Our new site here has started out quite well with a good amount of daily traffic, but we are lagging in Facebook friends. Please help us out, and "friend" our Facebook page. It helps to promote the site here, of course, but it will also keep you up to date whenever a new article is published.
CLICK HERE TO VISIT NOVEMBER YANKEE ON FACEBOOK
And as always, feel free to comment on any article by using the DISQUS comment feature, or start a conversation on Facbook!
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
State Department Censors Internet, Orders Firm To Remove Gun Designs
This issue cuts not only into the right to bear arms, but right to the core of the freedom of speech and our ability to access information.
Defense Distributed, the firm that had designed plastic guns which could be manufactured with a 3D printer, has announced that their "Liberator" project has gone dark. Cody Wilson, the leader of the company said that he immediately complied with the order to take down the files when he received a letter from the State Department ordering him to do so.
You can read more details of the story in this article by: The Guardian
Make no mistake folks, this is government censorship of the internet, and opens up a whole lot of questions about just how far the government can go to make it illegal for you to gain access to information. This is also a blow to our right to bear arms as well.
Even if the manufacture of these guns falls under regulations that might make it illegal in a certain country, or even a U.S. state, this should not give the government the power to arbitrarily control your access to information. Another example might be marijuana. Illegal in most states and under Federal regulation, yet it is perfectly legal, as it should be, to look up how to grow marijuana as well as all sorts of other information on the banned plant. Pornography as well. Certain genres of that sort of material may be illegal in one jurisdiction but not another. Should this discrepancy be allowed to be used as the basis by which all internet sex is censored by the Federal government?
We might even make a more mundane comparison. Here in my home state of NY it is illegal for me drive on the roads with a "Cherry Bomb" exhaust system on my automobile. Yet it is perfectly legal for the store to sell them, I can certainly look at one on the internet, and I can even install it on a car as long as I don't drive it on public roadways. This is a similar case with a police light. I can buy one, I can even mount one on my car, I just can't use it in traffic. Or pepper spray. Different jurisdictions have different regulations on the sale, possession, and use of non-lethal weapons like this, but we can still see them on the internet.
But because of anti-gun sentiment, this overstepping by the government will be tolerated, even supported by many people unfortunately. Moreover, this move seems clearly aimed at compliance with the push by the UN to regulate guns globally, and to intrude in the domestic affairs of the United States.
UN Passes Historic Arms Trade Treaty To Media Silence
In short, it is this author's belief that you should be able to view and download blueprints of how to manufacture a gun. This does not necessarily extend to a right to actually manufacture the gun, to possess the gun, or to carry the gun. The debates on each of those regulations are another matter. At issue here is your right to information. It should be no more illegal for Defense Distributed to share their blueprints, than it should be for me to draw you a diagram of a Malatov cocktail.
Also read this article regarind internet censorship by the government and corporations:
Book Burning In The Digitial Age
Download a Machine Gun, Printable 30-Round Mag Now Reality
Defense Distributed, the firm that had designed plastic guns which could be manufactured with a 3D printer, has announced that their "Liberator" project has gone dark. Cody Wilson, the leader of the company said that he immediately complied with the order to take down the files when he received a letter from the State Department ordering him to do so.
You can read more details of the story in this article by: The Guardian
Make no mistake folks, this is government censorship of the internet, and opens up a whole lot of questions about just how far the government can go to make it illegal for you to gain access to information. This is also a blow to our right to bear arms as well.
Even if the manufacture of these guns falls under regulations that might make it illegal in a certain country, or even a U.S. state, this should not give the government the power to arbitrarily control your access to information. Another example might be marijuana. Illegal in most states and under Federal regulation, yet it is perfectly legal, as it should be, to look up how to grow marijuana as well as all sorts of other information on the banned plant. Pornography as well. Certain genres of that sort of material may be illegal in one jurisdiction but not another. Should this discrepancy be allowed to be used as the basis by which all internet sex is censored by the Federal government?
We might even make a more mundane comparison. Here in my home state of NY it is illegal for me drive on the roads with a "Cherry Bomb" exhaust system on my automobile. Yet it is perfectly legal for the store to sell them, I can certainly look at one on the internet, and I can even install it on a car as long as I don't drive it on public roadways. This is a similar case with a police light. I can buy one, I can even mount one on my car, I just can't use it in traffic. Or pepper spray. Different jurisdictions have different regulations on the sale, possession, and use of non-lethal weapons like this, but we can still see them on the internet.
But because of anti-gun sentiment, this overstepping by the government will be tolerated, even supported by many people unfortunately. Moreover, this move seems clearly aimed at compliance with the push by the UN to regulate guns globally, and to intrude in the domestic affairs of the United States.
UN Passes Historic Arms Trade Treaty To Media Silence
In short, it is this author's belief that you should be able to view and download blueprints of how to manufacture a gun. This does not necessarily extend to a right to actually manufacture the gun, to possess the gun, or to carry the gun. The debates on each of those regulations are another matter. At issue here is your right to information. It should be no more illegal for Defense Distributed to share their blueprints, than it should be for me to draw you a diagram of a Malatov cocktail.Also read this article regarind internet censorship by the government and corporations:
Book Burning In The Digitial Age
Download a Machine Gun, Printable 30-Round Mag Now Reality
Famed Physicist Stephen Hawking Joins Boycott of Israel
After conflicting explanations were given for Hawking's decision, a spokesman for the British university confirmed that the wheelchair-bound scientist was snubbing the annual event, organised by President Shimon Peres, as part of the boycott.
"...I must withdraw from the conference. Had I attended, I would have stated my opinion that the policy of the present Israeli government is likely to lead to disaster." -Stephen Hawking
Read more at: Yahoo! News
Thursday, May 9, 2013
The Benghazi Scam
Was the raid simply a lashing out by militants against an American target? Was the attack orchestrated as part of some covert plot by the CIA themselves, angling with al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists? Was the attack the fruit of a rebellion within the ranks of American government, or even the military, to use as political clout in order to undermine the Obama administration? Was it part of some plot that we can't even catch a glimpse of from here at home, behind our television and computer screens? We will probably never know.
What bothers me the most though, is how this is being played out politically, in the court of public opinion. Let's face it, people die in hostile war zones every day. Benghazi was no different. This is not to denigrate the sacrifices made there and the loss of life that day, but this is the cost of war and business is good for the American war machine. While Republicans will rail against Obama for reportedly ordering a stand-down of forces to defend the consulate in the middle of a terrorist capital on the other side of the planet, let us not forget that it was Dick Cheney who ordered the stand-down of American air defenses on 9/11, before he ordered the shoot down of Flight 93 and then lied about it for years. (There are still people today who actually believe the Flight 93 band-of-heroes myth, and that the plane crashed in Shanskville. It did not.)
Lies upon lies surround 9/11, and no one seems to even care anymore, that so many questions are still left unanswered. Not the Democrats, and least of all the Republicans. Nearly three-thousand people were killed right here in two of America's greatest cities, and that attack was used as a pretext for a war that has gone on now for more than a decade. A war without end against an invisible enemy, with approximately 70,000 American dead and wounded, and more than a million civilian deaths. All of this madness, and we still don't know who is responsible for 9/11. All of this, and Republicans are screaming bloody murder as if the death of an American politician and his CIA bodyguards in Libya is so much more important than the lives of so many other Americans.
Let's just have a look at this on a tactical level for a moment. POTUS does not micro-manage security at every diplomatic mission around the world. This was not even an embassy, it was a consulate. The local and regional security was the job of the military assets already in place. Nonetheless, when told of the attack, Obama deployed Delta Force, the elite commando team specializing in hostage rescue. By the time they landed in their forward operating base in Sicily, that battle in Benghazi was over. If Obama or anyone in his administration did order a stand-down, it was more than likely on the recommendation of military and/or intelligence officers in the region.
While this may seem counter-intuitive to some readers, a stand-down order is not necessarily treasonous and can be born of legitimate tactical concerns. Understanding that it took weeks for them to sort out what even happened there in Benghazi, and that even today we still don't even really know who was responsible for that attack, it is not at all unreasonable for a military commander to refuse to send in troops without reliable intelligence on the situation. Whether it was a local commander, or the President himself refusing to deploy troops on some blind cowboy mission is not an act of treason, it is tactics 101 to not allow yourself to be baited. Imagine how it would have looked if Obama wound up with another "Black Hawk Down" scenario, like we had in 1993 at The Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia where terrorists baited US forces into a kill box. For all we know, Obama might have actually saved dozens, even hundreds of American lives by ordering them to hold, if it was even POTUS who actually did order the so-called stand-down.
Of course, that is speculative now at this point, but we certainly can't fault him or his commanders for exercising some basic common sense in tactics. You don't go walking into a shooting gallery wearing a blindfold.
What is not speculative however, is that neither Republicans nor Democrats bother to ask what we are even doing in Libya in the first place.
Ten Years After 9/11, US Supports Al-Qaeda in Libya
A Few Interesting Facts About Libya
Why are we in Libya?
Central Banks Are Target Theme of Western Forces
Also, check out this latest article, chock full of links and info on Benghazi:
It’s Dishonest to Talk about Benghazi Without Talking About the Syrian War
Both Parties Are Trying to Sweep the Bigger Story Under the Rug
According to Democrats, today’s Congressional hearings on Benghazi are nothing but a partisan witch hunt.
According to Republicans, the Obama administration committed treason in it’s handling of Benghazi … and then tried to cover it up.
Both parties are avoiding the bigger picture … The fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have been using Benghazi as the center of U.S. efforts to arm the Al Qaeda-affiliated Syrian rebels.
Read the rest at at: Washington's Blog
[This article names the facility as a consulate. It appears as though those reports are not accurate. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi states, "Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status."]
Dramatic Chase and Shootout In Streets of Rio (VIDEO)
Dramatic video using FLIR-type technology captures stunning images of bullets flying and riddling the neighborhood as police chase an alleged drug dealer.
Gun Crime Down By 69%
3 reasons Americans think gun homicide is rising... when it isn't
Two new studies show a sharp drop in gun crime. Why is that hard for most of us to believe?
As the nation remains locked in a bitter debate over reducing gun violence, two new studies released Tuesday found that shooting deaths and other gun crimes have already plunged since peaking in the 1990s. There were 18,253 gun-related killings in 1993, and 11,101 in 2011, the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reported. With population growth, that meant that the rate of gun homicides dropped by nearly 50 percent — from seven per 100,000 people in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2010, Pew Research Center reported. And non-fatal gun crimes dropped even more sharply, by 69 percent.
Here's the twist: Only 12 percent of Americans said they thought there was less gun crime than two decades ago, according to a Pew survey. Twenty-six percent said the rate hadn't changed, and 56 percent said it had gone up. Women, people of color, and the elderly were particularly likely to believe gun crime was rising. "It's hard to know what's going on there," says D'Vera Cohn, senior writer at the Pew Research Center. Why the disconnect between perceptions of violence and reality? Three theories:
Read more at The Week on Yahoo
Also see related articles from:
US News & World Report
LA Times
Two new studies show a sharp drop in gun crime. Why is that hard for most of us to believe?
As the nation remains locked in a bitter debate over reducing gun violence, two new studies released Tuesday found that shooting deaths and other gun crimes have already plunged since peaking in the 1990s. There were 18,253 gun-related killings in 1993, and 11,101 in 2011, the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reported. With population growth, that meant that the rate of gun homicides dropped by nearly 50 percent — from seven per 100,000 people in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2010, Pew Research Center reported. And non-fatal gun crimes dropped even more sharply, by 69 percent.
Here's the twist: Only 12 percent of Americans said they thought there was less gun crime than two decades ago, according to a Pew survey. Twenty-six percent said the rate hadn't changed, and 56 percent said it had gone up. Women, people of color, and the elderly were particularly likely to believe gun crime was rising. "It's hard to know what's going on there," says D'Vera Cohn, senior writer at the Pew Research Center. Why the disconnect between perceptions of violence and reality? Three theories:Read more at The Week on Yahoo
Also see related articles from:
US News & World Report
LA Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)