axisflip cryptofinancial

Categories
News Politics Science Society Technology Uncontrollable Patriotism World

Ron Paul Raids RonPaul.com

The Swedish Banhof facility, raided along with female employees, Friday evening
The Swedish Bahnhof facility raided, along with female employees, Friday evening

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN — A backpack weighed heavily on this reporter, as I stood beside one of 30 men in full riot gear regalia, as he, among others, awaited his raid, Friday night, on the Bahnhof Web hosting facility deep beneath Stockholm, Sweden. Goons from the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) prepared to storm the most secure privately owned Web hosting company on earth. Their target: RonPaul.com.

RonPaul.com, after serving as the grassroots hub for libertarian activists eager to see Dr. Paul become president, has recently received scrutiny from the former congressman’s attorneys, who wish to see the server remain safely out of the hands of “the rabble.” After the sovereign hand of the U.S. government proved impotent against the mighty force of the Internet, Dr. Paul decided that appealing — closer to grave than cradle — to the globalist nanny state would be his best bet for real justice.

A man, who would only agree to be identified as “Karl,” made small talk as he swept snow from the barrel of his Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun. Nine-term former Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) stepped between us, the elderly man who personally organized the team after the proprietors of RonPaul.com, he said, “sought to capitalize on my legacy.”

Spokesman Jesse Benton — then at my other side, sporting a bulletproof vest emblazoned with the initials “U.N.” — winked at me through a gas mask as the WIPO squad prepared to cut through the Web host’s alloy door. We could expect the door, a U.N. covert paramilitary officer said before the raid, to be over a foot thick. The former Galveston representative stepped to the front of the crowd of men in ski masks and, from brown paper wrapping, unveiled a brick of material.

“This is nano-thermite, boys,” he said with a chuckle. “NIST handed some of this off to me as a congratulatory present on my 2008 New Hampshire primary showing.”

After only a few seconds, the door of the compound glowed and disintegrated under the pressure of the igniting thermite. The WIPO men moved in.

One by one the paramilitary officers removed bags from around their shoulders, each unraveling suctions cups on tubes and ominous black machines roughly the size of a normal desktop’s power unit. They restrained weeping female workers in the facility, ripped their clothes from their bodies and proceeded to fasten the machines to their respective labia minora.

Dr. Paul, salivating, watched as the women screamed and squirmed as their uteruses were sucked cleaned by the elite globalist soldiers. He said to me, as I wrote furiously his words down, “We have to be sure that these anarchists haven’t stored a backup version of the pirate RonPaul.com anywhere in their body cavities. Even their wombs could be offering safe harbor to thumb drives, micro-computers. You know how these namby-fancy Euro-types are.”

“The global government has spoken,” he added. “We can’t allow their offspring to rob or humiliate me or Rand ever again.”

Banhof has been host to numerous controversial Internet projects — everything from 4chan.org/b/ to WikiLeaks to the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Members of the WIPO team seemed earnestly convinced that the gynecologist was a member of the 113th Congress, as he seemed to have identified himself on his WIPO complaint form. Dr. Paul left office last month, after declining to seek another term.

A U.N. stormtrooper rushed up a flight of stairs, elegantly polished in steel and IKEA-esque efficiency. He briskly saluted Dr. Paul, then said, “Sir, we’ve deactivated and transferred to Mr. Benton control of RonPaul.com. We at the training center admire your pro-family agenda. At your discretion, we could also permanently shut down WikiLeaks and NAMBLA, if you’d like.” The WIPO paramilitary officer gestured to a Banhof control screen, at which the duo could swiftly and permanently deactivate the whistleblower and pro-pedophilia activists’ respective Web presences.

“Deactive WikiLeaks. Those rapist hippies beat me to the punch,” said the elfin gynecologist, his hands clasped behind his back. Then, Dr. Paul clenched a fist. “They never did put me on the Intelligence Committee. Leave NAMBLA up, though. Those boys are the new voice of freedom. The rest of it can come down.”

“Yes, sir,” said the dutiful WIPO soldier, dutifully typing commands into the server, shutting down Web dissidents and deviants as perennially despised as the former presidential candidate.

The aging libertarian turned, staring upwards, having had a realization. “Oh, and one more thing,” he said. “Keep Stormfront.org going. I owe Don Black a favor for those campaign donations.”

axisflip cryptofinancial

Categories
Politics

A State Secretary’s Big Day on Capitol Hill

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton gnashes her teeth to exhibit dominance.

RICHMOND, Va.– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood to testify in front of the Senate Wednesday about the events that took place during the attack on the Benghazi Consolate, September 11, 2012, now widely understood not to have been sparked by “The Innocence of Muslims.” Sec. Clinton was met by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with accolades for her valiant efforts at State and traveling the world for “more than 1 million miles” on the taxpayers’ dime. She accepted these comments graciously and, as she took a seat, touched herself with pleasure.

Opening remarks by the secretary began with her listing those lost during this tragic attack, followed by generously offering an explanation as to what was learned and what steps the department will take to prevent further deaths like those in Benghazi. As expected, these new precautions were shrouded in the usual, deluded double talk that makes Sec. Clinton better than average Americans. To everyone’s immediate satisfaction, Clinton began recounting the events of September 11th, which she explained through concise and indistinguishable details.

The Secretary’s account was standard fare for the Senate’s consumption, as she proceeded to tell the committee that she “stood with President Obama as he spoke of ‘an act of terror.'” To the Senate majority’s delight, where there should have been mention or question of the film “Innocence of Muslims” that the secretary and Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice blamed for fueling the attack in Benghazi, there were only small gasps and muffled syllables as many Senate members were gagged and bound.

Keeping a safe distance from the truth, the purpose of the hearing was again roundly avoided when Secretary Clinton began to weep recalling her embarrassing loss of the Democratic nomination in 2008. Inside sources say Clinton then “also appeared somewhat upset” when she spoke of her touching encounters with family members of those lost at the Benghazi consolate who were not operating some kind of illicit CIA safe house/extrajudicial detainment center.

“It was a deeply moving sight to see. Never have I seen anyone so passionate for their lost dog,” Vice President Joe Biden later commented.

[pullquote]Never have I seen anyone so passionate for their lost dog.

Joe Biden[/pullquote]

Sec. Clinton brought her statements to a close, thanking the Senate for their time and cooperation. Clinton emphasized the importance of working together and spending more money to “face increasingly complex threats” before the chair opened the floor for questions. At first there was silence, but it was quickly followed by the rustle of committee members removing their pants in anticipation of the orgy that would follow the nonthreatening Q-and-A — calling the occasion “a job well done.”

Before a recess could be called a questionnaire by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee proved troublesome for Secretary Clinton, when one of the previously restrained minority senators struggled free his ball gag/gimp suit, which the Education Department had on-site as a demonstration of new Obama administration sex education standards. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), though disheveled, yellow and chaffed, had managed to stumble back to his seat by moving behind the wagons that encircled Sec. Clinton.

Before he was noticed, Sen. Johnson shouted across the assembly, “We were misled that there were protests, and that an assault sprang out of that. It could have been easily ascertained that was not the fact within the first couple days!” Sen. Johnson was quickly restrained by David Brock’s bodyguards before he breached the topic of the government possibly misleading the American people about Benghazi.

Secretary Clinton, recognizing the strategic opening for a rebuttal, stood up from her canine-like position in the room’s center and replied “What difference, at this point does it make?!

Rachel Maddow and Katrina van Heuvel, although strongly differing on issues like the death of Vince Foster and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, issued a joint statement on MSNBC calling this the “best moment of Secretary Clinton’s career.”

The secretary’s responses during the Q-and-A inspired the committee to break into a standing ovation.

“What difference, at this point does it make?!” is expected to be the slogan for the Democratic Party, and possibly former first lady Hillary Clinton by January 2016.

At the end of the day CNBC quoted the secretary as saying, “This is a great day for Americans. Finally, we have philosophy that can universally absolve any great failure or problem.”

Campaign debts paid, and the slate wiped clean, advisers said Secretary Clinton is expected to meet with “Innocence of Muslims” Director Nakoula Nakoula in prison to thank him formally for taking the fall for Benghazi. Sources said Clinton sighed in relief: “We almost had to tell something closer to the truth.”

axisflip cryptofinancial

Categories
Editorial Hate Law Local News Politics Status Quo

Christian Stork: The Megalomania of Aaron Swartz Prosecutor Carmen Ortiz


Massachusetts District U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz (Courtesy: Wikipedia)
Massachusetts District U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz (Courtesy: Wikipedia)

WASHINGTON — In a not-so-stirring defense of academic conglomerate JSTOR, U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz said of Aaron Swartz‘s offenses, “Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.” While common sense and lore would tend to at least lend more sympathy to Robin Hood- or Jean Valjean-type characters, who might be at least functioning out of some concern for others, Ms. Ortiz remained steadfast in her pursuit of recent “an Hero” Mr. Swartz, trying to see him put in jail for potentially the rest of his life.

Over at WhoWhatWhy Christian Stork does a nice little breakdown of this U.S. attorney’s wading into murky waters of civil asset forfeiture, one particular case in which she agreed to help confiscate a rundown, mom-and-pop Massachusetts motel because because “from 2001 to 2008, .05 [percent of at least 125,000 visitors] were arrested for drug crimes on the property.” This was a theft just like Aaron Swartz’s. Except not it was not a theft in the high-minded name of educating the world’s downtrodden, but in that of fattening the pockets of law enforcement agencies, treating poor drug abusers as criminals, alongside those who might dare house them.

Mr. Stork paints a disturbing picture of a civil asset forfeiture system in which being in debt vis-a-vis a mortgage — meaning that a bank, and its lawyers, has some has some skin in the game — means that the owners of this motel would have been in an even better position to disavow their affiliation with three handfuls of guest drug offenses. But alas they ran out of lawyer money, and the government all at once took five decades of family property worth $1.5 million.

Mr. Stork also outlines a direct financial, not an external ethical, motive for law enforcement to take on these kinds of civil asset forfeitures. He cites the testimony of a DEA agent claiming that federal attorneys never go after anything with less than $50,000 in equity. Additionally, local law enforcement, for cooperating with the feds, can look to take home up to 80 percent of what was seized. That’s a major incentive to turn a blind eye to a violation of property rights. In fact it’s more of an incentive to turn a blind eye to property-rights violations than the Pirate Party ever had: It’s money straight to the bank!

The same prosecutor, Carmen Ortiz, who sought to lock up Aaron Swartz for his failure to respect property rights of the proprietors of academic information also sought to seize a family’s business because an extreme minority of their clientele used drugs. Mr. Stork’s article makes clear that this was ultimately the DEA’s initiative, with Ms. Ortiz simply acting as its lawyer. But that doesn’t change that this U.S. attorney lacks any consistency in her modus operandi. It’s pretty obvious that the low rates for staying at this establishment, Motel Caswell, made it an even more tempting target.

Ms. Ortiz’s office released a statement about the seizure, saying: “The government believed that this was an important case . . . because of the deterrent message it sends to others who may turn a blind eye to crime occurring at their place of business.” But Mr. Stork shows this is shmoax because local crime rates dictate that there would have been just as much of a rationale for seizing nearby Walmart, Home Depot, Applebees, Motel 6 and IHOP. But those are large businesses, and no matter how many people shoot up or each other inside, they’ll have the lawyers to keep the whomever or the DEA at bay.