and alternate search options, can bring forth many of funny videos.

Be entertained, be mortified.

Crazy Christian Nonsense

Crazy Christian, Marguerite Perrin, on Trading Spouses

Crazy Screaming Christian at some Jesus camp

Crazy Christian Mom Steals Christmas From Son

Harry Potter is of the Devil

Upset Harold Camping Apologizes

Crazy Religious Lady On Fox News

Crazy christian lady at a coffee shop

Crazy Jamaican Lady Fighting The Devil in CVS

Crazy Christians rant about Pokemon, Minecraft & Magiquest

Crazy Christian dudes at University of Oregon

Crazy "Christian" Lady in iPad 2 Line

White American, Crazy Christian "Obey the Powers that Be"

Crazy Christian At Northern Michigan,br>

Crazy Christian on Sunset

Christian Preacher Pisses off UCI Student

And in the news...

Christian Pulls Gay From Wheelchair

Pastor Beats Up Own Gay Son in Church

Christians Have the Right to Bully Gay Kids

The Religious: Criminal and Mentally Ill Superstars

2012-02-05T05:31:00.000-05:00

Christians, as well as believers in other religions, have long been overlapped with people of mental illnesses, and convicted criminals. Most of the victims of mental illness profess to being very religious, having seen angels, or think they are "Jesus Christ."

There's a similar phenomenon in the prison system.A majority of U.S. prisoners (about 98-99%) are religious-affiliated. Whether these conversions happened before or after their imprisonment is debatable, but the truth still stands: A very small minority of prisoners aren't religious.

This basically brings me to say that most of society's crazies or degenerates are religious and or spiritual, at least in affiliation.

7 Privacy Threats the Constitution Can't Protect You Against

2012-02-05T03:27:00.003-05:00

AlterNet / By Tana Ganeva

[REPRINT]

When it comes to a spate of new technologies, our privacy protections are wildly outdated.

February 4, 2012 |

The week before last, the Roberts Supreme Court uncharacteristically handed down a decision that doesn't radically infringe on civil liberties. The justices unanimously ruled that police overshot their authority by planting a GPS device on suspected drug dealer Antoine Jones' car without a warrant, tracking his movements for over a month. For now, Americans can rest assured that police can't secretly tag them -- at least without a warrant.

At the same time, privacy advocates pointed out -- and some of the justices admitted -- that the court's majority opinion in US vs. Jones completely skirted more pressing privacy issues. The problem, the majority argued, was that police had trespassed on Jones' private property by planting a GPS device on his car. The majority opinion did not address whether or not it's okay for law enforcement to use a sophisticated surveillance technology to log someone's movements for a whole month without a warrant.

In separate, concurring opinions Justices Alito and Sotomayor both warned of the multitude of surveillance technologies that do not require intrusion onto private property to trample privacy rights. Here's a (non-comprehensive) breakdown of existing or impending technologies that make our privacy protections wildly outdated.

1. Everything you use, all the time.

The Jones case itself presents an outdated problem, because police don't really have to bother with the clumsy task of sneaking a device onto a car; at this point, private companies have shoehorned location trackers in most "smart" gadgets. Justice Alito pointed out that the more than 332 million phones and wireless devices in use in the US contain technology that transmits the user's location. Many cars feature GPS as well, thanks to OnStar navigation.

"Even if police can't track you using a GPS device," Lee Tien, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tells AlterNet, "if they can go to your phone company and get information on your whereabouts, what does that matter?"

As Sotomayor pointed out in the concurring opinion, "GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person’s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations… (Disclosed in [GPS] data will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on). The Government can store such records and efficiently mine them for information years into the future."

Location is just the start. There has probably not been a single week since 2005 without a story about Facebook, or Google, or Verizon, or AT&T terrifying consumers and privacy advocates with some new way to collect too much information and then share it with other companies or authorities.

The problem is that the law does not adequately address private information that has been shared with third parties, like credit card companies or Google, Facebook and the telecoms, Tien says.

As Sotomayor put it, "I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. "

2. Cameras everywhere: License plate readers, movement tracking on cameras.

Thanks in part to a decade of Homeland Security grants, America's cities are teeming with cameras -- they're on subways, on buses, on store fronts, in restaurants, in apartment complexes, and in schools.

In New York, the NYCLU found a five-fold increase in the number of security cameras in one area of New York between 1998 and 2005, and that was before the Bloomberg administration -- inspired by London, most heavily surveilled city in the world -- pledged to install 3,000 cameras in lower Manhattan as part of the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative (this plan was expanded to midtown Manhattan as well). The cameras, which stream footage to a centralized location, are equipped with video analytics that can alert police to "suspicious" activity like loitering. The NYPD, and municipalities all over the country and world also make generous use of license plate readers (LPR) that can track car movement.

The big issue, as EFF's Tien tells AlterNet, is that these surveillance tools muddy the legal barriers between public and private that are at the heart of constitutional protections, because they're so much more sophisticated than human observation. In other words, a person might expect that what they do on a street corner can be observed, but not that their actions might be logged in a database or that they can be tracked for a month.

3. Biometrics.

As cameras become more sophisticated and better able to capture higher quality images from further away, there's a push to merge surveillance with biometrics technology -- the use of unique physiological features, like facial features or iris patterns, to ascertain identity.

After 9/11 many cities and airports rushed to boost their camera surveillance with facial recognition software. The tech proved disappointing, and after testing that hit a paltry 60 percent accuracy rate in one case (that's pretty bad if you're trying to figure out identity), many programs were abandoned. In the years since then, both private companies and university research labs funded with government grants have made vast improvements in facial recognition and iris scans, like 3-D face capture and "skinprint" technology (mapping of facial skin patterns). Iris scans can allegedly tell identical twins apart.

Many private companies shill these products directly to local law enforcement agencies, a business strategy that police tend to be pretty enthusiastic about. One such success story is the MORIS device, a gadget attached to an iPhone that can run face recognition software, take digital fingerprints and grab an iris scan at a traffic stop. Starting last fall, the MORIS device has been in use in police departments all over the country.

4. Government databases.

Privacy advocates point out that novel types of biometric technology like facial recognition and iris scans can be an unreliable form of ID in the field, but that has not discouraged government agencies from embarking on grand plans to hugely expand their biometric databases. The FBI's billion-dollar "Next Generation Identification" system (NGI) will house iris scans, palm prints, measures of voice and gait, records of tattoos, and scars and photos searchable with facial recognition technology when it's complete in 2014. The bulk of this information is expected to come from local law enforcement.

Other government agencies have also been jazzing up their biometric databases. The DoD's ABIS contains millions of biometric records from Iraq and Afghanistan, including images of faces, fingerprints, iris scans, and voice recordings. DHS's IDENT database houses photos searchable with facial recognition. The DoJ, DHS and DoD have a mandate to make their databases "interoperational" so anyone from any agency can search the others.

The development of the new FBI database is subject to internal review to ensure compliance with privacy laws. But privacy advocates point out that there are few bulwarks against abuses in how the information is collected and used, especially since much of this information can be picked up remotely without consent.

5. FAST (Future Attribute Screening Technology).

Then there's the tech that's supposed to peer inside your head. In 2008, the Department of Homeland security lab tested a program called Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST), designed to thwart criminal activity by predicting "mal-intent." Unsavory plans are supposed to reveal themselves through physiological tells like heart rate, pheromones, electrodermal activity, and respiratory measurements, according to a 2008 privacy impact assessment.

The 2008 privacy assessment, though, only addressed the initial laboratory testing of FAST's prophesying sensors on volunteers. According to a report in the journal Nature, sometime last year DHS also tested the technology in a large, undisclosed area in the northeastern US.

6. Drones!

Unmanned flying vehicles, a key part of the valiant effort to transform modern warfare into a video game, are likely to become increasingly common domestically. The FAA currently restricts the use of drones (with occasional exceptions) but that won't last long: Congress has instructed the agency to open six US test sites that will help establish rules for their routine use, according to Bloomberg.

Border agents already use drones to track activity on the border and even inside Mexico. Also, in December the LA Times reported that U.S. Customs and Border Protection generously loaned out drones to police departments.

An ACLU report from December says that local law enforcement officials are pushing for domestic use of the new technology, as are drone manufacturers. As Glenn Greenwald points out, drone makers "continuously emphasize to investors and others that a major source of business growth for their drone products will be domestic, non-military use."

Right now drones range in size from giant planes to hummingbird-sized, the ACLU report says, with the technology improving all the time. Some can be operated by only one officer, and others by no one at all. The report points to all the sophisticated surveillance technology that can take flight on a drone, including night vision, video analytics ("smart" surveillance that can track activities, and with improvements in biometrics, specific people), massive zoom, and the creepy see-through imaging, currently in development.

7. Super drones that know who you are!

In September, Wired reported that the military has given out research grants to several companies to spruce up their drones with technology that lets them identify and track people on the move, or "tagging, tracking, and locating" (TTL). Noah Shachtman writes:

Perhaps the idea of spy drones already makes yournervous. Maybe you’re uncomfortable with the notion of an unblinking, robotic eye in the sky that can watch your every move. If so, you may want to click away now. Because if the Army has its way, drones won’t just be able to look at what you do. They’ll be able to recognize your face — and track you, based on how you look. If the military machines assemble enough information, they might just be able to peer into your heart.

One company claims it can equip drones with facial recognition technology that lets them build a 3-D model of a face based on a 2-D image, which would then allow the drone to ID someone, even in a crowd. They also say that if they can get a close enough look, they can tell twins apart and reveal not only individuals' identity but their social networks, reports Wired. That's not all. Shachtman continues:

The Army also wants to identify potentially hostile behavior and intent, in order to uncover clandestine foes. Charles River Analytics is using its Army cash to build a so-called “Adversary Behavior Acquisition, Collection, Understanding, and Summarization (ABACUS)” tool. The system would integrate data from informants’ tips, drone footage, and captured phone calls. Then it would apply “a human behavior modeling and simulation engine” that would spit out “intent-based threat assessments of individuals and groups.” In other words: This software could potentially find out which people are most likely to harbor ill will toward the U.S. military or its objectives. Feeling nervous yet?

All of these technologies are either already integrated into daily life or coming down the pike. In Constitution 3.0, Jeffrey Rosen invited scholars and futurists to envision how current civil liberties protections would fare when faced with technologies of the future (not well). One chilling possibility highlighted in the book: What if Facebook and Google decided to archive and post footage from millions of surveillance cameras?

In a speech to Brookings Institute, Rosen says this not-unlikely scenario would make it possible to, "sign onto Google or Facebook, click onto a picture of me, for example, back-click on me to see where I’d come from this morning, forward click to see where I’m going this afternoon, and basically have 24/7 surveillance of everyone in the world at all times."

Tana Ganeva is AlterNet's managing editor. Follow her on Twitter or email her at tana@alternet.org.

Why You Don't Need God to be Good: the Rise of Atheist Charities

2012-02-04T00:56:00.000-05:00

Charitable organizations geared towards non-believers are growing.

January 26, 2012 |

[REPRINT]

"Good without God" has become a catch-phrase of the increasingly vocal atheist and freethinker movement -- from books to billboards, the non-religious are asserting the strength of their humanist ethics. As atheists emerge from the closet and stand up for themselves, one message they're bringing along is that charity is far from an inherent monopoly of the religious.

In his book "Who Really Cares," social scientist Arthur C. Brooks hypothesized a “gap in virtue” that might explain why he found religious people donate 25% more to charity than secular individuals. But Dale McGowan, who founded the Foundation Beyond Belief in 2010, didn't buy it.

“I find the question of churchgoing really telling,” McGowan says. In place of a virtue gap between the religious and secular, he sees a structural advantage in the church system. The website for the Foundation Beyond Belief (FBB), which he launched in 2010, reads: “Call us crazy, but it just might have more to do with whether or not a shiny plate full of the donations of your friends and neighbors passes in front of you like clockwork, up to 52 times a year.” Atheists just need their organizations geared towards giving, not God.

Even Brooks admits that his findings don’t prove any connection between believing in God and an natural imperative to give. “If charity is indeed a learned behavior, it may be that houses of worship are only one means (albeit an especially efficacious one) to teach it. Secularists interested in increasing charitable giving and volunteering among their ranks might spend some effort thinking of alternative ways to foster these habits.” Today, the Foundation Beyond Belief and other groups have put plenty of effort into thinking of these “alternative ways.” And they have big plans for their future.

McGowan designed the FBB to operate on a monthly automatic donation model, gaining 1000 members and raising nearly a quarter million dollars in two years. And other successful online atheist charitable ventures have captured the mainstream media's interest, leading USA Today to write, “Atheists aim to change image of penny-pinching Scrooges.” The large Reddit atheist community raised over $200,000 for Doctors Without Borders in November, nearly crashing Reddit with the high traffic; FirstGiving, the online fundraising site they used, called it “one of the most successful grassroots fundraising efforts we’ve ever seen.” A Dallas/Ft. Worth Fellowship of Freethought (FoF), FBB’s 2010 and 2011 Partner of the Year, demonstrates the benefits of an in-person community. The Fellowship’s goal is to “create that sense of real intimate community, that is found, quite frankly, most often with churches and other religious communities,” says Executive Director Zach Moore. “Let’s do something like that, but not anything superstitious, supernatural, no appeals to authority.”

FoF holds a monthly gathering to talk about shared purpose, enjoying the sense of community. Moore identified three core values: providing “social support” and an “educational resource,” and participating in “charity and charitable outreach.” Their most successful fundraising project has been simply to hold a casual cocktail party and ask for donations, like one would for political candidates.

McGowan and Moore see the goal of their organizations as “focused, planned charitable giving,” explaining that atheists, freethinkers, and secular humanists already excel at helping during catastrophes, but that still adds up to less overall giving in the course of a year. Moore identified the partnership between his local group and the FBB as a “perfect fit,” because it provided an ongoing purpose that rallied members. “It’s not about criticizing this church or that church,” Moore comments, “but guess what, we can do the same thing, and we can do just as good work as any of those churches out there.” He also sees many churches as losing their charitable priorities, saying, “I know Christians and other believers who have come out of churches because they’re unsatisfied.” Moore prophesies an “emptying of American pews [that’s] going to create an amazing opportunity for humanist organizations.”

Secular Humanism
The Fellowship of Freethought, Foundation Beyond Belief, and other charitable organizations catering to atheists and freethinkers also derive their values from humanism -- as do many atheists and freethinkers themselves. In describing FoF’s membership, Moore provided a good basic definition for humanists: “people who really want to make a difference in the here and now, because this is it, this is the only life we have.” Moore and McGowan's understanding of humanism keeps them from believing religious faith has an innate moral advantage, only accepting that churches' structural advantage has lead to more religious giving. But some non-theists don't even agree with that, challenging the existing data regarding “who really cares” as biased or inaccurate.

Besides the fact that the studies ignore the distinction between a disinterested Christian and a passionate atheist or humanist, they also rely on self-reporting. “And when churchgoers pat themselves on the back for doing what is socially expected, sociologists grow skeptical,” writes Tom Flynn, Executive Director of the Council for Secular Humanism. Flynn points to sociologist Kirk Hadaway, who found it incredible that 40% of American attend church each Sunday -- more churchgoers than church seats. So in 1992 he literally had every person in the pews in a large Ohio county counted, coming up with half the number reached through self-reporting. “To this day, Americans tell pollsters they were in church the previous Sunday at the 40-percent level,” Flynn continues. “The difference is, now social scientists know that half of them are lying.”

And, of course, a portion of the donations from churchgoers go to maintain the actual churches. Atheists are also coming out in (financial) support of their own -- in just a week this January, more than $25,000 was raised for a college fund for Jessica Ahlquist, a high schooler who received death threats for successfully challenging the constitutionality of a public school prayer banner.

“I think it’s important that we do have organizations like Humanist Charities and Foundation Beyond Belief,” Ardiente continued. “We’ve just been giving quietly for years and years ... but because of this myth that’s out there, we’ve felt it’s necessary to be a little more vocal about our giving and our support.” She pointed out that secular organizations have long been doing good, such as Doctors Without Borders (not to mention agnostic/atheist philanthropists such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet), but atheists and secular humanists don’t get credit for these groups. "Part of humanism is about helping others, and being good without God.”

Can We All Just Get Along?

Ardiente and others agree that encouraging more atheist/humanist giving and volunteering is a positive action, one their organizations can help with. Like the Foundation Beyond Belief, Humanist Charities also has a local community partners program, as does the Center for Inquiry’s SHARE program (Skeptics and Humanists Aid and Relief Effort).

The growth of charitable outlets designed for atheists, freethinkers, and secular humanists not only rallies nonbelievers and increases their public profile, it can also provide a venue they feel more comfortable donating to. The SHARE website explains its motivation thus: “skeptics and humanists are frustrated that so many charitable organizations, especially those that help people afflicted by natural or human disasters, have efforts coordinated by religious organizations. These organizations sometimes proselytize to the people in need of their services. This is entirely unacceptable.”

Ardiente says that AHA’s members shared this concern: “they wanted to make sure that their donations really only went to food and water and shelter, things people needed, not religious proselytizing.” They also look to counter “the really negative rhetoric of some of these religious leaders” -- think Pat Robertson on Haiti -- and encourage people to give what’s needed “rather than praying, rather than trying to blame God or ask God why this happened.”

Despite these concerns about proselytizing and negative religious forces, many nonbelievers want to work with religious charitable groups. Members of the Foundation Beyond Belief, for instance, can choose to donate to religious beneficiaries through its “Challenge the Gap” program. “We wanted to create the ability for secular humanist or atheists of any inclination to express their worldview as they see fit, and one of the things our members expressed in interest in was occasionally giving money to religious charities,” McGowan explained.

Lyz Liddell, advisor for “Challenge the Gap” and the Director of Campus Organizing for the Secular Student Alliance (SSA), sees a need to create bridges with religious groups to better achieve the end goal of helping people in need. SSA supports high school and college student groups, which they encourage to consider charity a priority and participate in service projects, which are often held in collaboration with religious groups.

Younger people have gotten creative with fundraisers, asking for donations to “send an atheist to church” or reading religious texts for charity -- creating something positive out of many religious people's desire to challenge nontheist beliefs. A “stone-a-heathen” event at one school simultaneously raised money and awareness for the ongoing practice of stoning in certain countries.

However, even when atheists, freethinkers, and secular humanists may wanted to reach out, the gesture is not always returned. Todd Stiefel of the Stiefel Freethought Foundation received unexpected attention when his donation to the American Cancer Society wasn’t welcomed with open arms. He says that he has “repeatedly come across people not wanting money from my foundation or from me basically because I’m an atheist” -- either because of the group’s own prejudices or a fear of backlash for associating with atheists. So while being criticized for inadequate charity, atheists can’t even give their money away?

The Foundation Beyond Belief has also occasionally been turned down, although McGowan stresses that overwhelmingly the charities selected enthusiastically accept the donations. Neither Stiefel or McGowan wanted to dwell on this negative experience, but Stiefel did say that this discrimination only motivates him to do more. “We have lot of work to do to break down the stereotypes and false information that is out there about us ... I think that reason-based secular values are American values, and I think that over the test of time we’ll be able to show the world that we are every bit as ethical as anyone else.”

Alex DiBranco is an NYC-based writer who covers women's rights, immigration, atheism, and the Religious Right.

How 'Anonymous' Went From Mischief Makers to a Force That Terrifies Corporations and Governments

2012-02-03T01:56:00.000-05:00

Anonymous activists have become terrifying to the powers that be, despite (or perhaps because of) their apparent disorganization and probably in excess of their actual capacity.

February 1, 2012 | [REPRINT]

Guy Fawkes mask, from V for Vendetta.

Photo Credit: Ben Fredericson at Flickr

The enigmatic Internet-driven collective Anonymous, thank goodness, has an anthropologist in its midst. For a few years now, Gabriella Coleman has been arduously participant-observing in IRC chat rooms, watching Anonymous turn from a prankster moniker to a herd of vigilantes for global justice. In an extraordinary new essay at Triple Canopy, “Our Weirdness Is Free,” she summarizes what Anonymous is all about this way:

Beyond a foundational commitment to anonymity and the free flow of information, Anonymous has no consistent philosophy or political program. Though Anonymous has increasingly devoted its energies to (and become known for) digital dissent and direct action around various “ops,” it has no definite trajectory. Sometimes coy and playful, sometimes macabre and sinister, often all at once, Anonymous is still animated by a collective will toward mischief—toward “lulz,” a plural bastardization of the portmanteau LOL (laugh out loud). Lulz represent an ethos as much as an objective.

The more I learn about Anonymous, especially in light of the offline, on-the-ground praxis of the Occupy movement, the more I’ve been wondering whether we’re seeing a glimpse of the future for all of us.

Here’s why. Over the past couple of years, as Anons became lulled—pun intended—into politics through their Scientology, Wikileaks, and Arab Spring operations, the lulz ethos has turned into a mode of movement-building. And it’s a movement that appears singularly scary to the powers that be, from globalized corporations to the governments of superpowers, despite (or perhaps because of) the Anons’ apparent disorganization and probably in excess of their actual capacity:

Political operations often come together haphazardly. Often lacking an overarching strategy, Anonymous operates tactically, along the lines proposed by the French Jesuit thinker Michel de Certeau. “Because it does not have a place, a tactic depends on time—it is always on the watch for opportunities that must be seized ‘on the wing,’” he writes in The Practice of Everyday Life (1980). “Whatever it wins, it does not keep. It must constantly manipulate events in order to turn them into ‘opportunities.’ The weak must continually turn to their own ends forces alien to them.” This approach could easily devolve into unfocused operations that dissipate the group’s collective strength. But acting “on the wing” leverages Anonymous’s fluid structure, giving Anons an advantage, however temporary, over traditional institutions—corporations, states, political parties—that function according to unified plans.

This bears striking resemblance to the activist framework of “diversity of tactics” that has prevailed in the Occupy movement, which emphasizes fostering dexterity and decentralization (as well as, relevantly, permissiveness toward “black blocs” of masked crusaders). But Anonymous’ allergy to unified planning isn’t limited to tactics; it extends to overall strategy and even ultimate purpose. Continues Coleman:

While Anonymous has not put forward any programmatic plan to topple institutions or change unjust laws, it has made evading them seem easy and desirable. To those donning the Guy Fawkes mask associated with Anonymous, this—and not the commercialized, “transparent” social networking of Facebook—is the promise of the Internet, and it entails trading individualism for collectivism.

In fact, Anonymous bespeaks a collective recognition that’s fueling uprisings from Lagos to Bucharest: the kinds of governments we have in place actually have little capacity for addressing the longings we have for freedom and collectivity in a globalizing, digital age. The reason both Anonymous and Occupy Wall Street don’t put forward “any programmatic plan” that existing institutions could follow is that there isn’t one. Or, rather, the movements themselves are their own programmatic plan, parallel institutions unto themselves.

One of the things that amazed me during the first weeks of Occupy Wall Street was that, as the movement spread to occupations all around the country and the world, they were so similar to one another; all took direct democracy as the basic unit of political legitimacy, and prided themselves on a decentralized, horizontal structure, and discouraged credit-taking and self-aggrandizement. How did people all over the U.S. and the world know how to Occupy, and so quickly? Their preparedness can at least partly be attributed to the veterans of the global justice movement of a decade ago who flocked to the occupations. But perhaps even more significant an influence among the younger occupiers was the experience some of them had had with Anonymous and groups like it online.

Coleman explains the resemblances:

One of Occupy Wall Street’s most powerful gestures has been to position its radically democratic decision-making process, represented by the agora of the General Assembly, against the reining corporate kleptocracy. Though this brand of horizontalism has a rich history with many roots, there is a particularly strong resonance in the relationship between the formal structure and the political aspirations of Anonymous. And Anonymous is organized not only around a radical democratic (at times chaotic and anarchic) structure but also around the very concept of anonymity, here constituted as collectivity. The accumulation of too much power—especially in a single point in (virtual) space—and prestige is not only taboo but functionally very difficult. The lasting effect of Anonymous may have as much to do with facilitating alternative practices of sociality—upending the ideological divide between individualism and collectivism—as with attacks on monolithic banks and sleazy security firms.

As Mary King has so often pointed out in her columns on Waging Nonviolence, the form that a resistance movement takes has a big effect on the society that emerges after it, especially if the movement has some amount of success. The preoccupation with process and internal culture in both Anonymous and the Occupy movement, therefore, has justifiably high stakes. With that in mind, in a new essay on the Harper’s website, I try to extrapolate from texts approved by various Occupy assemblies what a post-revolutionary Planet Occupy might look like.

I see no quick-and-easy legislative, executive, or judicial patches for the problems which the movement means to confront. I’ve come to think, instead, that the movement’s lasting contribution could be something substantially more ambitious: a wholesale rethinking of political life, more akin to the promulgation of revolutionary France’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen than, say, the introduction of a financial-transaction tax or the revocation of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

So, brace yourself. In the meantime, make haste to Coleman’s essay at Triple Canopy.

Nathan Schneider writes about religion, reason, and violence and is an editor at Waging Nonviolence and Killing the Buddha.

Henry Rollins: America the Selfish

2012-01-29T23:37:00.001-05:00

Jason Gots on November 14, 2011, 12:00 AM

[REPRINT]

Original post has a video of Henry Rollins...

What's the Big Idea?

The writing’s on the wall. The 2012 presidential race is shaping up to be a truly dispiriting, lackluster slog. Herman Cain and Rick Perry keep making news for all the wrong reasons. Like the “Red Shirts” in a Star Trek landing party, they’re both conspicuously doomed. In our heart of hearts, we know it’s going to come down to Obama – whose soaring proposals of the 2008 campaign have been, for the most part, stuck in Beltway traffic for four years – and Romney, whose chief selling point is that he’s probably not a raving lunatic. The nation deserves better.

Big Think would like to inject a little lifeblood into the campaign trail. Like his hero, Abraham Lincoln, our candidate is an autodidact with strong convictions and an open mind. A tireless, passionate problem-solver who’s not afraid to ask the tough questions and hash out solutions mano a mano with his fiercest opponents. Most importantly, perhaps, he believes in America’s promise and is mad as hell about the many ways in which our nation has gone off the rails. We’re talking, of course, about Henry Rollins, one-man media industry and former frontman of the hardcore punk band, Black Flag.

What's the Significance?

Henry’s pacifist agenda is well documented. Occupants, his recently released book of travel photographs and essays, unflinchingly investigates hidden corners of many war and crisis-wracked regions of the world including Cambodia, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. As president, Henry’s first order of business would be to repair our badly damaged international image and bring our troops home from costly, far-flung, unwinnable wars.

But what of the war of words that continues to paralyze US politics, over the limits of Federal power and responsibility to intervene in our lives? A self-made man –musician, author, spoken-word artist, actor, publisher, and activist – Henry is all about personal responsibility, but he’s no hardcore libertarian. He views patriotism as a fierce commitment to our collective national well being:

Henry Rollins: This is not a nanny state. The people’s investment is in its government and the government’s investment is in its people. So the government should be saying “get your education because we need you to steer this country.” Education and opportunity were the birth of the middle class – and that made America this great powerhouse. Now many people want to get around it and basically say “I got mine, so you have to deal with yours.”

On days when I'm frustrated with some people I say “Let’s go this Ron Paul, Ayn Rand route and let’s see how long you last.” Without the power of government to help, the freedom and rugged individualism some people claim to seek will be that which kills them.

And so when some politicians say when a hurricane comes through Texas New York’s tax dollars shouldn’t be diverted to Texas to help, because Texas is Texas, 10th amendment, I say “No! It’s the United States.” We’re a team, America. I want to help the people in Texas. They are my neighbors. Take my California tax dollars to help these people. I don’t want to see them flooded. I want to see them rescued and that’s where we stick up for each other.

That is what the founding fathers (who some people like to mention so often), that is what they were beating each other up over in un-air-conditioned rooms in sweltering Philadelphia – that we stick together through thick and thin. That, to me, is being patriotic. That is what paying taxes is all about. That is what you see in great American cities. You see people looking out for one another. When we lose that, we lose the whole ball of wax.

Why We Should Tax the Churches

2012-01-29T23:33:00.001-05:00

Adam Lee on December 17, 2011, 1:16 PM

[REPRINT]

My latest article has been posted on AlterNet, How We All Pay For the Huge Tax Privileges Granted to Religion -- It's Time to Tax the Church.

In it, I discuss the enormous wealth owned by churches, financed in part through generous tax exemptions not available to any other organization; the shameless greed of "prosperity gospel" theology; and the bizarre rhetoric of resentment spreading among the American religious right which insists it's a sin to call for higher taxes on the rich or greater social equality. Read the excerpt below, then click through to see the rest:

I bring this up because, thanks to the Occupy protests, inequality has come to dominate the American political conversation. Poverty and inequality are at their highest levels since the Great Depression, and there's a growing clamor to raise taxes on the wealthy to provide more opportunity for the rest of us. I think this is an excellent idea, and I'd like to suggest that beside Wall Street bankers and stock traders, there's another group of the mega-wealthy that's often overlooked.

Why don't we consider taxing the churches?

Not all churches or all ministers are rich, but some of them are very rich indeed. And that's no surprise, because society subsidizes them through a constellation of generous tax breaks that aren't available to any other institution, even non-profits.

Continue reading on AlterNet...

Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent

2012-01-28T01:04:00.000-05:00

Required Viewing for every citizen in the Free World.

How government and big media businesses cooperate to produce an effective propaganda machine in order to manipulate the opinions of the United States populace.

Posted December 12, 2003

Misuse Of Intelligence: Right To Dissent

2012-01-28T01:02:00.001-05:00

By S.G.Vombatkere

27 January, 2012
Countercurrents.org

[REPRINT]

The national and state intelligence agencies have advised the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that “ some rights organisations ” that decry state violence are purposefully or at least effectively taking sides with Maoists and “ actively helping spread the Maoist ideology ”. The intelligence age ncies (“IB” is the term used in the report title), therefore opine that “ rights organisations ” lay themselves open to prosecution for “ aiding and abetting a criminal conspiracy .” The advice goes on to say that these rights organizations “ have extended their reach to those areas which help spread Maoist ideology ” and that they are “ functioning as the points persons for the Maoists ”. Accordingly, they have suggested that “ the Union government take steps to limit the activities of leading human rights organizations ”. [1] .

This bodes ill for rights organizations and persons who agitate for civil, democratic, dalit, women's, human et al rights. That such advice is condemnable is to put it mildly. It is a generalized verdict against rights organizations (notwithstanding that the word “some” has been used), implying that demanding people's constitutional rights from the State and agitating for them with the State tantamounts to opposing the very idea of the State as the Maoists are reputed to do. This amounts to equating dissent with disloyalty. If people are not to agitate for rights for fear of being clubbed with Maoists, it amounts to denial of democratic rights by instilling fear into public life to enforce conformity with whatever the State deems fit to provide to the public. This leads in the direction of a totalitarian state disguised as a democracy, with the people's servants becoming the people's masters. As one wag put it, the leaders who shout “Power to the people!” want the people to shout “Power to the people!” so that people's power is transferred to the leaders who shout “Power to the people!”.

Workers in rights organizations support the rights of people who are not empowered to agitate their own rights themselves. This involves demanding information from governments, or criticizing, rejecting or resisting governments' policies, plans, projects or actions. This is dissent being voiced within society. Dissent should be used as a “thermometer” by governments to get a measure of social agitations and diagnose their fundamental reasons. These agitations may be for food, water, employment, fair wages or their enhancement, better working conditions, minimum support price (by farmers), etc. However, in present times, the agitations are more frequently in the form of resistance to governments' plans or policies, or government-approved corporate projects that take away land and/or livelihood from people who are already variously disadvantaged. Agitations in Odisha against mining and industrial projects of Vedanta and POSCO; Jaitapur (Mah), Koodankulam (TN), Kovvada (AP) against nuclear power plants; Polavaram (AP), Tipaimukh (Manipur), Gerukamukh (Assam) against dams, are merely the most recent, on-going agitations that are reported in the media. Governments with a sense of social justice and equity would “treat” the agitations as social ills, with the democratic political tools of consultation and dialogue. But this is not happening. Rather, governments use the intelligence agencies to stoke trouble so as to provide justification for use of police or military force to brutally break the backbone of the dissenting movement.

Dissent can be peaceful and persuasive, or peaceful and vocally militant, or militant and armed. Thus, not all dissent is militant or armed. (We are not discussing insurgency or terrorism). This may be observed across the length and breadth of the country. However, the intelligence community – which operates under intense secrecy and is, in that sense, an anti-democratic organization – glosses over these differences in dissent. In the report mentioned above, it seeks to tar all dissent with the same brush, and then brand it as direct or clandestine support to Maoists.

The intelligence community is neither stupid nor inefficient. Their advice rendered to MHA is designed to ensure advantage to corporate demands for land and other resources. The intention of the advice in question is clearly to sideline or minimize dissent or criticism of state policies and actions; and if that is not possible, to crush it using state / central police or the military. The reason for this intention is widely understood as inspired by corporate need for land and/or raw material resources, to provide obscene profits to the corporates and huge kick-backs to those who collude with the concerned corporates. A P-B-P-C (politicial-bureaucrat-policeman-corporate) nexus that implements neo-liberal economic policies and operates against already poor and disadvantaged people by dispossessing them of their lands or livelihoods, is behind such use of state force. (Not all politicians, bureaucrats, policemen or corporations form this nexus). What is worse, this is done in the “public interest”, which makes it even more hurtful to those whose lives are small change in this so-called pursuit of public interest by governments to benefit corporates. This has been exposed repeatedly in many states in our country.

It is by now well recognized that the State has a predilection to suppress dissent by use of police or military force rather than address it by time-tested political means of dialogue and consultation. Further, the State is also prone to report its use of force as achievements of body-counts of militants and capture of weapons and ammunition. When human rights organizations question and investigate these actions and encounters, and bring the matter into the public domain, the police often (and the military less often) spin a web of lies and half-truths to deny wrong-doing. This is as often as not, at the behest of, or with the tacit support of, or at least within the knowledge of, the State.

This has been brought out most recently and very succinctly by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Aftab Alam and C.K.Prasad . In a news report [2] , the counsel for the State of Gujarat denied the allegations of fake encounters and questioned the bonafides of the petitioners, who were obviously defending the right to life of those killed in police encounters. The Court told the Gujarat State counsel, “ It [sic] is no point questioning the bonafides of the petitioners. Why in Gujarat [sic] when the matter comes [up before court] the state initially stoutly denies it. When the matter is scratched even slightly the fact comes to light and then the State government admits it as a fake encounter .” While this particular case refers to Gujarat, a similar attitude of State governments can be easily demonstrated from almost every state in India. Such rights petitioners are “bad boys” who possibly get to be watched for suspected links with Maoists. Even a person who comments upon or criticizes governments' policies and actions, especially their handling of dissent would possibly be on some intelligence watch list.

The advice of the IB to MHA questions the bonafides of rights organizations across the board even though they may have named only “some” organizations. (The names of such organizations or persons is often confidential or secret). It goes on to advise that they may be prosecuted for “ aiding and abetting a criminal conspiracy .” It is well known that police are apt to foist false criminal charges against leading activists in peaceful movements that stand their ground in opposing State policies or actions. One of the methods in their capacious “bag of dirty tricks” (framing false charges, illegal detentions, faked encounter killings, custodial torture and killings, etc.) is for police intelligence to secretly infiltrate their operatives or agents into peaceful protest meetings and demonstrations to initiate violence – just stone-throwing sometimes suffices, but at other times public or private property is destroyed. This gives police the necessary “justification” for filing suitable criminal charges against “ring leaders”. Suppressing people's dissent is itself certainly anti-democratic, but using police intelligence methods as outlined above is plainly State criminality by elected and appointed officials who are de jure public servants but de facto public masters. To be fair, peaceful movements do occasionally turn violent on their own, without “help” from the police.

This not a digression from the IB's advice to MHA. It indicates the mind-set of people in government, who are in positions of power. Whether these worthies actually serve the people of their constituencies or of the state or country has been discussed ad nauseum , but the preponderant view is that they do not. One view point that bears repetition in this context is, “ It is unfortunate that governments do not understand the oft-repeated position of human rights and other social activists, that standing against [state] violence does not mean sympathy with or support for militant groups, that there is a third position which is equidistant from both sides of the conflict, and that the position of “if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us” is deeply flawed in the common law and social senses. Equally unfortunate, speaking against violence and in favour of peaceful negotiations is interpreted by government as opinions of misguided peaceniks at best, or as overt or clandestine collaboration with militants. ” Also, “ In matters such as the militancy and terrorism that are presently rife, many people fear that governments' policy that militancy (caused by decades-long neglect and misgovernance) should be crushed by the use of police and military firepower, will make presently bad situations worse. Such people take the so-called third position, ... and [are] in favour of peace and harmony. ” [3] . This is a viewpoint that is socially responsible and the only viable long-term solution to militancy.

All people who respect the Constitution and value the rights and freedoms that flow from that hallowed document need to vehemently and publicly condemn the advice of the intelligence agencies against rights organizations, that diminish those freedoms and rights and make nonsense of the Constitution. We do not want India to become a police state. The MHA needs to unequivocally assure the people that such unconstitutional advice from the intelligence agencies will be rejected out of hand and the person(s) of the intelligence community who rendered the advice will be put through a formal course of education on the Constitution of India.

References

1. Anil Sinha and Deepak K Upreti, “ Rights groups fronting for Maoists, says IB ”; < http://www.deccanherald.com/content/221668/rights-groups-fronting-maoists-says.html >; Deccan Herald, New Delhi, Jan 23, 2012.

2. “ Supreme Court orders probe into all fake encounters in Gujarat ”; The Hindu, Bangalore; January 26, 2012, page 1.

3. Vombatkere S.G., “ The Third Position – Non-alignment with violence ”; Mainstream, New Delhi; Vol XLVIII No 13, March 20, 2010, p.29-31.

S.G.Vombatkere retired as major general after 35 years in the Indian military. He is engaged in voluntary social work, and is member of the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM) and People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). As Adjunct Associate Professor of the University of Iowa, USA, he coordinates and lectures a course on Science, Technology and Sustainable Development for under-graduate students from USA and Canada. He holds a master of engineering degree in structural engineering from the University of Poona and a PhD in civil structural dynamics from I.I.T, Madras.: sg9kere@live.com

Mind Control: Weapon of Mass Persuasion

2012-01-28T00:55:00.001-05:00

Video

"Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind." - Edward Bernays 1929

Posted January 27, 2012

10 Steps Toward Radical Revolution in the USA

2012-01-26T16:44:00.001-05:00


Revelers gather at the White House and chant "USA! USA!" after the death of Osama bin Laden, 05/21/11. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

By Bill Quigley, CounterPunch

24 January 12

[REPRINT]

"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values."

– Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 1967

ne. Human rights must be taken absolutely seriously. Every single person is entitled to dignity and human rights. No application needed. No exclusions at all. This is our highest priority.

Two. We must radically reinvent contemporary democracy. Current systems are deeply corrupt and not responsive to the needs of people. Representatives chosen by money and influence govern by money and influence. This is unacceptable. Direct democracy by the people is now technologically possible and should be the rule. Communities must be protected whenever they advocate for self-determination, self-development and human rights. Dissent is essential to democracy; we pledge to help it flourish.

Three. Corporations are not people and are not entitled to human rights. Amend the US Constitution so it is clear corporations do not have constitutional or human rights. We the people must cut them down to size and so democracy can regulate their size, scope and actions.

Four. Leave the rest of the world alone. Cut US military spending by 75 percent and bring all troops outside the US home now. Defense of the US is a human right. Global offense and global police force by US military are not. Eliminate all nuclear and chemical and biological weapons. Stop allowing scare tactics to build up the national security forces at home. Stop the myth that the US is somehow special or exceptional and is entitled to act differently than all other nations. The US must re-join the global family of nations as a respectful partner. USA is one of many nations in the world. We must start acting like it.

Five. Property rights, privilege, and money-making are not as important as human rights. When current property and privilege arrangements are not just they must yield to the demands of human rights. Money-making can only be allowed when human rights are respected. Exploitation is unacceptable. There are national and global poverty lines. We must establish national and global excess lines so that people and businesses with extra houses, cars, luxuries, and incomes share much more to help everyone else be able to exercise their basic human rights to shelter, food, education and healthcare. If that disrupts current property, privilege and money-making, so be it.

Six. Defend our earth. Stop pollution, stop pipelines, stop new interstates, and stop destroying the land, sea, and air by extracting resources from them. Rebuild what we have destroyed. If corporations will not stop voluntarily, people must stop them. The very existence of life is at stake.

Seven. Dramatically expand public spaces and reverse the privatization of public services. Quality public education, health and safety for all must be provided by transparent accountable public systems. Starving the state is a recipe for destroying social and economic human rights for everyone but the rich.

Eight. Pull the criminal legal prison system up and out by its roots and start over. Cease the criminalization of drugs, immigrants, poor people and people of color. We are all entitled to be safe but the current system makes us less so and ruins millions of lives. Start over.

Nine. The US was created based on two original crimes that must be confessed and made right. Reparations are owed to Native Americans because their land was stolen and they were uprooted and slaughtered. Reparations are owed to African Americans because they were kidnapped, enslaved and abused. The US has profited widely from these injustices and must make amends.

Ten. Everyone who wants to work should have the right to work and earn a living wage. Any workers who want to organize and advocate for change in solidarity with others must be absolutely protected from recriminations from their employer and from their government.

Finally, if those in government and those in power do not help the people do what is right, people seeking change must together exercise our human rights and bring about these changes directly. Dr. King and millions of others lived and worked for a radical revolution of values. We will as well. We respect the human rights and human dignity of others and work for a world where love and wisdom and solidarity and respect prevail. We expect those for whom the current unjust system works just fine will object and oppose and accuse people seeking dramatic change of being divisive and worse. That is to be expected because that is what happens to all groups which work for serious social change. Despite that, people will continue to go forward with determination and purpose to bring about a radical revolution of values in the USA.

Bill Quigley is Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. You can reach Bill at quigley77@gmail.com.

Comments

Anonymous Message to ACTA Supporters [D]

2012-01-25T23:27:00.000-05:00

Corrupt governments of the world,

We are Anonymous.

For some time now, voices have been crying out in unison against the ACTA treaty. The gross inadequacies of the new laws being passed internationally have been pointed out repeatedly. Our chief complaint is that such measures would restrict people's access to the internet.

In these modern times access to the internet is quickly becoming a basic human right. Just like any other basic human right, we believe that it is wrong to infringe upon it. To threaten to cut people off from the global consciousness as you have, is criminal and abhorrent. To move to censor content on the internet based on your own prejudice is at best, laughably impossible, at worst, morally reprehensible.

To impede on the rights of the public, with unjust precendent, is not acceptable to Anonymous, nor to the public in whom we represent. This has become quite clear across the globe. And so too, shall we make it clear to the European Parliament.

The unjust restrictions you impose on us, will meet with disaster and only strengthen our resolve to disobey, and rebel against your tyranny. Such actions taken against you, and those you out source your malignant litigation to, are inevitable, involuntary,unavoidable and unstoppable.

It is to interest of us, that this is not the first time ACTA was heard, or spoken of. We take note, to incidents arising in 2009, relating to the significant amount of nondisclosure agreements between ACTA and companies like Google, eBay, Sony, and Verizon. This further proves our point, that the purpose of ACTA is to impose nothing more than internet censorship across Europe.

In September 2008, a number of interest groups urged parties to the ACTA negotiations to disclose the language of the evolving agreement. In an open letter, the groups argued that: "Because the text of the treaty and relevant discussion documents remain secret, the public has no way of assessing whether and to what extent these and related concerns are merited." The interest groups included: the Consumers Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Essential Action, IP Justice, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge, Global Trade Watch, the US Public Interest Research Group, IP Left (Korea), the Canadian Library Association, the Consumers Union of Japan, the National Consumer Council (UK) and the Doctors without Borders' Campaign for Essential Medicines. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge have filed a FOIA request which was denied

The University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic filed an access to information request but received only a document stating the title of the agreement, with everything else blacked out.

Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration had rejected requests to make the text of ACTA public, with the White House saying that disclosure would cause "damage to the national security

In 2009, Knowledge Ecology International filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request in the United States, but their entire request was denied

Much like Guy Fawkes stood for freedom of Britian, so too will we stand for freedom of the internet from the hands of ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and all other entities that impose censorship on the internet we know and love.

Members, and supporters beware, the European Parliament may stand to impose your legislation, but Anonymous does not. If you shall be so inclined as to doubt our power, we bear in mind that we have toppled the Playstation Network, The US Department of Justice, Universal Studios, The FBI and WMG.

In the past, we have brought justice to, and toppled the governments of Tunisia, The United Arab Emirates, The United States of America, Austrailia, and New Zealand.

Let this be our only warning to you, withdraw ACTA or so too, will we topple ACTA and the European Parliament.

ACTA cannot and will not pass!

We Are Anonymous

We Are Legion

We Do Not Forgive

We Do Not Forget

Supporters of ACTA, Expect Us.

Press Freedom Index 2011/2012

2012-01-25T23:24:00.001-05:00

Syria, Bahrain and Yemen get worst ever rankings

“This year’s index sees many changes in the rankings, changes that reflect a year that was incredibly rich in developments, especially in the Arab world,” Reporters Without Borders said today as it released its 10th annual press freedom index. “Many media paid dearly for their coverage of democratic aspirations or opposition movements. Control of news and information continued to tempt governments and to be a question of survival for totalitarian and repressive regimes. The past year also highlighted the leading role played by netizens in producing and disseminating news.

“Crackdown was the word of the year in 2011. Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy. Never have journalists, through their reporting, vexed the enemies of freedom so much. Never have acts of censorship and physical attacks on journalists seemed so numerous. The equation is simple: the absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom. Dictatorships fear and ban information, especially when it may undermine them.

“It is no surprise that the same trio of countries, Eritrea, Turkmenistan and North Korea, absolute dictatorships that permit no civil liberties, again occupy the last three places in the index. This year, they are immediately preceded at the bottom by Syria, Iran and China, three countries that seem to have lost contact with reality as they have been sucked into an insane spiral of terror, and by Bahrain and Vietnam, quintessential oppressive regimes. Other countries such as Uganda and Belarus have also become much more repressive.

“This year’s index finds the same group of countries at its head, countries such as Finland, Norway and Netherlands that respect basic freedoms. This serves as a reminder that media independence can only be maintained in strong democracies and that democracy needs media freedom. It is worth noting the entry of Cape Verde and Namibia into the top twenty, two African countries where no attempts to obstruct the media were reported in 2011.”

Protest movements

The Arab world was the motor of history in 2011 but the Arab uprisings have had contrasting political outcomes so far, with Tunisia and Bahrain at opposite ends of the scale. Tunisia (134th) rose 30 places in index and, with much suffering, gave birth to a democratic regime that has not yet fully accepted a free and independent press. Bahrain (173rd) fell 29 places because of its relentless crackdown on pro-democracy movements, its trials of human rights defenders and its suppression of all space for freedom.

While Libya (154th) turned the page on the Gaddafi era, Yemen succumbed to violence between President Ali Abdallah Saleh’s opponents and supporters and languished in 171st position. The future of both of these countries remains uncertain, and the place they will allow the media is undecided. The same goes for Egypt, which fell 39 places to 166th because the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, in power since February, dashed the hopes of democrats by continuing the Mubarak dictatorship’s practices. There were three periods of exceptional violence for journalists: in February, November and December.

Already poorly ranked in 2010, Syria fell further in the index, to 176th position, because total censorship, widespread surveillance, indiscriminate violence and government manipulation made it impossible for journalists to work.

Elsewhere in the world, pro-democracy movements that tried to follow the Arab example were ruthlessly suppressed. Many arrests were made in Vietnam (172nd). In China (174th), the government responded to regional and local protests and to public impatience with scandals and acts of injustice by feverishly reinforcing its system of controlling news and information, carrying out extrajudicial arrests and stepping up Internet censorship. There was a dramatic rise in the number of arrests in Azerbaijan (162nd), where Ilham Aliyev’s autocratic government did not hesitate to jail netizens, abduct opposition journalists and bar foreign reporters in order to impose a news blackout on the unrest.

Led by President Yoweri Museveni, Uganda (139th) launched an unprecedented crackdown on opposition movements and independent media after the elections in February. Similarly, Chile (80th) fell 47 places because of its many freedom of information violations, committed very often by the security forces during student protests. The United States (47th) also owed its fall of 27 places to the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests.

Several European countries fall far behind rest of continent

The index has highlighted the divergence of some European countries from the rest of the continent. The crackdown on protests after President Lukashenko’s reelection caused Belarus to fall 14 places to 168th. At a time when it is portraying itself as a regional model, Turkey (148th) took a big step backwards and lost 10 places. Far from carrying out promised reforms, the judicial system launched a wave of arrests of journalists that was without precedent since the military dictatorship.

Within the European Union, the index reflects a continuation of the very marked distinction between countries such as Finland and Netherlands that have always had a good evaluation and countries such as Bulgaria (80th), Greece (70th) and Italy (61st) that fail to address the issue of their media freedom violations, above all because of a lack of political will. There was little progress from France, which went from 44th to 38th, or from Spain (39th) and Romania (47th). Media freedom is a challenge that needs addressing more than ever in the Balkans, which want to join the European Union but are suffering the negative effects of the economic crisis.

Endemic violence

Many countries are marked by a culture of violence towards the media that has taken a deep hold. It will be hard to reverse the trends in these countries without an effective fight against impunity. Mexico (149th) and Honduras (135th) are two cases in point. Pakistan (151st) was the world’s deadliest country for journalists for the second year running. Somalia (164th), which has been at war for 20 years, shows no sign of finding a way out of the chaos in which journalists are paying a heavy price.

In Iran (175th), hounding and humiliating journalists has been part of officialdom’s political culture for years. The regime feeds on persecution of the media. Iraq (152nd) fell back 22 places and is now worryingly approaching its 2008 position (158th).

Noteworthy changes

South Sudan, a new nation facing many challenges, has entered the index in a respectable position (111th) for what is a breakaway from one of the worst ranked countries, Sudan (170th). Burma (169th) has a slightly better position than in previous years as a result of political changes in recent months that have raised hopes but need to be confirmed. Niger (29th) achieved the biggest rise in a single year, 75 places, thanks to a successful political transition.

It was Africa that also saw the biggest falls in the index. Djibouti, a discreet little dictatorship in the Horn of Africa, fell 49 places to 159th. Malawi (146th) fell 67 places because of the totalitarian tendencies of its president, Bingu Wa Mutharika. Uganda, mentioned above, fell 43 places to 139th. Finally, Côte d’Ivoire fell 41 places to 159th because the media were badly hit by the fighting between the supporters of rival presidents Laurent Gbagbo and Alassane Ouattara.

The biggest fall in Latin America was by Brazil, which plunged 41 places to 99th because the high level of violence resulted in the deaths of three journalists and bloggers.

Download the full version

THE RANKING

In order to have a bigger spread in the scores and increase the differentiation between countries, this year’s questionnaire had more answers assigning negative points. That is why countries at the top of the index have negative scores this year.

Although the point system has produced a broader distribution of scores than in 2010, each country’s evolution over the years can still be plotted by comparing its position in the index rather than its score. This is what the arrows in the table refer to – a country’s change in position in the index compared with the preceding year.

Rank	Country	Score
1	Finland	-10,00
-	Norway	-10,00
3	Estonia	-9,00
-	Netherlands	-9,00
5	Austria	-8,00
6	Iceland	-7,00
-	Luxembourg	-7,00
8	Switzerland	-6,20
9	Cape Verde	-6,00
10	Canada	-5,67
-	Denmark	-5,67
12	Sweden	-5,50
13	New Zealand	-5,33
14	Czech Republic	-5,00
15	Ireland	-4,00
16	Cyprus	-3,00
-	Jamaica	-3,00
-	Germany	-3,00
19	Costa Rica	-2,25
20	Belgium	-2,00
-	Namibia	-2,00
22	Japan	-1,00
-	Surinam	-1,00
24	Poland	-0,67
25	Mali	0,00
-	OECS	0,00
-	Slovakia	0,00
28	United Kingdom	2,00
29	Niger	2,50
30	Australia	4,00
-	Lithuania	4,00
32	Uruguay	4,25
33	Portugal	5,33
34	Tanzania	6,00
35	Papua New Guinea	9,00
36	Slovenia	9,14
37	El Salvador	9,30
38	France	9,50
39	Spain	9,75
40	Hungary	10,00
41	Ghana	11,00
42	South Africa	12,00
-	Botswana	12,00
44	South Korea	12,67
45	Comoros	13,00
-	Taiwan	13,00
47	United States of America	14,00
-	Argentina	14,00
-	Romania	14,00
50	Latvia	15,00
-	Trinidad and Tobago	15,00
52	Haiti	15,67
53	Moldova	16,00
54	Hong-Kong	17,00
-	Mauritius	17,00
-	Samoa	17,00
57	United States of America (extra-territorial)	19,00
58	Malta	19,50
-	Bosnia and Herzegovina	19,50
-	Guyana	19,50
61	Italy	19,67
62	Central African Republic	20,00
63	Lesotho	21,00
-	Sierra Leone	21,00
-	Tonga	21,00
66	Mozambique	21,50
67	Mauritania	22,20
68	Croatia	23,33
-	Burkina Faso	23,33
70	Bhutan	24,00
-	Greece	24,00
72	Nicaragua	24,33
73	Maldives	25,00
-	Seychelles	25,00
75	Guinea-Bissau	26,00
-	Senegal	26,00
77	Armenia	27,00
78	Kuwait	28,00
79	Togo	28,50
80	Serbia	29,00
-	Bulgaria	29,00
-	Chile	29,00
-	Paraguay	29,00
84	Kenya	29,50
-	Madagascar	29,50
86	Guinea	30,00
-	Kosovo	30,00
-	Timor-Leste	30,00
-	Zambia	30,00
90	Congo	30,38
91	Benin	31,00
92	Israel (Israeli territory)	31,25
93	Lebanon	31,50
94	Macedonia	31,67
95	Dominican Republic	33,25
96	Albania	34,44
97	Cameroon	35,00
-	Guatemala	35,00
99	Brazil	35,33
100	Mongolia	35,75
101	Gabon	36,50
102	Cyprus (North)	37,00
103	Chad	37,67
104	Ecuador	38,00
-	Georgia	38,00
106	Nepal	38,75
107	Montenegro	39,00
108	Bolivia	40,00
-	Kyrgyzstan	40,00
110	Liberia	40,50
111	South Sudan	41,25	nc
112	United Arab Emirates	45,00
113	Panama	45,67
114	Qatar	46,00
115	Peru	51,25
116	Ukraine	54,00
117	Cambodia	55,00
-	Fiji	55,00
-	Oman	55,00
-	Venezuela	55,00
-	Zimbabwe	55,00
122	Algeria	56,00
-	Tajikistan	56,00
-	Malaysia	56,00
125	Brunei	56,20
126	Nigeria	56,40
127	Ethiopia	56,60
128	Jordan	56,80
129	Bangladesh	57,00
130	Burundi	57,75
131	India	58,00
132	Angola	58,43
133	Israel (extra-territorial)	59,00
134	Tunisia	60,25
135	Singapore	61,00
-	Honduras	61,00
137	Thailand	61,50
138	Morocco	63,29
139	Uganda	64,00
140	Philippines	64,50
141	Gambia	65,50
142	Russia	66,00
143	Colombia	66,50
144	Swaziland	67,00
145	Democratic Republic of Congo	67,67
146	Indonesia	68,00
-	Malawi	68,00
148	Turkey	70,00
149	Mexico	72,67
150	Afghanistan	74,00
151	Pakistan	75,00
152	Iraq	75,36
153	Palestinian Territories	76,00
154	Kazakhstan	77,50
-	Libya	77,50
156	Rwanda	81,00
157	Uzbekistan	83,00
158	Saudi Arabia	83,25
159	Côte d’Ivoire	83,50
-	Djibouti	83,50
161	Equatorial Guinea	86,00
162	Azerbaijan	87,25
163	Sri Lanka	87,50
164	Somalia	88,33
165	Laos	89,00
166	Egypt	97,50
167	Cuba	98,83
168	Belarus	99,00
169	Burma	100,00
170	Sudan	100,75
171	Yemen	101,00
172	Vietnam	114,00
173	Bahrain	125,00
174	China	136,00
175	Iran	136,60
176	Syria	138,00
177	Turkmenistan	140,67
178	North Korea	141,00
179	Eritrea	142,00

Download the full version

10 Steps Toward Radical Revolution in the USA

2012-01-25T01:50:00.000-05:00

By Bill Quigley
[REPRINT]

“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.”
– Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 1967

January 23, 2012 "Information Clearing House" --- One. Human rights must be taken absolutely seriously. Every single person is entitled to dignity and human rights. No application needed. No exclusions at all. This is our highest priority.

Two. We must radically reinvent contemporary democracy. Current systems are deeply corrupt and not responsive to the needs of people. Representatives chosen by money and influence govern by money and influence. This is unacceptable. Direct democracy by the people is now technologically possible and should be the rule. Communities must be protected whenever they advocate for self-determination, self-development and human rights. Dissent is essential to democracy; we pledge to help it flourish.

Three. Corporations are not people and are not entitled to human rights. Amend the US Constitution so it is clear corporations do not have constitutional or human rights. We the people must cut them down to size and so democracy can regulate their size, scope and actions.

Four. Leave the rest of the world alone. Cut US military spending by 75 percent and bring all troops outside the US home now. Defense of the US is a human right. Global offense and global police force by US military are not. Eliminate all nuclear and chemical and biological weapons. Stop allowing scare tactics to build up the national security forces at home. Stop the myth that the US is somehow special or exceptional and is entitled to act differently than all other nations. The US must re-join the global family of nations as a respectful partner. USA is one of many nations in the world. We must start acting like it.

Five. Property rights, privilege, and money-making are not as important as human rights. When current property and privilege arrangements are not just they must yield to the demands of human rights. Money-making can only be allowed when human rights are respected. Exploitation is unacceptable. There are national and global poverty lines. We must establish national and global excess lines so that people and businesses with extra houses, cars, luxuries, and incomes share much more to help everyone else be able to exercise their basic human rights to shelter, food, education and healthcare. If that disrupts current property, privilege and money-making, so be it.

Six. Defend our earth. Stop pollution, stop pipelines, stop new interstates, and stop destroying the land, sea, and air by extracting resources from them. Rebuild what we have destroyed. If corporations will not stop voluntarily, people must stop them. The very existence of life is at stake.

Seven. Dramatically expand public spaces and reverse the privatization of public services. Quality public education, health and safety for all must be provided by transparent accountable public systems. Starving the state is a recipe for destroying social and economic human rights for everyone but the rich.

Eight. Pull the criminal legal prison system up and out by its roots and start over. Cease the criminalization of drugs, immigrants, poor people and people of color. We are all entitled to be safe but the current system makes us less so and ruins millions of lives. Start over.

Nine. The US was created based on two original crimes that must be confessed and made right. Reparations are owed to Native Americans because their land was stolen and they were uprooted and slaughtered. Reparations are owed to African Americans because they were kidnapped, enslaved and abused. The US has profited widely from these injustices and must make amends.

Ten. Everyone who wants to work should have the right to work and earn a living wage. Any workers who want to organize and advocate for change in solidarity with others must be absolutely protected from recriminations from their employer and from their government.

Finally, if those in government and those in power do not help the people do what is right, people seeking change must together exercise our human rights and bring about these changes directly. Dr. King and millions of others lived and worked for a radical revolution of values. We will as well. We respect the human rights and human dignity of others and work for a world where love and wisdom and solidarity and respect prevail. We expect those for whom the current unjust system works just fine will object and oppose and accuse people seeking dramatic change of being divisive and worse. That is to be expected because that is what happens to all groups which work for serious social change. Despite that, people will continue to go forward with determination and purpose to bring about a radical revolution of values in the USA.

Bill is a human rights lawyer who teaches at Loyola University New Orleans and works with the Center for Constitutional Rights. You can reach him at quigley77@gmail.com

Is Homeland Security Watching You Online?

2012-01-25T00:47:00.002-05:00

January 18, 2012 5:02 AM

[REPRINT]

FindLaw columnist Eric Sinrod writes regularly in this section on legal developments surrounding technology and the Internet.

Are George Orwell's fears of a governmental "Big Brother" from his novel 1984 coming true now? Well, let's hope not, but read on.

Recent press has reported on a particular government document: a Privacy Compliance Review issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in late 2011. The document reveals that the DHS command center regularly monitors social-networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, popular sites like Hulu, controversial sites including WikiLeaks, and news and commentary sites like Drudge Report and The Huffington Post.

The Privacy Compliance Review notes that since mid-2010, DHS' National Operations Center has implemented a "Social Networking/Media Capability." This includes routine monitoring of "publicly available online forums, blogs, public websites and message boards," according to news reports.

The motivation for the monitoring is to "collect information used in providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture," the government document says.

But what does that mean?

Well, the Privacy Compliance Review states that the monitoring assists DHS and other agencies in managing responses to world events like the 2010 Haiti earthquake and border control for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Canada.

Websites subject to monitoring are "publicly available," the DHS report states. The monitored information helps in terms of "situation awareness," "more complete operating pictures," and "more timely information for decision makers."

The document also insists that DHS will not keep permanent copies of monitored Internet traffic; however, DHS notes that it can retain information for up to five years.

So, do you feel warm, cozy and safe right now? On the one hand, you may feel assured that DHS is trying to stay on top of its game with respect to "situational awareness." You may also feel comforted that the traffic being monitored is "publicly available" and will not be maintained permanently by DHS.

On the other hand (and there always is another hand), you might be a little less happy to know that your online movements and communications on certain websites may be monitored by the government. Do you really know for sure how that information will be used? You may be concerned that something you say online could be misconstrued, potentially to your disadvantage vis-à-vis the government.

Perhaps there needs to be an even more open dialogue concerning the government's monitoring of websites.

Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP (http://www.duanemorris.com) where he focuses on litigation matters of various types, including information technology and intellectual property disputes. His Web site is http://www.sinrodlaw.com and he can be reached at ejsinrod@duanemorris.com. To receive a weekly email link to Mr. Sinrod's columns, please send an email to him with Subscribe in the Subject line. This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's law firm or its individual partners.

Related Resources:

Homeland Security Is Monitoring The Drudge Report, The New York Times (The Atlantic)
Lawmakers to Homeland Security: Monitor More Social Media (Mashable)
E-Discovery Rules Applied to Social Media: What This Means in Practical Terms for Businesses (FindLaw)
Social Media: Best Practices For Law Firms (The Official FindLaw Blog)

17 Big Companies That Are Intensely Religious

2012-01-20T02:32:00.001-05:00

Kim Bhasin and Melanie Hicken | Jan. 19, 2012, 11:29 AM

[REPRINT]

Many big brands are intensely religious, even though consumers may not realize it. Most of the time, it comes from a devout founder passing his or her values on down the line.

Some companies put their religion right out in the open, and are proud of their identities. Chick-fil-A is infamous for closing on Sundays, and In-N-Out puts Bible verses on its packaging. Interstate Batteries' mission statement states up front that it exists "to glorify God" while selling its products.

Still, it's risky for brands to affiliate themselves with a religion directly. Since it's just a polarizing subject, it often opens companies up to controversy.

Forever 21

Purchase a skimpy $15 top or $19 skirt from trendy but budget-conscious clothing retailer Forever 21 and you may notice "John 3:16" printed on your shopping bag.

Printed on the bottom of each of the store's bags, the biblical reference is perhaps the most obvious reference to the religious beliefs promoted by the store's owners, the Chang Family, who are born-again Christians.

Mrs. Chang told Business Week last year that the store had religious roots, citing that "God told her she should open a store and that she would be successful."

The store provoked criticism last summer when it released a slew of religious-themed tees emblazoned with slogans such as "Jesus ♥ You" and "Holy."

Tyson Foods

By iateapie on Flickr

Many customers may not realize it, but Tyson Foods is a very religious company that embraces spirtuality in the workplace.

Founder John Tyson speaks openly about his Christian beliefs, and the company's core values say that it "strive(s) to honor God" and "be a faith-friendly company."

Since 2000, the company has employed approximately 120 office chaplains who are there to provide "compassionate pastoral care" to employees, according to Tyson's website.

Chick-fil-A

By rwentechaney on Flickr

Founded by devout Southern Baptist Truett Cathy in 1946 in Hapeville, Georgia, Chick-fil-A has since expanded to become a major American fast-food chain, with more than 1,500 locations in 39 states.

Throughout its success, the company has stuck to its founder's religiously-motivated decision to be closed on Sundays.
"(Cathy) believes that all franchised Chick-fil-A Operators and their Restaurant employees should have an opportunity to rest, spend time with family and friends, and worship if they choose to do so," according to the restaurant's website.

"That's why all Chick-fil-A Restaurants are closed on Sundays. It's part of our recipe for success."

Mary Kay

By shindoverse on Flickr

In a 1997 interview Mary Kay Ash, founder of the cosmetics behemoth of the same name, attributed her company's success to the choice to "take God as our partner."

She expounded on these views in her biography, "Mary Kay: You Can Have it All," where she stated, "God has blessed us because our motivation is right. He knows I want women to be the beautiful creatures he created.''

The religious bent has caused controversy from some of the company's salespeople, who have said it promotes a cult-like environment.

In-N-Out Burger

By apfriedman on Flickr

In-N-Out, the California-based burger chain is beloved for its commitment to fresh ingredients and its secretive "special menu."

It is also well known for the citation of Bible passages printed on the chain's cardboard cups, containers and wrappers.
The company does not address religion or the passages on their website. Company spokesman Carl Van Fleet told USA Today in 2005 that the founders' son Richard Snyder instituted the practice. "He told me, 'It's just something I want to do.'"

Timberland

By DeclanTM on Flickr

Timblerland CEO Jeff Swartz is well-known for his commitment to promoting corporate social responsibility.

For example, Swartz moved to sever the company's ties with a Chinese factory where human rights violations were allegedly occuring despite the fact that it took a hit to the shoemaking company's bottom line. Swartz attributed his motivation to his own personal Jewish faith in a 2008 Fast Company profile.

"I can't show you the scripture that relates to the rights of a worker, but I can show you text that insists upon treating others with dignity," he said. "It says in the Hebrew Bible one time that you should love your neighbor as yourself, but it says dozens of times that you shall treat the stranger with dignity."

Alaska Air

By aboyandhisbike on Flickr

Fly aboard Alaskan Air and you're likely to get some bible passages along with your in-flight breakfast.

Each breakfast tray comes with an inspirational notecard printed with a passage from the Old Testament, a company tradition dating back several decades.

Salon columnist Patrick Smith took issue with the notecard, and received this message in response from the Seattle-based company:

"The quotes have application across many Judeo-Christian beliefs and are shared as a gesture of thanks which reflect the beliefs of this country’s founding as in the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, Pledge of Allegiance and every U.S. coin and dollar you handle. Alaska Airlines is an international carrier with very diverse customers, and we have no intentions of offending anyone or their beliefs. An overwhelming majority of our customers have indicated they appreciate the gesture, and those who don’t are not forced to read it."

Marriott

By Sebastian Niedlich on Flickr

Marriott Hotel founder John Willard Marriot was a devout Mormon who held leadership positions within the church at the same time he was building his hotel empire.

While Marriott passed away in 1985, his religious legacy has lived on within the family-run hotel chain, which is known for sometimes putting the Book of Mormons along with Bibles in hotel rooms.

The company also recently announced that it would no longer offer pay-per-view pornography in its hotel rooms.

JetBlue

By kathika on Flickr

JetBlue's so-called "homesourcing"— the relocation of its phone reservation system to 700 stay-at-home workers based in Salt Lake City — provides a hint to its CEO's religious roots.

Founder and CEO David Neelman, a devout Mormon father-of-nine, once traveled to Brazil as a Mormon missionary, according to a 2002 USA Today profile.

And it's a big reason Neeleman prioritizes customer service. "My missionary experience obliterated class distinction for me," he said to author Jeff Benedict in "The Mormon Way of Doing Business." "I learned to treat everyone the same. If anything, I have a disdain for the upper class and people who think they are better than others."

Interstate Batteries

By sidehike on Flickr

Interstate Batteries speaks to its own religious identity in its mission statement.

According to the company's website, the mission is "to glorify God as we supply our customers worldwide with top quality, value-priced batteries, related electrical power-source products, and distribution services."

Former Company President Norm Miller was recognized last year by Dallas Baptist University for "his strong Christian leadership at Interstate Batteries as well as in the community."

Trijicon

By klafaille on Flickr

Weapons-sight maker Trijicon made waves in 2010 when an ABC Nightline investigation found that the company had inscribed coded biblical references on high-powered rifle sights used by the U.S. military.

Military officials told ABC they were unaware of the inscriptions, which violated U.S. miltary rules banning the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Michigan-based company at the time acknowleged the codes and told ABC that the practice started under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian who was killed in a 2003 plane crash.

Hobby Lobby

By hattiesburgmemory on Flickr

Hobby Lobby, a national chain of roughly 500 arts-and-craft stores in 41 states makes the company's religious beliefs quite clear.

The company's first mission statement is "Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles," according to its website, and ends with, "We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, we trust Him for our future."

Since 1997, the company has run full-page religious ads in every newspaper in which they advertise for holidays including Easter and Christmas.

ServiceMaster

By lkbm on Flickr

ServiceMaster may not be a household name, but several of its brands — which include Merry Maids, Terminix and American Home Shield — are.

Former Minor League Baseball player Marion E. Wade founded the company in 1929 and worked to incorporate his "strong personal faith and a desire to honor God in all he did," according to the Service Master website.

This translated into the company's "foundational commitment" to "Honor God in all we do."

George Foreman Cooking

Jeremy O'Donnell / Getty Images Entertainment

After leaving behind a successful boxing career, George Foreman gained new-found fame as the boisterous hawker of low-fat cooking grills.

Foreman discussed his own religious reawakening in an interview with Success Magazine, and said that his personal integrity guides his business decisions.

For example, he won't invest in products or sellers that promote alcohol consumption.

H.E.B

By euthman on Flickr

H.E.B., a grocery-store chain with hundreds of stores in Texas and Mexico, grew from a single-family owned store opened by Florence Butt in Kerrville, Texas in 1905.

Company Vice Chairman Howard E. Butt Jr. is also a self-described "spiritual reformer," who joined with Rev. Billy Graham in the 1950s to create "spiritual programs for business professionals." He also oversees the administration of "Laity Lodge," a Christian retreat center in Texas.

H.E.B. stores used to be closed on Sundays and prohibit the sale of alcohol until 1976, when a new president changed the rules.

Curves

By omgejuglr on Flickr

Curves gyms are nationally known for creating a men-free environment where women of all shapes and sizes can work out.

It's lesser known that the company's founder Gary Heavin, is a born-again Christian who has garnered criticism for conservative political views and donating to anti-abortion causes, according to a 2004 Houston Chronicle profile.

Heavin acknowledged there has been some business "fallout" from his views, which prompted some members to cancel memberships.

Tom's of Maine

By smohundro on Flickr

Tom's of Maine, a natural products retailer best known for its toothpaste, is not that outwardly religious. But its founder Tom Chappell is an active Episcopalian, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School.

Chappell discusses his path from divinity school to business CEO in his book, "The Soul of a Business: Managing for Profit and the Common Good." While at the school, a professor recommended that he treat his business like a ministry, so that's what he did.

It has worked its way into Tom's mission statement, which says it exists, in part, "To help create a better world by exchanging our faith, experience, and hope."

2012-01-18T01:50:00.001-05:00

DUSTCIRCLE BLACKOUT
http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/design/how-sopa-pipa-can-affect-you/
We will return shortly

CNN: Law Enforcement Is Intimidated By Anonymous

2012-01-16T02:27:00.000-05:00

[REPRINT]

I don't claim to have any real understanding of who or what Anonymous is.

On the surface, Anonymous and I share a good deal of concerns, the corruption and greed of corporations, the corruption and abuses of government, freedom of speech, free access to information and ideas, and a more than a few other concerns as well.

However, for a group that rails against corporations and governments for not being more open and transparent, they themselves are rather shadowy and 'anonymous'. When a person in a mask claims to be my ally, I have generally have my doubts.

Conversely, I do understand that when the people you are railing against have the power to arrest and detain you indefinitely without charges, maybe it is best to maintain some sort 'anonymity'. In this light, being a little shadowy doesn't necessarily imply anything sinister at all.

I wish I knew, but I really have no idea who or what Anonymous is, but I'll keep watching...

For more Out There videos, click here
See the complete catalog of
brasscheck tv videos

The Dissenting Heretic

DOX: Westboro Baptist Church

Westboro Baptist Church- Phone, Names, Addresses, &Info

Why Young People Are Fleeing Conservative Evangelicalism

Is America a Police State?

Goodbye Press Freedoms

More Journalists Arrested Covering Occupy, Occupy Tweets Subpoenaed

[REPRINT]

Occupying Corporations: How To Cut Corporate Power

Things Are Not O.K.

The Peril of Idolizing Our Military

Video Collection of Crazy Christians

The Religious: Criminal and Mentally Ill Superstars

7 Privacy Threats the Constitution Can't Protect You Against

Why You Don't Need God to be Good: the Rise of Atheist Charities

How 'Anonymous' Went From Mischief Makers to a Force That Terrifies Corporations and Governments

Henry Rollins: America the Selfish

Why We Should Tax the Churches

Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent

Misuse Of Intelligence: Right To Dissent

Mind Control: Weapon of Mass Persuasion

Video

10 Steps Toward Radical Revolution in the USA

Comments

Anonymous Message to ACTA Supporters [D]

Press Freedom Index 2011/2012

THE RANKING

10 Steps Toward Radical Revolution in the USA

Is Homeland Security Watching You Online?

17 Big Companies That Are Intensely Religious

Forever 21

Tyson Foods

Chick-fil-A

Mary Kay

In-N-Out Burger

Timberland

Alaska Air

Marriott

JetBlue

Interstate Batteries

Trijicon

Hobby Lobby

ServiceMaster

George Foreman Cooking

H.E.B

Curves

Tom's of Maine

CNN: Law Enforcement Is Intimidated By Anonymous