by Hope Yen from "Associated Press" [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/28/poverty-unemployment-rates_n_3666594.html]:
WASHINGTON — Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.
Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.
The findings come as President Barack Obama tries to renew his administration's emphasis on the economy, saying in recent speeches that his highest priority is to "rebuild ladders of opportunity" and reverse income inequality.
As nonwhites approach a numerical majority in the U.S., one question is how public programs to lift the disadvantaged should be best focused – on the affirmative action that historically has tried to eliminate the racial barriers seen as the major impediment to economic equality, or simply on improving socioeconomic status for all, regardless of race.
Hardship is particularly growing among whites, based on several measures. Pessimism among that racial group about their families' economic futures has climbed to the highest point since at least 1987. In the most recent AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of whites called the economy "poor."
"I think it's going to get worse," said Irene Salyers, 52, of Buchanan County, Va., a declining coal region in Appalachia. Married and divorced three times, Salyers now helps run a fruit and vegetable stand with her boyfriend but it doesn't generate much income. They live mostly off government disability checks.
"If you do try to go apply for a job, they're not hiring people, and they're not paying that much to even go to work," she said. Children, she said, have "nothing better to do than to get on drugs."
While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press.
The gauge defines "economic insecurity" as experiencing unemployment at some point in their working lives, or a year or more of reliance on government aid such as food stamps or income below 150 percent of the poverty line. Measured across all races, the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79 percent.
Marriage rates are in decline across all races, and the number of white mother-headed households living in poverty has risen to the level of black ones.
"It's time that America comes to understand that many of the nation's biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position," said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty. He noted that despite continuing economic difficulties, minorities have more optimism about the future after Obama's election, while struggling whites do not.
"There is the real possibility that white alienation will increase if steps are not taken to highlight and address inequality on a broad front," Wilson said.
Nationwide, the count of America's poor remains stuck at a record number: 46.2 million, or 15 percent of the population, due in part to lingering high unemployment following the recession. While poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics are nearly three times higher, by absolute numbers the predominant face of the poor is white.
More than 19 million whites fall below the poverty line of $23,021 for a family of four, accounting for more than 41 percent of the nation's destitute, nearly double the number of poor blacks.
Sometimes termed "the invisible poor" by demographers, lower-income whites generally are dispersed in suburbs as well as small rural towns, where more than 60 percent of the poor are white. Concentrated in Appalachia in the East, they are numerous in the industrial Midwest and spread across America's heartland, from Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma up through the Great Plains.
Buchanan County, in southwest Virginia, is among the nation's most destitute based on median income, with poverty hovering at 24 percent. The county is mostly white, as are 99 percent of its poor.
More than 90 percent of Buchanan County's inhabitants are working-class whites who lack a college degree. Higher education long has been seen there as nonessential to land a job because well-paying mining and related jobs were once in plentiful supply. These days many residents get by on odd jobs and government checks.
Salyers' daughter, Renee Adams, 28, who grew up in the region, has two children. A jobless single mother, she relies on her live-in boyfriend's disability checks to get by. Salyers says it was tough raising her own children as it is for her daughter now, and doesn't even try to speculate what awaits her grandchildren, ages 4 and 5.
Smoking a cigarette in front of the produce stand, Adams later expresses a wish that employers will look past her conviction a few years ago for distributing prescription painkillers, so she can get a job and have money to "buy the kids everything they need."
"It's pretty hard," she said. "Once the bills are paid, we might have $10 to our name."
Census figures provide an official measure of poverty, but they're only a temporary snapshot that doesn't capture the makeup of those who cycle in and out of poverty at different points in their lives. They may be suburbanites, for example, or the working poor or the laid off.
In 2011 that snapshot showed 12.6 percent of adults in their prime working-age years of 25-60 lived in poverty. But measured in terms of a person's lifetime risk, a much higher number – 4 in 10 adults – falls into poverty for at least a year of their lives.
The risks of poverty also have been increasing in recent decades, particularly among people ages 35-55, coinciding with widening income inequality. For instance, people ages 35-45 had a 17 percent risk of encountering poverty during the 1969-1989 time period; that risk increased to 23 percent during the 1989-2009 period. For those ages 45-55, the risk of poverty jumped from 11.8 percent to 17.7 percent.
Higher recent rates of unemployment mean the lifetime risk of experiencing economic insecurity now runs even higher: 79 percent, or 4 in 5 adults, by the time they turn 60.
By race, nonwhites still have a higher risk of being economically insecure, at 90 percent. But compared with the official poverty rate, some of the biggest jumps under the newer measure are among whites, with more than 76 percent enduring periods of joblessness, life on welfare or near-poverty.
By 2030, based on the current trend of widening income inequality, close to 85 percent of all working-age adults in the U.S. will experience bouts of economic insecurity.
"Poverty is no longer an issue of `them', it's an issue of `us'," says Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who calculated the numbers. "Only when poverty is thought of as a mainstream event, rather than a fringe experience that just affects blacks and Hispanics, can we really begin to build broader support for programs that lift people in need."
The numbers come from Rank's analysis being published by the Oxford University Press. They are supplemented with interviews and figures provided to the AP by Tom Hirschl, a professor at Cornell University; John Iceland, a sociology professor at Penn State University; the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute; the Census Bureau; and the Population Reference Bureau.
Among the findings:
* For the first time since 1975, the number of white single-mother households living in poverty with children surpassed or equaled black ones in the past decade, spurred by job losses and faster rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites. White single-mother families in poverty stood at nearly 1.5 million in 2011, comparable to the number for blacks. Hispanic single-mother families in poverty trailed at 1.2 million.
* Since 2000, the poverty rate among working-class whites has grown faster than among working-class nonwhites, rising 3 percentage points to 11 percent as the recession took a bigger toll among lower-wage workers. Still, poverty among working-class nonwhites remains higher, at 23 percent.
* The share of children living in high-poverty neighborhoods – those with poverty rates of 30 percent or more - has increased to 1 in 10, putting them at higher risk of teenage pregnancy or dropping out of school. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 17 percent of the child population in such neighborhoods, compared with 13 percent in 2000, even though the overall proportion of white children in the U.S. has been declining.
The share of black children in high-poverty neighborhoods dropped from 43 percent to 37 percent, while the share of Latino children went from 38 percent to 39 percent.
* Race disparities in health and education have narrowed generally since the 1960s. While residential segregation remains high, a typical black person now lives in a nonmajority black neighborhood for the first time. Previous studies have shown that wealth is a greater predictor of standardized test scores than race; the test-score gap between rich and low-income students is now nearly double the gap between blacks and whites.
Going back to the 1980s, never have whites been so pessimistic about their futures, according to the General Social Survey, a biannual survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago. Just 45 percent say their family will have a good chance of improving their economic position based on the way things are in America.
The divide is especially evident among those whites who self-identify as working class. Forty-nine percent say they think their children will do better than them, compared with 67 percent of nonwhites who consider themselves working class, even though the economic plight of minorities tends to be worse.
Although they are a shrinking group, working-class whites – defined as those lacking a college degree – remain the biggest demographic bloc of the working-age population. In 2012, Election Day exit polls conducted for the AP and the television networks showed working-class whites made up 36 percent of the electorate, even with a notable drop in white voter turnout.
Last November, Obama won the votes of just 36 percent of those noncollege whites, the worst performance of any Democratic nominee among that group since Republican Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory over Walter Mondale.
Some Democratic analysts have urged renewed efforts to bring working-class whites into the political fold, calling them a potential "decisive swing voter group" if minority and youth turnout level off in future elections. "In 2016 GOP messaging will be far more focused on expressing concern for `the middle class' and `average Americans,'" Andrew Levison and Ruy Teixeira wrote recently in The New Republic.
"They don't trust big government, but it doesn't mean they want no government," says Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who agrees that working-class whites will remain an important electoral group. His research found that many of them would support anti-poverty programs if focused broadly on job training and infrastructure investment. This past week, Obama pledged anew to help manufacturers bring jobs back to America and to create jobs in the energy sectors of wind, solar and natural gas.
"They feel that politicians are giving attention to other people and not them," Goeas said.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Monday, July 22, 2013
California Gov. Brown and Taxing the Rich
California Gov. Brown opposed raising taxes on the revenue of the investor class (including himself), but supported raising taxes on the poor through an increase in the income tax and sales tax!
If you read the following article, compare the facts with how the investment-class newspaper chose to publicize their version of events with what really happened according to what is written by the article re-posted on this page.2013-12-06 "California's Brown Seeks Tax Boost on Wealthy" by Vauhini Vara from "Wall Street Journal" [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204083204577080971610748332.html]:
2013-07-22 "We're Taxing the Rich... and So Can You"
by Fred Glass [http://www.labornotes.org/2013/07/were-taxing-rich-and-so-can-you]:
“There is no alternative to austerity,” insist the rich, along with their politicians, foundations, think tanks, and media. They've been saying it for decades. “Taxes are bad,” they also claim. “Government doesn't work. And public employees are greedy.” Consequently, common wisdom had it that “you can't raise taxes.” Even people who should have known better believed this—while the public sector slid down the tubes. So how did Proposition 30 succeed? This measure, passed by voters last November, raises $6 billion a year for schools and services—in California, a supposedly “anti-tax” state. The money comes mostly through an income tax hike on rich people, along with a tiny sales tax increase of ¼ percent. The story should be better known, because with the right preparation, you could make it happen in your state, too.
TESTING THE WATERS
Shortly after Democrat Jerry Brown was elected governor in November 2010, the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) pulled together labor and community groups to craft a ballot measure to raise the revenue needed to keep schools and services afloat. For two years we had been laying the groundwork for a progressive tax: creating educational materials, publishing opinion pieces, holding training sessions with our members and other unionists, and talking with potential coalition partners. We funded polls and focus groups, testing how likely various types of taxes would be to gain a majority. Regressive taxes—like sales taxes and across-the-board income tax hikes—were viewed unfavorably. By spring 2011, people felt ordinary folks had already sacrificed enough, in the worst recession since the 1930s. The public believed, however, that the rich and large corporations needed to pay their fair share for the common good. They were quite willing to vote for higher taxes on the rich. As we refined our research, we decided on three principles: bring in the most revenue possible; draw it from those who could most afford to pay; and have the best chance of winning. We arrived at a Millionaires Tax: people who made a million dollars a year would pay an extra 3 percent, and people making $2 million an extra 5 percent, raising $5 billion a year.
Unfortunately, Governor Brown had his own proposal that didn't follow those principles—it included both a half-cent sales tax hike and an across-the-board income tax increase. People were out gathering signatures for Brown’s initiative, our Millionaires Tax, and a third tax measure sponsored by a wealthy liberal attorney. The Millionaires Tax ran ahead of the other measures in five straight polls. In early March 2012, the CFT helped organize a march in the capital against budget cuts and college tuition increases. Thousands of students, faculty, and others paraded Millionaires Tax signs outside the governor's window. Two days later, responding to the governor’s charge that three competing measures would all lose, we released the results of a poll testing that idea. It found the others would get less than 50 percent, and the Millionaires Tax would win handily. At that point the governor called in CFT President Joshua Pechthalt to talk. We compromised and combined the two proposals into Prop 30. The new measure raised the top tax rates on income of $250,000 by 1 percent, on $300,000 by 2 percent, and on $500,000 by 3 percent. We had wanted a permanent tax; Brown’s was for five years. The compromise extended that to seven. We knew the sales tax was a poison pill and we requested that Brown drop it entirely, but he explained that, to keep the Chamber of Commerce neutral, he had promised not to “demonize the rich,” meaning there had to be a “shared sacrifice” component. He did agree to reduce it to a quarter cent.
SALES TAX CONFUSION
Our research was validated during the campaign—people don’t like regressive taxes like the sales tax. Millions of dollars in opposition ads did their best to confuse the voters, calling Prop 30 “a massive tax increase on everyone.” CFT’s coalition, Reclaiming California’s Future, included the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (which emerged after ACORN’s demise), Courage Campaign, and California Calls, a coalition of community groups dedicated to reforming the tax system through voter education and expanding the electorate. Our coalition emphasized the “tax the rich” message in our literature, public events, and door-to-door canvassing, but we were only part of a much broader Prop 30 coalition. The official campaign’s TV ads included asking the wealthy to pay their fair share, but as one message buried among others. The polling numbers gradually sank to a bare 50 percent. One poll, three weeks before the election, had Yes on Prop 30 at just 48 percent; the No’s had crept up to 44 percent. The governor campaigned mostly on the idea that Prop 30 would save education from further cuts, but threw in “shared sacrifice” and “paying down the state’s wall of debt” in his public pronouncements. We agreed with the education message, disagreed with the others, and insisted on a strong emphasis on taxing the rich. We stressed to the governor that, in order to neutralize the opposition’s ads, the public had to understand what services the tax paid for, who it taxed, and by how much. In the final weeks, as the governor worked with CFT and other allies in rallies and media appearances, his message became clearer and more consistent: Prop 30 would stop cuts to schools and was fair, because, he said (drawing on his Jesuit background and citing St. Luke), it asked “those who are blessed with the most wealth to give back a little bit so everyone could benefit.” Ninety percent of Prop 30’s revenues would come from taxing the wealthy; and the quarter-cent sales tax, he said, amounted to a “mere penny on a $4 sandwich.”
RESHAPE DEBATE
On Election Day, Prop 30 won 55 percent to 45 percent, reshaping the decades-old understanding of California as an “anti-tax” state. It is the single largest progressive tax passed in the state since World War II, both in the amount of revenue raised and as a percent bump on the income taxes of the wealthy. What are some lessons from this tremendous victory? If the word can be gotten out effectively, the electorate is ready to pass progressive taxes to pay for common needs like schools and services. Demographic changes favoring a clear progressive message, coupled with the Occupy movement's lasting insight that the 1 percent are robbing the rest of us blind, provide the opening to beat back the core conservative idea: that the problem is government and society should seek help from the wisdom of the rich.
Prop 30’s message was that public education is the foundation of a decent society and we can restore that promise if the rich pay their fair share of taxes. The anti-Prop 30 messages were the same as always—government can’t do anything right; the rich will leave California if we tax them; taxes are too high; if we remove the waste, fraud, and abuse in government there will be plenty of money for schools. But these ideas, so effective in the past, had lost their potency, because, especially post-Occupy, the public understands that economic inequality is growing. Spending tens of millions of dollars didn't work for the rich this time. In fact, it backfired—they proved our point. We didn't have to “demonize” the rich; they did it themselves.
Another key, of course, was the old-fashioned work of reaching out to core constituencies. The Reclaiming coalition was crucial, along with a ground campaign by the broader labor movement, which was heavily mobilized to fight an anti-union measure on the ballot (which lost). Volunteers and staff spent countless hours knocking on doors, phone-banking, rallying, educating. We reached out systematically to less-likely voters—young people, college students, immigrants, lower-income communities of color—and convinced them to come out to vote for their own futures. Credit for this orientation is due especially to California Calls, which has targeted less-likely voters and stayed in touch over several election cycles. This year California has begun to restore funds for public education for the first time in years. There is an alternative to austerity; its name is “progressive taxes.” -
If you read the following article, compare the facts with how the investment-class newspaper chose to publicize their version of events with what really happened according to what is written by the article re-posted on this page.2013-12-06 "California's Brown Seeks Tax Boost on Wealthy" by Vauhini Vara from "Wall Street Journal" [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204083204577080971610748332.html]:
2013-07-22 "We're Taxing the Rich... and So Can You"
by Fred Glass [http://www.labornotes.org/2013/07/were-taxing-rich-and-so-can-you]:
“There is no alternative to austerity,” insist the rich, along with their politicians, foundations, think tanks, and media. They've been saying it for decades. “Taxes are bad,” they also claim. “Government doesn't work. And public employees are greedy.” Consequently, common wisdom had it that “you can't raise taxes.” Even people who should have known better believed this—while the public sector slid down the tubes. So how did Proposition 30 succeed? This measure, passed by voters last November, raises $6 billion a year for schools and services—in California, a supposedly “anti-tax” state. The money comes mostly through an income tax hike on rich people, along with a tiny sales tax increase of ¼ percent. The story should be better known, because with the right preparation, you could make it happen in your state, too.
TESTING THE WATERS
Shortly after Democrat Jerry Brown was elected governor in November 2010, the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) pulled together labor and community groups to craft a ballot measure to raise the revenue needed to keep schools and services afloat. For two years we had been laying the groundwork for a progressive tax: creating educational materials, publishing opinion pieces, holding training sessions with our members and other unionists, and talking with potential coalition partners. We funded polls and focus groups, testing how likely various types of taxes would be to gain a majority. Regressive taxes—like sales taxes and across-the-board income tax hikes—were viewed unfavorably. By spring 2011, people felt ordinary folks had already sacrificed enough, in the worst recession since the 1930s. The public believed, however, that the rich and large corporations needed to pay their fair share for the common good. They were quite willing to vote for higher taxes on the rich. As we refined our research, we decided on three principles: bring in the most revenue possible; draw it from those who could most afford to pay; and have the best chance of winning. We arrived at a Millionaires Tax: people who made a million dollars a year would pay an extra 3 percent, and people making $2 million an extra 5 percent, raising $5 billion a year.
Unfortunately, Governor Brown had his own proposal that didn't follow those principles—it included both a half-cent sales tax hike and an across-the-board income tax increase. People were out gathering signatures for Brown’s initiative, our Millionaires Tax, and a third tax measure sponsored by a wealthy liberal attorney. The Millionaires Tax ran ahead of the other measures in five straight polls. In early March 2012, the CFT helped organize a march in the capital against budget cuts and college tuition increases. Thousands of students, faculty, and others paraded Millionaires Tax signs outside the governor's window. Two days later, responding to the governor’s charge that three competing measures would all lose, we released the results of a poll testing that idea. It found the others would get less than 50 percent, and the Millionaires Tax would win handily. At that point the governor called in CFT President Joshua Pechthalt to talk. We compromised and combined the two proposals into Prop 30. The new measure raised the top tax rates on income of $250,000 by 1 percent, on $300,000 by 2 percent, and on $500,000 by 3 percent. We had wanted a permanent tax; Brown’s was for five years. The compromise extended that to seven. We knew the sales tax was a poison pill and we requested that Brown drop it entirely, but he explained that, to keep the Chamber of Commerce neutral, he had promised not to “demonize the rich,” meaning there had to be a “shared sacrifice” component. He did agree to reduce it to a quarter cent.
SALES TAX CONFUSION
Our research was validated during the campaign—people don’t like regressive taxes like the sales tax. Millions of dollars in opposition ads did their best to confuse the voters, calling Prop 30 “a massive tax increase on everyone.” CFT’s coalition, Reclaiming California’s Future, included the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (which emerged after ACORN’s demise), Courage Campaign, and California Calls, a coalition of community groups dedicated to reforming the tax system through voter education and expanding the electorate. Our coalition emphasized the “tax the rich” message in our literature, public events, and door-to-door canvassing, but we were only part of a much broader Prop 30 coalition. The official campaign’s TV ads included asking the wealthy to pay their fair share, but as one message buried among others. The polling numbers gradually sank to a bare 50 percent. One poll, three weeks before the election, had Yes on Prop 30 at just 48 percent; the No’s had crept up to 44 percent. The governor campaigned mostly on the idea that Prop 30 would save education from further cuts, but threw in “shared sacrifice” and “paying down the state’s wall of debt” in his public pronouncements. We agreed with the education message, disagreed with the others, and insisted on a strong emphasis on taxing the rich. We stressed to the governor that, in order to neutralize the opposition’s ads, the public had to understand what services the tax paid for, who it taxed, and by how much. In the final weeks, as the governor worked with CFT and other allies in rallies and media appearances, his message became clearer and more consistent: Prop 30 would stop cuts to schools and was fair, because, he said (drawing on his Jesuit background and citing St. Luke), it asked “those who are blessed with the most wealth to give back a little bit so everyone could benefit.” Ninety percent of Prop 30’s revenues would come from taxing the wealthy; and the quarter-cent sales tax, he said, amounted to a “mere penny on a $4 sandwich.”
RESHAPE DEBATE
On Election Day, Prop 30 won 55 percent to 45 percent, reshaping the decades-old understanding of California as an “anti-tax” state. It is the single largest progressive tax passed in the state since World War II, both in the amount of revenue raised and as a percent bump on the income taxes of the wealthy. What are some lessons from this tremendous victory? If the word can be gotten out effectively, the electorate is ready to pass progressive taxes to pay for common needs like schools and services. Demographic changes favoring a clear progressive message, coupled with the Occupy movement's lasting insight that the 1 percent are robbing the rest of us blind, provide the opening to beat back the core conservative idea: that the problem is government and society should seek help from the wisdom of the rich.
Prop 30’s message was that public education is the foundation of a decent society and we can restore that promise if the rich pay their fair share of taxes. The anti-Prop 30 messages were the same as always—government can’t do anything right; the rich will leave California if we tax them; taxes are too high; if we remove the waste, fraud, and abuse in government there will be plenty of money for schools. But these ideas, so effective in the past, had lost their potency, because, especially post-Occupy, the public understands that economic inequality is growing. Spending tens of millions of dollars didn't work for the rich this time. In fact, it backfired—they proved our point. We didn't have to “demonize” the rich; they did it themselves.
Another key, of course, was the old-fashioned work of reaching out to core constituencies. The Reclaiming coalition was crucial, along with a ground campaign by the broader labor movement, which was heavily mobilized to fight an anti-union measure on the ballot (which lost). Volunteers and staff spent countless hours knocking on doors, phone-banking, rallying, educating. We reached out systematically to less-likely voters—young people, college students, immigrants, lower-income communities of color—and convinced them to come out to vote for their own futures. Credit for this orientation is due especially to California Calls, which has targeted less-likely voters and stayed in touch over several election cycles. This year California has begun to restore funds for public education for the first time in years. There is an alternative to austerity; its name is “progressive taxes.” -
Saturday, July 20, 2013
2013-07-20 "Rise of the Warrior Cop: Is it time to reconsider the militarization of American policing?"
by RADLEY BALKO from "Wall Street Journal" [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904.html]:
Today the U.S. has thousands of SWAT teams. A team prepares to enter a house in Vallejo, Calif., on March 20, above. (Daily Republic/Associated Press)
On Jan. 4 of last year, a local narcotics strike force conducted a raid on the Ogden, Utah, home of Matthew David Stewart at 8:40 p.m. The 12 officers were acting on a tip from Mr. Stewart's former girlfriend, who said that he was growing marijuana in his basement. Mr. Stewart awoke, naked, to the sound of a battering ram taking down his door. Thinking that he was being invaded by criminals, as he later claimed, he grabbed his 9-millimeter Beretta pistol.
The police say that they knocked and identified themselves, though Mr. Stewart and his neighbors said they heard no such announcement. Mr. Stewart fired 31 rounds, the police more than 250. Six of the officers were wounded, and Officer Jared Francom was killed. Mr. Stewart himself was shot twice before he was arrested. He was charged with several crimes, including the murder of Officer Francom.
The police found 16 small marijuana plants in Mr. Stewart's basement. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart, a U.S. military veteran with no prior criminal record, was selling marijuana. Mr. Stewart's father said that his son suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and may have smoked the marijuana to self-medicate.
Early this year, the Ogden city council heard complaints from dozens of citizens about the way drug warrants are served in the city. As for Mr. Stewart, his trial was scheduled for next April, and prosecutors were seeking the death penalty. But after losing a hearing last May on the legality of the search warrant, Mr. Stewart hanged himself in his jail cell.
The police tactics at issue in the Stewart case are no anomaly. Since the 1960s, in response to a range of perceived threats, law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop—armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.
The acronym SWAT stands for Special Weapons and Tactics. Such police units are trained in methods similar to those used by the special forces in the military. They learn to break into homes with battering rams and to use incendiary devices called flashbang grenades, which are designed to blind and deafen anyone nearby. Their usual aim is to "clear" a building—that is, to remove any threats and distractions (including pets) and to subdue the occupants as quickly as possible.
The country's first official SWAT team started in the late 1960s in Los Angeles. By 1975, there were approximately 500 such units. Today, there are thousands. According to surveys conducted by the criminologist Peter Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University, just 13% of towns between 25,000 and 50,000 people had a SWAT team in 1983. By 2005, the figure was up to 80%.
The number of raids conducted by SWAT-like police units has grown accordingly. In the 1970s, there were just a few hundred a year; by the early 1980s, there were some 3,000 a year. In 2005 (the last year for which Dr. Kraska collected data), there were approximately 50,000 raids.
A number of federal agencies also now have their own SWAT teams, including the Fish & Wildlife Service, NASA and the Department of the Interior. In 2011, the Department of Education's SWAT team bungled a raid on a woman who was initially reported to be under investigation for not paying her student loans, though the agency later said she was suspected of defrauding the federal student loan program.
The details of the case aside, the story generated headlines because of the revelation that the Department of Education had such a unit. None of these federal departments has responded to my requests for information about why they consider such high-powered military-style teams necessary.
Americans have long been wary of using the military for domestic policing. Concerns about potential abuse date back to the creation of the Constitution, when the founders worried about standing armies and the intimidation of the people at large by an overzealous executive, who might choose to follow the unhappy precedents set by Europe's emperors and monarchs.
The idea for the first SWAT team in Los Angeles arose during the domestic strife and civil unrest of the mid-1960s. Daryl Gates, then an inspector with the Los Angeles Police Department, had grown frustrated with his department's inability to respond effectively to incidents like the 1965 Watts riots. So his thoughts turned to the military. He was drawn in particular to Marine Special Forces and began to envision an elite group of police officers who could respond in a similar manner to dangerous domestic disturbances.
Mr. Gates initially had difficulty getting his idea accepted. Los Angeles Police Chief William Parker thought the concept risked a breach in the divide between the military and law enforcement. But with the arrival of a new chief, Thomas Reddin, in 1966, Mr. Gates got the green light to start training a unit. By 1969, his SWAT team was ready for its maiden raid against a holdout cell of the Black Panthers.
At about the same time, President Richard Nixon was declaring war on drugs. Among the new, tough-minded law-enforcement measures included in this campaign was the no-knock raid—a policy that allowed drug cops to break into homes without the traditional knock and announcement. After fierce debate, Congress passed a bill authorizing no-knock raids for federal narcotics agents in 1970.
Over the next several years, stories emerged of federal agents breaking down the doors of private homes (often without a warrant) and terrorizing innocent citizens and families. Congress repealed the no-knock law in 1974, but the policy would soon make a comeback (without congressional authorization).
During the Reagan administration, SWAT-team methods converged with the drug war. By the end of the 1980s, joint task forces brought together police officers and soldiers for drug interdiction. National Guard helicopters and U-2 spy planes flew the California skies in search of marijuana plants. When suspects were identified, battle-clad troops from the National Guard, the DEA and other federal and local law enforcement agencies would swoop in to eradicate the plants and capture the people growing them.
Advocates of these tactics said that drug dealers were acquiring ever bigger weapons and the police needed to stay a step ahead in the arms race. There were indeed a few high-profile incidents in which police were outgunned, but no data exist suggesting that it was a widespread problem. A study done in 1991 by the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute found that less than one-eighth of 1% of homicides in the U.S. were committed with a military-grade weapon. Subsequent studies by the Justice Department in 1995 and the National Institute for Justice in 2004 came to similar conclusions: The overwhelming majority of serious crimes are committed with handguns, and not particularly powerful ones.
The new century brought the war on terror and, with it, new rationales and new resources for militarizing police forces. According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Department of Homeland Security has handed out $35 billion in grants since its creation in 2002, with much of the money going to purchase military gear such as armored personnel carriers. In 2011 alone, a Pentagon program for bolstering the capabilities of local law enforcement gave away $500 million of equipment, an all-time high.
The past decade also has seen an alarming degree of mission creep for U.S. SWAT teams. When the craze for poker kicked into high gear, a number of police departments responded by deploying SWAT teams to raid games in garages, basements and VFW halls where illegal gambling was suspected. According to news reports and conversations with poker organizations, there have been dozens of these raids, in cities such as Baltimore, Charleston, S.C., and Dallas.
In 2006, 38-year-old optometrist Sal Culosi was shot and killed by a Fairfax County, Va., SWAT officer. The investigation began when an undercover detective overheard Mr. Culosi wagering on college football games with some buddies at a bar. The department sent a SWAT team after Mr. Culosi, who had no prior criminal record or any history of violence. As the SWAT team descended, one officer fired a single bullet that pierced Mr. Culosi's heart. The police say that the shot was an accident. Mr. Culosi's family suspects the officer saw Mr. Culosi reaching for his cellphone and thought he had a gun.
Assault-style raids have even been used in recent years to enforce regulatory law. Armed federal agents from the Fish & Wildlife Service raided the floor of the Gibson Guitar factory in Nashville in 2009, on suspicion of using hardwoods that had been illegally harvested in Madagascar. Gibson settled in 2012, paying a $300,000 fine and admitting to violating the Lacey Act. In 2010, the police department in New Haven, Conn., sent its SWAT team to raid a bar where police believed there was underage drinking. For sheer absurdity, it is hard to beat the 2006 story about the Tibetan monks who had overstayed their visas while visiting America on a peace mission. In Iowa, the hapless holy men were apprehended by a SWAT team in full gear.
Unfortunately, the activities of aggressive, heavily armed SWAT units often result in needless bloodshed: Innocent bystanders have lost their lives and so, too, have police officers who were thought to be assailants and were fired on, as (allegedly) in the case of Matthew David Stewart.
In my own research, I have collected over 50 examples in which innocent people were killed in raids to enforce warrants for crimes that are either nonviolent or consensual (that is, crimes such as drug use or gambling, in which all parties participate voluntarily). These victims were bystanders, or the police later found no evidence of the crime for which the victim was being investigated. They include Katherine Johnston, a 92-year-old woman killed by an Atlanta narcotics team acting on a bad tip from an informant in 2006; Alberto Sepulveda, an 11-year-old accidentally shot by a California SWAT officer during a 2000 drug raid; and Eurie Stamps, killed in a 2011 raid on his home in Framingham, Mass., when an officer says his gun mistakenly discharged. Mr. Stamps wasn't a suspect in the investigation.
What would it take to dial back such excessive police measures? The obvious place to start would be ending the federal grants that encourage police forces to acquire gear that is more appropriate for the battlefield. Beyond that, it is crucial to change the culture of militarization in American law enforcement.
Consider today's police recruitment videos (widely available on YouTube), which often feature cops rappelling from helicopters, shooting big guns, kicking down doors and tackling suspects. Such campaigns embody an American policing culture that has become too isolated, confrontational and militaristic, and they tend to attract recruits for the wrong reasons.
If you browse online police discussion boards, or chat with younger cops today, you will often encounter some version of the phrase, "Whatever I need to do to get home safe." It is a sentiment that suggests that every interaction with a citizen may be the officer's last. Nor does it help when political leaders lend support to this militaristic self-image, as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg did in 2011 by declaring, "I have my own army in the NYPD—the seventh largest army in the world."
The motivation of the average American cop should not focus on just making it to the end of his shift. The LAPD may have given us the first SWAT team, but its motto is still exactly the right ideal for American police officers: To protect and serve.
SWAT teams have their place, of course, but they should be saved for those relatively rare situations when police-initiated violence is the only hope to prevent the loss of life. They certainly have no place as modern-day vice squads.
Many longtime and retired law-enforcement officers have told me of their worry that the trend toward militarization is too far gone. Those who think there is still a chance at reform tend to embrace the idea of community policing, an approach that depends more on civil society than on brute force.
In this very different view of policing, cops walk beats, interact with citizens and consider themselves part of the neighborhoods they patrol—and therefore have a stake in those communities. It's all about a baton-twirling "Officer Friendly" rather than a Taser-toting RoboCop.
Corrections & Amplifications
The Consumer Products Safety Commission does not have a SWAT team. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that it does.
Today the U.S. has thousands of SWAT teams. A team prepares to enter a house in Vallejo, Calif., on March 20, above. (Daily Republic/Associated Press)
On Jan. 4 of last year, a local narcotics strike force conducted a raid on the Ogden, Utah, home of Matthew David Stewart at 8:40 p.m. The 12 officers were acting on a tip from Mr. Stewart's former girlfriend, who said that he was growing marijuana in his basement. Mr. Stewart awoke, naked, to the sound of a battering ram taking down his door. Thinking that he was being invaded by criminals, as he later claimed, he grabbed his 9-millimeter Beretta pistol.
The police say that they knocked and identified themselves, though Mr. Stewart and his neighbors said they heard no such announcement. Mr. Stewart fired 31 rounds, the police more than 250. Six of the officers were wounded, and Officer Jared Francom was killed. Mr. Stewart himself was shot twice before he was arrested. He was charged with several crimes, including the murder of Officer Francom.
The police found 16 small marijuana plants in Mr. Stewart's basement. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart, a U.S. military veteran with no prior criminal record, was selling marijuana. Mr. Stewart's father said that his son suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and may have smoked the marijuana to self-medicate.
Early this year, the Ogden city council heard complaints from dozens of citizens about the way drug warrants are served in the city. As for Mr. Stewart, his trial was scheduled for next April, and prosecutors were seeking the death penalty. But after losing a hearing last May on the legality of the search warrant, Mr. Stewart hanged himself in his jail cell.
The police tactics at issue in the Stewart case are no anomaly. Since the 1960s, in response to a range of perceived threats, law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop—armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.
The acronym SWAT stands for Special Weapons and Tactics. Such police units are trained in methods similar to those used by the special forces in the military. They learn to break into homes with battering rams and to use incendiary devices called flashbang grenades, which are designed to blind and deafen anyone nearby. Their usual aim is to "clear" a building—that is, to remove any threats and distractions (including pets) and to subdue the occupants as quickly as possible.
The country's first official SWAT team started in the late 1960s in Los Angeles. By 1975, there were approximately 500 such units. Today, there are thousands. According to surveys conducted by the criminologist Peter Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University, just 13% of towns between 25,000 and 50,000 people had a SWAT team in 1983. By 2005, the figure was up to 80%.
The number of raids conducted by SWAT-like police units has grown accordingly. In the 1970s, there were just a few hundred a year; by the early 1980s, there were some 3,000 a year. In 2005 (the last year for which Dr. Kraska collected data), there were approximately 50,000 raids.
A number of federal agencies also now have their own SWAT teams, including the Fish & Wildlife Service, NASA and the Department of the Interior. In 2011, the Department of Education's SWAT team bungled a raid on a woman who was initially reported to be under investigation for not paying her student loans, though the agency later said she was suspected of defrauding the federal student loan program.
The details of the case aside, the story generated headlines because of the revelation that the Department of Education had such a unit. None of these federal departments has responded to my requests for information about why they consider such high-powered military-style teams necessary.
Americans have long been wary of using the military for domestic policing. Concerns about potential abuse date back to the creation of the Constitution, when the founders worried about standing armies and the intimidation of the people at large by an overzealous executive, who might choose to follow the unhappy precedents set by Europe's emperors and monarchs.
The idea for the first SWAT team in Los Angeles arose during the domestic strife and civil unrest of the mid-1960s. Daryl Gates, then an inspector with the Los Angeles Police Department, had grown frustrated with his department's inability to respond effectively to incidents like the 1965 Watts riots. So his thoughts turned to the military. He was drawn in particular to Marine Special Forces and began to envision an elite group of police officers who could respond in a similar manner to dangerous domestic disturbances.
Mr. Gates initially had difficulty getting his idea accepted. Los Angeles Police Chief William Parker thought the concept risked a breach in the divide between the military and law enforcement. But with the arrival of a new chief, Thomas Reddin, in 1966, Mr. Gates got the green light to start training a unit. By 1969, his SWAT team was ready for its maiden raid against a holdout cell of the Black Panthers.
At about the same time, President Richard Nixon was declaring war on drugs. Among the new, tough-minded law-enforcement measures included in this campaign was the no-knock raid—a policy that allowed drug cops to break into homes without the traditional knock and announcement. After fierce debate, Congress passed a bill authorizing no-knock raids for federal narcotics agents in 1970.
Over the next several years, stories emerged of federal agents breaking down the doors of private homes (often without a warrant) and terrorizing innocent citizens and families. Congress repealed the no-knock law in 1974, but the policy would soon make a comeback (without congressional authorization).
During the Reagan administration, SWAT-team methods converged with the drug war. By the end of the 1980s, joint task forces brought together police officers and soldiers for drug interdiction. National Guard helicopters and U-2 spy planes flew the California skies in search of marijuana plants. When suspects were identified, battle-clad troops from the National Guard, the DEA and other federal and local law enforcement agencies would swoop in to eradicate the plants and capture the people growing them.
Advocates of these tactics said that drug dealers were acquiring ever bigger weapons and the police needed to stay a step ahead in the arms race. There were indeed a few high-profile incidents in which police were outgunned, but no data exist suggesting that it was a widespread problem. A study done in 1991 by the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute found that less than one-eighth of 1% of homicides in the U.S. were committed with a military-grade weapon. Subsequent studies by the Justice Department in 1995 and the National Institute for Justice in 2004 came to similar conclusions: The overwhelming majority of serious crimes are committed with handguns, and not particularly powerful ones.
The new century brought the war on terror and, with it, new rationales and new resources for militarizing police forces. According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Department of Homeland Security has handed out $35 billion in grants since its creation in 2002, with much of the money going to purchase military gear such as armored personnel carriers. In 2011 alone, a Pentagon program for bolstering the capabilities of local law enforcement gave away $500 million of equipment, an all-time high.
The past decade also has seen an alarming degree of mission creep for U.S. SWAT teams. When the craze for poker kicked into high gear, a number of police departments responded by deploying SWAT teams to raid games in garages, basements and VFW halls where illegal gambling was suspected. According to news reports and conversations with poker organizations, there have been dozens of these raids, in cities such as Baltimore, Charleston, S.C., and Dallas.
In 2006, 38-year-old optometrist Sal Culosi was shot and killed by a Fairfax County, Va., SWAT officer. The investigation began when an undercover detective overheard Mr. Culosi wagering on college football games with some buddies at a bar. The department sent a SWAT team after Mr. Culosi, who had no prior criminal record or any history of violence. As the SWAT team descended, one officer fired a single bullet that pierced Mr. Culosi's heart. The police say that the shot was an accident. Mr. Culosi's family suspects the officer saw Mr. Culosi reaching for his cellphone and thought he had a gun.
Assault-style raids have even been used in recent years to enforce regulatory law. Armed federal agents from the Fish & Wildlife Service raided the floor of the Gibson Guitar factory in Nashville in 2009, on suspicion of using hardwoods that had been illegally harvested in Madagascar. Gibson settled in 2012, paying a $300,000 fine and admitting to violating the Lacey Act. In 2010, the police department in New Haven, Conn., sent its SWAT team to raid a bar where police believed there was underage drinking. For sheer absurdity, it is hard to beat the 2006 story about the Tibetan monks who had overstayed their visas while visiting America on a peace mission. In Iowa, the hapless holy men were apprehended by a SWAT team in full gear.
Unfortunately, the activities of aggressive, heavily armed SWAT units often result in needless bloodshed: Innocent bystanders have lost their lives and so, too, have police officers who were thought to be assailants and were fired on, as (allegedly) in the case of Matthew David Stewart.
In my own research, I have collected over 50 examples in which innocent people were killed in raids to enforce warrants for crimes that are either nonviolent or consensual (that is, crimes such as drug use or gambling, in which all parties participate voluntarily). These victims were bystanders, or the police later found no evidence of the crime for which the victim was being investigated. They include Katherine Johnston, a 92-year-old woman killed by an Atlanta narcotics team acting on a bad tip from an informant in 2006; Alberto Sepulveda, an 11-year-old accidentally shot by a California SWAT officer during a 2000 drug raid; and Eurie Stamps, killed in a 2011 raid on his home in Framingham, Mass., when an officer says his gun mistakenly discharged. Mr. Stamps wasn't a suspect in the investigation.
What would it take to dial back such excessive police measures? The obvious place to start would be ending the federal grants that encourage police forces to acquire gear that is more appropriate for the battlefield. Beyond that, it is crucial to change the culture of militarization in American law enforcement.
Consider today's police recruitment videos (widely available on YouTube), which often feature cops rappelling from helicopters, shooting big guns, kicking down doors and tackling suspects. Such campaigns embody an American policing culture that has become too isolated, confrontational and militaristic, and they tend to attract recruits for the wrong reasons.
If you browse online police discussion boards, or chat with younger cops today, you will often encounter some version of the phrase, "Whatever I need to do to get home safe." It is a sentiment that suggests that every interaction with a citizen may be the officer's last. Nor does it help when political leaders lend support to this militaristic self-image, as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg did in 2011 by declaring, "I have my own army in the NYPD—the seventh largest army in the world."
The motivation of the average American cop should not focus on just making it to the end of his shift. The LAPD may have given us the first SWAT team, but its motto is still exactly the right ideal for American police officers: To protect and serve.
SWAT teams have their place, of course, but they should be saved for those relatively rare situations when police-initiated violence is the only hope to prevent the loss of life. They certainly have no place as modern-day vice squads.
Many longtime and retired law-enforcement officers have told me of their worry that the trend toward militarization is too far gone. Those who think there is still a chance at reform tend to embrace the idea of community policing, an approach that depends more on civil society than on brute force.
In this very different view of policing, cops walk beats, interact with citizens and consider themselves part of the neighborhoods they patrol—and therefore have a stake in those communities. It's all about a baton-twirling "Officer Friendly" rather than a Taser-toting RoboCop.
Corrections & Amplifications
The Consumer Products Safety Commission does not have a SWAT team. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that it does.
Friday, July 19, 2013
McDonald's Fascism
2013-07-19 "McDonald’s Accidentally Served Up a Minimum Wage McManifesto"
by Richard Eskow from "Campaign for America's Future Blog" [http://blog.ourfuture.org/20130719/mcdonalds-serves-up-a-minimum-wage-mcmanifesto]:
Marie Antoinette, meet Ronald McDonald.
A lot of people are angry about McDonald’s new financial advice website for employees [http://www.practicalmoneyskills.com/mcdonalds/budgetJournal/budgetJournal.php], an ill-conceived project which drips with “let them eat cake” insouciance. “Every dollar makes a difference,” McDonald’s lectures its struggling and often impoverished workers.
But it’s time to ditch the resentment and offer McDonald’s a word of thanks. It has just performed an invaluable service for campaigns like Raise the Minimum Wage [http://www.raisetheminimumwage.org/], petitions like this one [http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/raise-the-minimum-wage-18?source=c.url&r_by=128318], and July 24′s National Day of Action [http://www.goodspeaks.org/event/national-day-of-action-to-raise-the-minimum-wage-follows-dc-councils-passage-of-living-wage] by serving up a timely and exhaustively researched brief on their behalf. This new website provides invaluable data for a living-wage “McManifesto.”
You want fries with that?
Golden archness.
Get this: The new employee website, co-created with Visa, helpfully suggests that people who work for this Fortune 500 corporation begin the financial planning process by taking a second job.
As a number of ticked-off writers have observed, McDonald’s also pretty much advises its employees not to clothe themselves, heat their homes, seek educational advancement, or pay more than $600 in rent and $20 in health insurance premiums per month. (As Daniel Gross notes, that would pay for about two days of coverage [http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/16/mcdonald-s-and-visa-conjure-fantasy-budget-for-low-wage-employees.html].)
And, as if that’s not enough, there isn’t even any money for food in the McDonald’s sample budget. Apparently for McDonald’s employees the phrase “Happy Meal” means you’re happy whenever you’re lucky enough to scrounge a meal.
People were seething at the website’s arch touches, which include interactive games like “Financial Football” and “Road Trip to Savings,” and were thunderstruck by the lordly obliviousness behind pronouncements like “Knowing where your money goes and how to budget it is the key to your financial freedom.”
(Not when there’s not enough of it, Sir Ronald.)
Peter S. Goodman notes that McDonald’s receives a fortune in “corporate welfare.” In fact, government policies help most of the country’s underpaying mega-corporations keep expanding through a series of tax breaks and other concessions [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/mcdonalds-budget-welfare_n_3611537.html].
Economically, we’re super-sizing them.
Heart of the matter.
Many McDonald’s workers need public assistance to survive, which often includes Medicaid. That’s right: The public is even subsidizing McDonald’s low wages and lousy benefits when it comes to health care.
Subsidize McDonald’s? For health care? With that food it should be hit with a surcharge.
Fun fact: McDonald’s says it serves nine million pounds of French fries globally every day. Since slightly more than half its franchises are in the US, that means Americans presumably consume between four and five million pounds of this lard-laden, massively space-time curving starchy mass every 24 hours.
Each McDonald’s French fry is a tiny, fat-drenched drone missile aimed directly at the American cardiovascular system. One can only imagine how much of our nation’s runaway health care costs are traceable to this one corporation alone.
And we’re subsidizing its health care, rather than the other way around.
Gross profits.
In 2012 McDonald’s had gross profit of more than $10 billion on annual revenues of $27 billion. That’s up more than 12 percent from 2010. The lard business is good.
Visa, which for some reason has been spared most of this week’s online fury, deserves its own share of negative attention. As the financial half of this website team, Visa presumably provided the handiwork which reminds struggling fast-food employees that “every day and every dollar make a difference.”
Visa, like McDonald’s, is a coddled corporation. A government less corrupted by Big Money would have broken up this monopolistic enterprise long ago, especially given its tendency to abuse its marketplace dominance.
Visa was originally created by one fraud-ridden and bailed out megabank, Bank of America, and continues to enrich another. And, as CNN Money reported, its 2008 IPO “created a nice windfall for its owners, including its largest shareholder JPMorgan … about $1.3 billion on its 29 million shares.”
JPM made the headlines with yet another major fraud just this morning [http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/jpmorgan-in-talks-to-settle-energy-manipulation-case-for-500-million/], adding piquancy to the knowledge that it bleeds us a little every time we swipe a credit card or debit card. And yet these two corporate anti-heroes have performed a great service by making the case so beautifully:
Americans can’t live on today’s minimum wage.
With a side of cynicism.
As this video from LowPayIsNotOK.org makes clear, it takes a minimum of $15 per hour to even begin earning a living wage in this country [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kltKmJhUgLY]. (And that’s without some basic necessities.)
If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity it would now be $16.54 per hour, according to the Center for Economic Policy Research [http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-minimum-wage-and-economic-growth]. It would be $10.74 if it had merely kept pace with inflation – although McDonald’s and VISA have now demonstrated that this isn’t enough to live on either. (The minimum wage is currently $7.25.)
That adds an extra dose of cynicism to the website’s observation that “You can have almost anything you want as long as you plan ahead and save for it.”
That lie carries a special sting for the millions who have been locked out of the American Dream. Thanks to the deliberate policy decisions of the last four decades – breaks and giveaways for corporations, coupled with lost income for the majority – social mobility and income fairness have plunged in this country.
No matter how much you try to save on a minimum wage, a better life will remain beyond your means – until something changes.
Are there no roommates? Are there no malt shops?
A McDonald’s-like tone-deafness let Washington Post blogger Timothy B. Lee in for a heavy dose of online criticism too, when he defended the McDonald’s/Visa budget. Here’s an excerpt [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/16/that-mcdonalds-budget-people-are-making-fun-of-isnt-cruel-its-realistic/]:
“Gawker’s Neil Casey calls $600 per month for rent a ‘laughably small’ figure, but Casey should spend more time outside the Northeast Corridor. When I lived in St. Louis, my roommate and I each paid $425 per month …”
Roommate? That clichéd thinking reflects one of the key misconceptions about minimum-wage workers: that they’re teenagers or twenty-one year olds just starting out in life. It’s closely related to the myth that most fast-food workers are fresh-faced kids serving root beer floats at the local malt shop.
In fact, less than 16 percent of minimum-wage workers are teenagers. Many are parents, which makes the “roommate” suggestion especially silly. More than seven million children live in a minimum-wage home. And many minimum-wage workers live in poverty. (See Real Faces of the Minimum Wage for more [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/real-faces-of-the-minimum_b_3127406.html].)
You deserve a break today.
America is crying out to McDonald’s as if with one voice: “Stuff that financial planning website in your Egg McMuffin.”
The pain and anger is palpable. But it’s not enough. What do we do?
For one thing, we can sign a petition supporting a bill which would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 [http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/raise-the-minimum-wage-18?source=c.url&r_by=128318] – and then demand it be raised even further. We can back the minimum-wage campaigns being waged around the country, which build on an exciting grassroots movement of fast-food workers in cities like Detroit. (There’s more information here [http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/].)
McDonald’s should join the wage movement it so ably served this week, because economic misery is hurting its bottom line in the US and worldwide. And while its new and successful “dollar menu” shows that it’s willing to profit from hard times, that’s only a short-term fix in a declining economy.
Pay your workers what they deserve, McDonald’s. But the rest of us won’t wait for you. We’re taking action, because we agree with you about one thing:
Every dollar makes a difference.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Facebook, AT&T censor "LegitGov.org" online journal
Indications that Facebook monitors and interferes with politically expressive leftists and constitutionalists [unitedstatesfascism.blogspot.com/2013/08/indications-that-facebook-moniters-and.html]
Lori R. Price, Manager, Citizens For Legitimate Government.
Michael D. Rectenwald, Ph.D., Founder and Chair, Citizens For Legitimate Government.
[Legitgov.org] [Facebook.com/CitizensForLegitimateGovernment]
(2014-02-11 message from "legitgov.org")
Google readers:
Please set a filter in Google to override their block. Here are the instructions.
Click on the CLG email to open it.
On the top right-hand corner of the email (in the email header area), find the small triangle, pointing downward. When the mouse hovers over it, you will see its label, 'More.'
Click on it.
In the list of options, find the one labeled, 'Filter messages like these.'
Click on it.
A pop-up box will emerge.
At the top, you will see:
'list: legitgov.lists.people-link.net'
and
'Has the words'
'list: legitgov.lists.people-link.net'
On the lower right-hand corner of the box, click on the words, 'Create filter with this search.'
Another pop-up box will emerge, with the words 'list: legitgov.lists.people-link.net' at the top.
Under, 'When a message arrives that matches this search,' check the boxes:
--Star it
--Never send it to Sp-m
--Always mark it as important
Check the box: Categorize as:
Under 'Choose category,' check 'Personal.'
Check the box: Also apply filter to matching conversations.
Then click button labeled, 'Create filter.'
"NYU Not Delivering CLG Newsletter Since 3 June"
2014-06-09 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [http://www.legitgov.org/NYU-Not-Delivering-CLG-Newsletter-3-June]:
New York University has apparently decided not to deliver the CLG Newsletter any longer. Odd how this blockade was implemented shortly after CLG included some highly critical news summaries about John Sexton and his international slave labor construction ring [http://www.legitgov.org/Workers-NYUs-Abu-Dhabi-Site-Faced-Harsh-Conditions]. CLG will endeavor to rectify this problem. In the meantime, NYU subscribers have been bcc'd, so that they can receive the newsletter
"More NSAssociates: AT&T, Yahoo not delivering the CLG Newsletter"2014-06-05 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/ATT-Yahoo-not-delivering-CLG-Newsletter]: AT&T, and all of its email services including Yahoo, have stopped delivering the CLG Newsletter as of 1 June 2014. At least NSAssociate Google relegates them to the spam bin. Yahoo won't even deliver them.
"Facebook Impersonation of CLG's 'Lori Legitgov Price'" 2014-04-20 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [http://www.legitgov.org/Facebook-Impersonation-CLGs-Lori-Legitgov-Price]: Here is a screenshot taken 20 April 2014 of an 'imposter account' of my personal profile on Facebook. On Facebook, my personal profile is 'Lori Legitgov Price.' The phony profile (see below) refers to me as a 'smuggler' and 'crime master.' Ironically, Facebook forced to change my original Facebook name, 'Lori Price Legitgov,' for being 'illegitimate.' I then changed it to 'Lori Legitgov Price,' as I was forced to do that. Apparently, impersonation and libel is fine by FaCIAbook - just don't pick a political name that 'offends' Mark Zuckerberg's sensibilities.
"Looking for Saturday's CLG Newsletter? NSAssociate Google Relegated 08 Feb 2014 CLG Newsletter to the Spam Bin"
2014-02-08 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [legitgov.org/NSAssociate-Google-Relegated-08-Feb-2014-CLG-Newsletter-Spam-Bin]: CLG subscribers: If you use Gmail as your email provider, please go to your spam bin to retrieve today's CLG Newsletter. Perhaps Google did not like the subject line: Two earthquakes strike near Fukushima nuclear plant.
"Looking for Tuesday's CLG Newsletter? NSAssociate Google Relegated 04 Feb 2014 CLG Newsletter to the Spam Bin Posted"
2014-01-29 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [legitgov.org/NSAssociate-Google-Relegated-04-Feb-2014-CLG-Newsletter-Spam-Bin]:
CLG subscribers: If you use Gmail as your email provider, please go to your spam bin to retrieve today's CLG Newsletter. Perhaps Google did not like the subject line: Christie acknowledges federal subpoena. Also included: 9/11 'truther' arrested for hijacking Super Bowl news conference -- I'm sure Google *loved* that one!
"Looking for Part 1 of Today's CLG Newsletter? NSAssociate Google Relegated Part 1 of Today's CLG Newsletter to Spam Bin"
2014-01-11 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [legitgov.org/NSAssociate-Google-Relegated-Part-1-Todays-CLG-Newsletter-Spam-Bin]:CLG subscribers: If you use Gmail as your email provider, please go to your spam bin to retrieve today's CLG Newsletter. Perhaps Google did not like the subject line: 'US secretly deployed troops to Somalia since October; drones conducting airstrikes, surveillance.'
[United States Fascism website moderator note: the following screenshots show what is described. Although the moderator's Gmail.com email account has registered emails from CLG as not-spam. Also, it is not unusual for any mainstream email service to relegate the messages sent more than once a day from the same email address to the spam folder, it is noticed by the moderator that CLG messages are, indeed, singled out for removal out of the in-box and placement in the spam folder, more so than the messages from the other subscriptions to news wires, examples of which are seen in the screen-grab of the in-box.]
"Technical proof: Hotmail blocking IP for CLG Newsletter delivery"
2013-12-12 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [http://www.legitgov.org/Technical-proof-Hotmail-blocking-IP-CLG-Newsletter-delivery]: Hotmail did not deliver the CLG Newsletter on Wednesday. To circumvent the problem, I bcc'd Hotmail, MSN, Live, and Outlook subscribers with the missing newsletter. I posted a ticket in the Support Forum of CLG's webhoster, MayFirst. I then learned that the email delivery problems were connected to a block imposed by Hotmail. Here is the technical response, in part:
"Jamie and I [Ross] just walked through the problem and found that Hotmail finally did start blocking the IP address we were using. While we try to get the IP removed, we changed to a different relay postfix-b on Rustin so that at least until they block the new IP address we will be able to send emails to Hotmail addresses."
"And, today's obstacle is: Hotmail did not deliver"
2013-12-11 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [http://www.legitgov.org/Hotmail-did-not-deliver-11-Dec-2013-CLG-Newsletter]: Hotmail -- and Live, MSN, and Outlook -- did not deliver today's CLG Newsletter. Perhaps they did not like the subject line, 'Transformer explosion, fire shuts down nuclear reactor in Arkansas.'
"Looking for Monday's CLG Newsletter? NSAssociate Google Relegated 09 Dec 2013 CLG Newsletter to the Spam Bin"
2013-12-09 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [http://www.legitgov.org/NSAssociate-Google-Relegated-09-Dec-2013-CLG-Newsletter-Spam-Bin]:
CLG subscribers: If you use Gmail as your email provider, please go to your spam bin to retrieve today's CLG Newsletter. Perhaps Google did not like the subject line: 'Record outdoor radiation level that can 'kill in 20 minutes' detected at Fukushima.'
"CLG seeks lawyer to fight Google's censorship"
2013-12-03 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [http://www.legitgov.org/CLG-seeks-lawyer-fight-Googles-censorship]:
Attention CLGers: Any lawyers in the house? *Once again,* NSAssociate Google relegated today's CLG Newsletter to the spam bin, even though every POSSIBLE 'spam' trip-word was REMOVED or edited with asterisks, and I shortened the newsletter so that it would reach everyone! Also, Google has denied, repeatedly, CLG's requests to set up a page on Google+. Odd, every other news group has a page - why can't the CLG? It's tiring to spend hours compiling a newsletter -- only to have Google decide their clients should not read it!
See also: Google adding 'X-Spam-Combo' to CLG Newsletters, so they are considered spam 24 Nov 2013 [https://support.mayfirst.org/ticket/8113].
I have numerous emails from people who have asserted that despite establishing 'whitelist' filters, Google still relegated the CLG Newsletter to their spam bins. Some folks have sent screen shots as evidence, attesting to same. Note: If you do use Gmail, please take these steps to set up a 'whitelist' filter - which might help [https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6579]. Thank you. Contact: lori @ legitgov.org.
Addendum: Here is an email I received from CLG reader Davin on Wednesday:
I too have consistently tried to keep your newsletter from going into the spam folder, I added your address to my address book, set up a filter that would star your letter & set it up so that it wouldn't go into the spam folder BUT IT STILL DOES!!! I would testify for you if some trial needs witnesses, thank you for doing what you're doing. Regards, Davin
"Looking for today's CLG Newsletter? NSAssociate Google Relegated Saturday's CLG Newsletter to Spam Bin --NSA topic was in subject line"
2013-11-30 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [http://www.legitgov.org/NSAssociate-Google-Relegated-Saturdays-CLG-Newsletter-Spam-Binhttp://www.legitgov.org/NSAssociate-Google-Relegated-Saturdays-CLG-Newsletter-Spam-Bin]:
CLG subscribers: If you use Gmail as your email provider, please go to your spam bin to retrieve today's CLG Newsletter. Perhaps Google did not like the subject line: 'French Intelligence Involved in NSA Spying in France, Monde Says 30 Nov 2013.' STILL, so sick of the censorship...
"Google adding 'X-Spam-Combo' to CLG Newsletters, so they are considered spam"
[https://support.mayfirst.org/ticket/8113]:
Hi, folks.
Below are examples of Google and Spamhaus teaming up to mark CLG Newsletters as 'spam,' despite diligent efforts to include NO mention of anything to do with drugs, mortgages, and other such terms that trip the activation of possible spam filters.
Please note that I have also amassed numerous screen shots sent to me by folks depicting the CLG Newsletter in their Google spam bins, despite having marked them on previous occasions as NOT spam.
Can anything be done, regarding this censorship?
Thank you,
Lori Price
From a CLG reader:
Google's version of Spam Assinator report:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sa06.xmission.com
X-Spam-Level: ***************
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=15.9 required=8.0 tests=BAYES_50,DCC_CHECK,
HTML_MESSAGE,LOTS_OF_MONEY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TVD_RCVD_SPACE_BRACKET,
T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,T_XMDrugObfuBody_04,T_XMDrugObfuBody_08,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,XMSexyCombo_01,XMSubLong,XMSubMetaSSx_00,XMSubMetaSxObfu_03,
XMSubMetaSx_00,XM_Body_Dirty_Words,XM_Multi_Part_URI,XM_OfRef6
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Report:
* -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
* trust
* [209.51.172.11 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* 1.2 TVD_RCVD_SPACE_BRACKET TVD_RCVD_SPACE_BRACKET
* 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject
* 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG
* 1.2 XM_Multi_Part_URI URI: Long-Multi-Part URIs
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
* [score: 0.5000]
* 3.0 DCC_CHECK Listed in DCC (http://rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/)
* [sa06 1397; Body=many Fuz1=many]
[Fuz2=many]
* 0.5 XM_Body_Dirty_Words Contains a dirty word
* 1.2 XMSubMetaSxObfu_03 Obfuscated Sexy Noun-People
* 1.0 T_XMDrugObfuBody_08 obfuscated drug references
* 0.2 XM_OfRef6 Contains 6 or more suspicious of references
* 1.0 XMSubMetaSx_00 1+ Sexy Words
* 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines
* 2.5 LOTS_OF_MONEY Huge... sums of money
* 1.0 T_XMDrugObfuBody_04 obfuscated drug references
* 1.2 XMSubMetaSSx_00 1+ SortaSexy Words + 1 Sexy Word
* 1.0 XMSexyCombo_01 Sexy words in both body/subject
X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa06 1397; Body=many Fuz1=many Fuz2=many
X-Spam-Combo: ***************;CLG News <clg_news@legitgov.org>
That last quoted line looks like they've (Spamhaus) specifically listed legitgov's News as "spam".
From a CLG reader:
I would suggest finding out who added that X-Spam-Combo, if you can. (Obviously SpamAssassin, but I strongly suspect with external help.) I don't even know exactly what it means. Search finds it in filtered mail headers, and some gaming applications.
9.8 stars, and Gmail passed it through?!? (Default is 8, and I personally use 6.)
Here's the unwhitelisted version:
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.198
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: clg_news@legitgov.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sa06.xmission.com
X-Spam-Level: *********
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=9.8 required=8.0 tests=BAYES_50,DCC_CHECK,
HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TVD_RCVD_SPACE_BRACKET,T_Symld_Words_02,
T_XMDrugObfuBody_04,T_XMDrugObfuBody_08,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,XMSolicitRefs_0,
XMSolicitRefs_4,XMSubLong,XM_Body_Dirty_Words,XM_Multi_Part_URI
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Report:
* -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
* trust
* [209.51.172.11 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* 1.2 TVD_RCVD_SPACE_BRACKET TVD_RCVD_SPACE_BRACKET
* 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject
* 0.0 T_Symld_Words_02 T_Symld_Words_02
* 1.2 XM_Multi_Part_URI URI: Long-Multi-Part URIs
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
* [score: 0.5000]
* 3.0 DCC_CHECK Listed in DCC (http://rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/)
* [sa06 1397; Body=many Fuz1=many]
[Fuz2=many]
* 0.5 XM_Body_Dirty_Words Contains a dirty word
* 1.0 XMSolicitRefs_4 + 5 solicitation references
* 1.0 T_XMDrugObfuBody_08 obfuscated drug references
* 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines
* 0.1 XMSolicitRefs_0 Weightloss drug
* 1.0 T_XMDrugObfuBody_04 obfuscated drug references
X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa06 1397; Body=many Fuz1=many Fuz2=many
X-Spam-Combo: *********;CLG News <clg_news@legitgov.org>
X-Spam-Relay-Country: US ** XX ** US
Subject: NSA infected 50,000 computer networks with malicious software
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:46 -0700)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mx03.mta.xmission.com)
From CLG reader, after taking steps to mark CLG as an 'approved sender:'
Still there:
X-Spam-Combo: ;"CLG News" <clg_news@legitgov.org>
Still claiming drug obfuscation and dirty words, too.
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=8.0 tests=BAYES_50,DCC_CHECK,
HTML_MESSAGE,IN_HORDE_ADDRESS_BOOK,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_Symld_Words_02,
T_XMDrugObfuBody_04,T_XMDrugObfuBody_08,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,XMSolicitRefs_0,
XMSolicitRefs_4,XMSubLong,XM_Body_Dirty_Words,XM_Multi_Part_URI
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Report:
* -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
* trust
* [209.51.172.11 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject
* 0.0 T_Symld_Words_02 T_Symld_Words_02
* -10 IN_HORDE_ADDRESS_BOOK From/To pair in horde DB
* 1.2 XM_Multi_Part_URI URI: Long-Multi-Part URIs
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
* [score: 0.5000]
* 3.0 DCC_CHECK Listed in DCC (http://rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/)
* [sa02 1397; Body=many Fuz1=many]
[Fuz2=many]
* 0.5 XM_Body_Dirty_Words Contains a dirty word
* 1.0 XMSolicitRefs_4 + 5 solicitation references
* 1.0 T_XMDrugObfuBody_08 obfuscated drug references
* 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines
* 0.1 XMSolicitRefs_0 Weightloss drug
* 1.0 T_XMDrugObfuBody_04 obfuscated drug references
X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=many Fuz1=many Fuz2=many
NB: This is XM, where it's whitelisted.
From the CLG reader:
They did it again! Gmail did not acknowledge receipt until I manually marked it "Not Spam".
X-Spam-Level: ************
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=12.5 required=8.0 tests=BAYES_50,DCC_CHECK,
HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TVD_RCVD_SPACE_BRACKET,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG,
T_XMDrugObfuBody_08,T_XMDrugObfuBody_14,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,XMBody_17,
XMSolicitRefs_0,XMSolicitRefs_4,XMSubLong,XM_Body_Dirty_Words,
XM_Multi_Part_URI,XM_Nigeria_01 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Report:
* -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low
* trust
* [209.51.172.11 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* 1.0 XMBody_17 BODY: Spammy words in all caps
* 1.2 TVD_RCVD_SPACE_BRACKET TVD_RCVD_SPACE_BRACKET
* 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject
* 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG
* 1.2 XM_Multi_Part_URI URI: Long-Multi-Part URIs
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
* [score: 0.5000]
* 3.0 DCC_CHECK Listed in DCC (http://rhyolite.com/anti-spam/dcc/)
* [sa04 1397; Body=many Fuz1=many]
[Fuz2=many]
* 0.5 XM_Body_Dirty_Words Contains a dirty word
* 1.0 XMSolicitRefs_4 + 5 solicitation references
* 1.0 T_XMDrugObfuBody_08 obfuscated drug references
* 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines
* 0.1 XMSolicitRefs_0 Weightloss drug
* 0.2 T_XMDrugObfuBody_14 obfuscated drug references
* 2.5 XM_Nigeria_01 Give money blah nigeria
X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa04 1397; Body=many Fuz1=many Fuz2=many
X-Spam-Combo: ************;CLG News <clg_news@legitgov.org>
X-Spam-Relay-Country: US ** XX ** US
Subject: Homeland Security must disclose 'Internet Kill Switch, ' court
rules 16 Nov 2013
X-Spam-Flag: YES
"Twitter deems CLG link to Fukushima story 'spammy' and 'unsafe'"
2013-11-12 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [http://www.legitgov.org/Twitter-deems-CLG-link-Fukushima-story-spammy-and-unsafe]:
On Tuesday, I posted a short summary and link to an item regarding the Fukushima/TEPCO disaster on the CLG website. ($30bn for Fukushima 'clean-up' [http://www.legitgov.org/30bn-Fukushima-clean].) I wanted to share it with my Twitter followers. I accessed, 'Share a link with your followers' via the 'ShareThis' feature. I received the following message: 'Oops! A URL in your tweet appears to link to a page that has spammy or unsafe content.' I checked the ShareThis-generated link, and it works fine. Click here to see the screen capture of Twitter's 'warning.' [http://www.legitgov.org/graphics/twitter_clg_fukushima_121113.png]
"Google continues to relegate CLG Newsletters to spam bin"
2013-10-16 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [http://www.legitgov.org/Google-continues-relegate-CLG-Newsletters-spam-bin]:
If you are a CLG subscriber who uses Gmail, please check your spam bins for recent CLG Newsletters. I have amassed a number of emails from CLG readers -- including numerous enclosed webscreen images as proof - who have informed me that they found their CLG Newsletter in their Gmail spam bin. Most of these people have already added clg_news at legitgov.org to their contacts list, and marked the newsletters as email that is 'not spam.' However, NSAssociate Google has a different agenda. Please feel free to keep me informed of the problem. If you can help in this matter (legally?) please let me (lori at legitgov.org) know. Thank you!
"Looking for Saturday's CLG Newsletter? Google sent CLG Newsletter with 'U.S. spy agencies mounted 231 offensive cyber-operations' as lead to spam bins"
2013-08-31 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/Google-sent-CLG-Newsletter-US-spy-agencies-mounted-231-offensive-cyber-operations-lead-spam-bins]
CLG readers, if you want to read the HUGE three-day news compilation sent early Saturday morning, you'll have to reach into your spam bins and move the newsletters to your inboxes.
NSAssociate Google has taken upon itself to continue to censor CLG Newsletters by relegating them to the spam bins, despite REPEATED REQUESTS by readers to mark them as NOT spam. (Also note that Google+ will not permit CLG to have a page.)
If you did not receive this important compilation, please let me know at lori @ legitgov.org and I will forward it to you.
"Screenshot of Google rerouting CLG Newsletter to spam bin, overriding user's wishes"
2013-08-03 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/Screenshot-Google-rerouting-CLG-Newsletter-spam-bin-overriding-users-wishes]:
www.legitgov.org 03 Aug 2013 CLG reader Mark Graffis has a screen-shot of NSAssociate Google relegating the CLG Newsletter to the spam bin. Note that Mark has clg_news @ legitgov.org classified as a 'Friend,' but Google *overrides* that designation and marks the CLG Newsletter as spam. Mark passed this image along, as he has told me that Google continually routes the CLG Newsletter to the spam bin instead of to his inbox.
CLGers, please feel free to take screenshots from Gmail, and other mail clients who relegate the CLG Newsletters to the spam bin, and pass them along to us (contactus @ legitgov.org). The image would only be published with permission of sender, of course.
"CIA in CLG website logs for story on US, New Zealand spying on McClatchy reporter"
2013-07-31 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/CIA-CLG-website-logs-story-US-New-Zealand-spying-McClatchy-reporter-0]:
The CIA is in the CLG website logs again. [relay203.net.cia.gov 3 36 281.58 KB 30 Jul 2013 - 12:14] (Yes, the DOJ, Connecticut Cyber Alert and numerous other .govs and .mils were in there on Tuesday, too.) This time, the CIA was apparently trolling for articles about themselves spying (in concert with the New Zealand military) on a McClatchy reporter while US intelligence community was busy issuing statements of denial of same. See: New Zealand military, with US spy agencies, collected data on phone calls of McClatchy contributor - Report [www.legitgov.org/New-Zealand-military-US-spy-agencies-collected-data-phone-calls-McClatchy-contributor-Report].
Here are the website entries. Note that the CIA's IP range is 198.81.129.0/24.
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:25 -0400] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 22719 "http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=july%2028%2C%202013%20level%20of%20cia%20threat&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFMQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legitgov.org%2F&ei=KeT3UaOhH8fG4AP7t4H4Cg&usg=AFQjCNE0H9RHS5xWTpl-7VZbIWx4V9lafQ" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /sites/default/files/css/css_a2ca95a87d9d1fe5c1babe4578cdbac7.css HTTP/1.1" 200 8088 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /sites/all/themes/newswire/ie.css HTTP/1.1" 200 662 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /sites/default/files/js/js_3461f9ddecee36d8ac49b833af422f95.js HTTP/1.1" 200 21381 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /sites/all/themes/newswire/images/feed.png HTTP/1.1" 200 1128 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/CLGDonate.png HTTP/1.1" 200 966 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/clg_breaking.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 6956 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/logosmalr.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 21396 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/subnewsltr.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 9963 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/clg_donate.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 4104 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/clg_twitter.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 8473 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/clg_facebook.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 5439 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /sites/all/themes/newswire/css/images/blue-nav-bar.png HTTP/1.1" 200 932 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/clg_myspace.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 4942 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/clg_rss.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 5469 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/clg_rss_button.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 4421 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/rss_tiny.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 1117 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/clg_valid_rss.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 4675 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/clg_flu_valid_rss.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 5772 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/120x20_su_black.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 3071 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/google_rss.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 5013 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/drone_hunting.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 40313 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/obusha_gwb_drones.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 14328 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/f_ck_trapwire.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 12779 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/mr_book_190313.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 5213 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/mr_book_070213.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 3816 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/clg_sunshine_mini.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 6456 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/seizedc2_spring2012_mini.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 7237 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /misc/powered-blue-80x15.png HTTP/1.1" 200 1376 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /sites/all/modules/openid/login-bg.png HTTP/1.1" 200 586 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:26 -0400] "GET /graphics/clg_flu_xml.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 6006 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:07:27 -0400] "GET /sites/default/files/favicon_0.png HTTP/1.1" 200 4339 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:08:15 -0400] "GET /New-Zealand-military-US-spy-agencies-collected-data-phone-calls-McClatchy-contributor-Report HTTP/1.1" 200 3887 "http://www.legitgov.org/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:08:15 -0400] "GET /sites/default/files/css/css_e083716258db063ecd4fdc5a4df32163.css HTTP/1.1" 200 8108 "http://www.legitgov.org/New-Zealand-military-US-spy-agencies-collected-data-phone-calls-McClatchy-contributor-Report" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:08:16 -0400] "GET /sites/default/files/favicon_0.png HTTP/1.1" 200 4339 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
198.81.129.195 - - [30/Jul/2013:12:14:30 -0400] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 22865 "http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=july%2028%2C%202013%20level%20of%20cia%20threat&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFMQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legitgov.org%2F&ei=KeT3UaOhH8fG4AP7t4H4Cg&usg=AFQjCNE0H9RHS5xWTpl-7VZbIWx4V9lafQ" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.2)"
"Yahoo egroups relegate CLG Newsletter with Bradley Manning verdict to spam bins"
2013-07-30 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/Yahoo-egroups-relegate-CLG-Newsletter-Bradley-Manning-verdict-spam-bins]:
Another day, another obstacle. Yahoo -- aka Yahell -- relegated Tuesday's CLG Newsletter to the spam bins of numerous Yahoo egroups -- even in Yahoo egroups I moderate. Apparently, NSAssociate Yahell doesn't like various topics covered in Tuesday's CLG Newsletter, including: Sandy Hook Officer: 'There were probably two shooters'; Michael Hastings's assassination; Mers virus, and a snippy comment regarding Fort Detrick; 9/11 graffiti in Connecticut; indignities that await Edward Snowden; New Zealand military and US spy agencies collected data on McClatchy reporter; US drones slaughtering more Pakistanis, sub-linked, of course, as I'm not 'allowed' to include the direct link to Press TV or Columbia University will reject the CLG Newsletter outright; genetically engineered sugar beets [fortunately] destroyed in southern Oregon; more BP and Exxon Mobil environmental terrorism; and, of course, the Bradley Manning verdict. Hmm. I wonder what Yahoo found cringe-worthy?
"NSA buddy Google again claims CLG News violates Google's 'names policy'"
2013-07-18 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/Google-Denies-CLGs-Appeal-be-Google]:
Once again, NSAssociate Google has denied CLG's appeal to be on Google+. Every other news organization is permitted to have a Google+ page, under the title of that news organization, such as The New York Times and the Washington Post. I want to know why CLG News cannot have a page on Google+. See also: Google: CLG News 'does not comply with Names Policy' 02 Jul 2013 [www.legitgov.org/Google-CLG-News-does-not-comply-Names-Policy], which includes additional details regarding CLG's first appeal. Is there a lawyer who could donate his/her time to help with this issue? If so, please write: lori @ legitgov.org. Thank you.
"Google: CLG News 'does not comply with Names Policy'"
2013-07-02 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/Google-CLG-News-does-not-comply-Names-Policy]:
NSA buddy Google will not allow CLG News on Google+. After receiving countless promos at from Google to set up a 'Google+' account, I clicked to 'upgrade' to Google+. Google requested I select a different name, even though my Gmail address -- established years ago -- is clgnews at gmail dot com. When I declined to select another name, Google presented the option to 'click to appeal' to use CLG News as the owner for CLG News on Google+. On 28 June, I received an email from Google, which included the following comments.
"After reviewing your appeal, we have determined that your name does not comply with the Google+ Names Policy. We want users to be able to find each other using the name they already use with their friends, family, and coworkers. For most people this is their legal name, or some variant of it, but we recognize that this isn't always the case, and we allow for other common names in Google+ -- specifically, those that represent an individual with an established online identity with a meaningful following."CLG News, in fact, has a HUGE and 'established online identity with a meaningful following,' although NSA buddy Google doesn't 'see' that. Or, maybe they do, and that's the problem... See also: NSA buddy Google wants me to change my name, declaring 'CLG News' is 'too long' for people to remember by Lori Price 09 Dec 2012 [www.legitgov.org/NSA-buddy-Google-wants-me-change-my-name-declaring-CLG-News-too-long-people-remember], and See also [www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-upheld/].
"AT&T-Yahoo blocking the CLG Newsletter again"
2013-04-14 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/ATT-Yahoo-blocking-CLG-Newsletter-again]:
AT&T/Yahoo is blocking the CLG Newsletter again. This may be connected to the fix of the EarthLink block. The following AT&T-controlled domains did NOT receive today's CLG Newsletter, because AT&T is blocking the mail server of CLG's webhoster, MayFirst: yahoo.com, att.net, ameritech.net, pacbell.net, swbell.net, bellsouth.net, flash.net, prodigy.net, wans.net, sbcglobal.net, nvbell.net, snet.net. This was the subject line: 'Billions of US tax dollars potentially funding Afghan terrorism -report.' [Addendum: Yahoo.com allowed delivery of the newsletter, but on an eight-hour delay.]
"EarthLink unblocks CLG, says 'does not block political content'"
2013-01-25 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/EarthLink-unblocks-CLG-says-does-not-block-political-content]:
Citizens for Legitimate Government has received a response from EarthLink's Executive Relations, regarding our request to remove the block of delivery of the CLG Newsletter that had been imposed in December 2012. See, for example, 'EarthLink blocking CLG Newsletter since 24 December 2012.'
EarthLink's Level A support has informed CLG that the problem has been addressed. "We want to reassure you, we do not block emails based upon political content. We have removed the block on [redacted] (assata.mayfirst.org) and we have also whitelisted this IP address to keep it from being blocked again."
"Hotmail, MSN and Live will no longer deliver the CLG Newsletter"
2013-01-19 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/Hotmail-MSN-and-Live-will-no-longer-deliver-CLG-Newsletter]:
Hotmail, MSN and Live will no longer allow the CLG Newsletter to pass, when sent through CLG's mail server. Hence, I have to bcc all senders after I send the original email, which it time-consuming. Also, this means the thousands of Hotmail, MSN, and Live subscribers receive their news on a delayed basis. CLG's webhoster, MayFirst, has made attempts to remedy the problem.
"EarthLink blocking CLG Newsletter"
2013-01-15 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/EarthLink-blocking-CLG-Newsletter-15-January-2013]:
CLGers, if you are subscribed to the CLG Newsletter roster with an EarthLink.net domain, you likely have not received a recent CLG Newsletter, once again. CLG's webhoster, MayFirst, has posted the following details regarding the block:
"DHS Trolling Web for Sandy Hook Rifle 'Oddities' - CLG Website Logs"
2012-01-07 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/DHS-Trolling-Web-Sandy-Hook-Rifle-Oddities-CLG-Website-Logs]:
CLG website logs frequently reveal fascinating .gov and .mil visitors, such as the CIA, Pentagon, FBI, DIA, and NASA. On Monday, the DHS accessed CLG's news summary, 'Bushmaster rifle used in CT shootings was same weapon used in Washington, D.C. sniper killings in 2002,' posted 16 December 2012. Apparently, the agency is trolling the web with the following keywords/parameters: [http://www.bing.com/search?q=was+a+rifle+used+in+the+conneticut+shootings%3F&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC].
Here we learn two facts. One, Homeland Security has trouble spelling 'Connecticut.' Two, the DHS also has questions on the Sandy Hook shootings -- as does Citizens for Legitimate Government. Website log entries and IP info are posted below.
216.81.81.82 - - [07/Jan/2013:12:04:42 -0500] "GET /Bushmaster-rifle-used-CT-shootings-was-same-weapon-used-Washington-DC-sniper-killings-2002 HTTP/1.1" 200 4954 "http://www.bing.com/search?q=was+a+rifle+used+in+the+conneticut+shootings%3F&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8)"
216.81.81.82 - - [07/Jan/2013:12:04:43 -0500] "GET /sites/default/files/css/css_fc224f99e9d532c6a7a2c17525bed469.css HTTP/1.1" 200 8108 "http://www.legitgov.org/Bushmaster-rifle-used-CT-shootings-was-same-weapon-used-Washington-DC-sniper-killings-2002" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8)"
216.81.81.82 - - [07/Jan/2013:12:04:43 -0500] "GET /sites/default/files/js/js_dfc5273a95dfd4a8fb6e5dc2126e218a.js HTTP/1.1" 200 21109 "http://www.legitgov.org/Bushmaster-rifle-used-CT-shootings-was-same-weapon-used-Washington-DC-sniper-killings-2002" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8)"
216.81.81.82 - - [07/Jan/2013:12:04:43 -0500] "GET /sites/all/themes/newswire/images/feed.png HTTP/1.1" 200 1128 "http://www.legitgov.org/Bushmaster-rifle-used-CT-shootings-was-same-weapon-used-Washington-DC-sniper-killings-2002" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8)"
216.81.81.82 - - [07/Jan/2013:12:04:43 -0500] "GET /graphics/subnewsltr.gif HTTP/1.1" 200 9963 "http://www.legitgov.org/Bushmaster-rifle-used-CT-shootings-was-same-weapon-used-Washington-DC-sniper-killings-2002" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8)"
216.81.81.82 - - [07/Jan/2013:12:04:43 -0500] "GET /graphics/logosmalr.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 23573 "http://www.legitgov.org/Bushmaster-rifle-used-CT-shootings-was-same-weapon-used-Washington-DC-sniper-killings-2002" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8)"
216.81.81.82 - - [07/Jan/2013:12:04:44 -0500] "GET /graphics/CLGDonate.png HTTP/1.1" 200 966 "http://www.legitgov.org/Bushmaster-rifle-used-CT-shootings-was-same-weapon-used-Washington-DC-sniper-killings-2002" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8)"
216.81.81.82 - - [07/Jan/2013:12:04:44 -0500] "GET /graphics/clg_breaking.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200 6955 "http://www.legitgov.org/Bushmaster-rifle-used-CT-shootings-was-same-weapon-used-Washington-DC-sniper-killings-2002" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8)"
216.81.81.82 - - [07/Jan/2013:12:04:44 -0500] "GET /sites/all/themes/newswire/css/images/blue-nav-bar.png HTTP/1.1" 200 932 "http://www.legitgov.org/Bushmaster-rifle-used-CT-shootings-was-same-weapon-used-Washington-DC-sniper-killings-2002" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8)"
216.81.81.82 - - [07/Jan/2013:12:04:44 -0500] "GET /sites/all/modules/openid/login-bg.png HTTP/1.1" 200 586 "http://www.legitgov.org/Bushmaster-rifle-used-CT-shootings-was-same-weapon-used-Washington-DC-sniper-killings-2002" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8)"
216.81.81.82 - - [07/Jan/2013:12:04:45 -0500] "GET /sites/default/files/favicon_0.png HTTP/1.1" 200 4338 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; InfoPath.3; MS-RTC LM 8)"
Country: United States
Region: Virginia
City: Oakton
Postal Code: 22124
ISP: "Department of Homeland Security" Organization: "Department of Homeland Security"
Host Name: cbcp2.dhs.gov
The number of this IP address is 216.81.81.82. This IP address is fixed within United States, and refers to Oakton, Virginia. IP Country code is US. IP address is assigned to "Department of Homeland Security". In organization "Department of Homeland Security". It's hostname is cbcp2.dhs.gov.
"EarthLink blocking CLG Newsletter since 24 December 2012 --Hotmail, AT&T block update"
2013-01-04 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/EarthLink-blocking-CLG-Newsletter-24-December-2012]:
CLGers, if you are subscribed to the CLG Newsletter roster with an EarthLink.net domain, you have not received the CLG Newsletter since -- and possibly before -- 24 December 2012.
CLG's webhoster, MayFirst, has received notification from EarthLink that their block has been removed.
We'll see if that is the case.
Meanwhile, please feel free to contact lori at legitgov.org, if you want the blocked/missed editions forwarded.
On another front, MayFirst was taken steps to circumvent the blocks imposed by Hotmail.com, Live.com, and MSN.com.
Previously, switching the mail server's IP triggered a larger block by AT&T and its domains, including Yahoo.com.
"NSA buddy Google wants me to change my name, declaring 'CLG News' is 'too long' for people to remember"
2012-12-09 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/NSA-buddy-Google-wants-me-change-my-name-declaring-CLG-News-too-long-people-remember]:
On Sunday morning, I went to access a video on YouTube, regarding a DHS antiterror exercise, rehearsing to mow down civilians during a 'zombie apocalypse.' (Yes, that is actually where US tax dollars go.) Prior to hitting 'play,' a screen popped up. Google would not let me access the video unless I changed my Google name - because they asserted that 'CLG News' was too 'long' for people to remember! They want me to use my actual name instead of 'CLG News,' because, they said, 'Lori Price CLG' is shorter than 'CLG News.' Apparently, Google is mathematically-challenged. When I declined the Google 'offer,' I was forced to give a 'reason' for not wishing to change my name. Ok, here it is. NSAciopaths: I'm going to keep 'CLG News.' Go f*ck your surveillance selves, and the microchipped horse you rode in on.
"And, today's obstacle is: Hotmail, MSN blocking CLG Newsletter"
2012-11-11 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/Hotmail-MSN-blocking-CLG-Newsletter]:
Apparently, Microsoft does not like the CLG. Hotmail.com, Live.com, and MSN.com subscribers did not receive recent editions of the CLG Newsletter. CLG's webhoster, MayFirst, has submitted paperwork to remove the block of CLG's IP. If you use Hotmail, Live, or MSN, please feel free to let me know if you receive your CLG Newsletter again.
"AT&T blocking CLG Newsletter again after IP switch was made to avoid RR block"
2012-11-08 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/ATT-blocking-CLG-Newsletter-again-after-IP-switch-was-made-avoid-RR-block]:
AT&T is blocking the CLG Newsletter after an IP switch was made by CLG's webhoster to avoid the Time Warner Cable (rr.com, roadrunner.com, and adelphia.net) block. AT&T did not deliver the CLG Newsletter early this morning to its domains. If any techie wishes to help me with these ongoing obstacles, which keep me from updating the CLG website with actual news items, please write lori at legitgov dot org. Thank you.
"AT&T Blocking CLG Newsletters, Again"
2012-10-25 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/ATT-Blocking-CLG-Newsletters-Again]:
AT&T -- and its domains, including Yahoo.com -- is blocking the CLG Newsletters from reaching anyone who uses AT&T, once again. I thought this problem had been resolved a few days ago, but apparently, that is not the case.
"AT&T Stops Holding CLG Newsletters Hostage, Releases 'Quarantined' Editions"
2012-10-18 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/ATT-Stops-Holding-CLG-Newsletters-Hostage-Releases-Quarantined-Editions]:
AT&T -- including Yahoo.com, att.net, ameritech.net, bellsouth.net, flash.net, nvbell.net, pacbell.net, prodigy.net, sbcglobal.net, snet.net, swbell.net, and wans.net -- was incontrovertibly blocking the server used to disseminate the CLG Newsletter. And so, some back issues may (finally) be released.
Note: This issue has absorbed much of my time and energy over the last few days, which explains why I was unable to respond to email, and/or thank the folks who have donated to CLG. I apologize for that.
Note: If your CLG Newsletter suddenly 'stops' arriving in your inbox, please don't hesitate to let us know about the problem, by writing signup at legitgov.org.
"Gary McKinnon saved from extradition to US on hacking charges; Drone"
2012-10-16 email resend, from "CLG News (@legitgov.org)":
AT&T (and their domains) did not deliver today's newsletter, so here is a resend. I think it was the Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair story - I forgot to add asterisks in certain words in the summary. Anyway, here is today's newsletter with an update on the Gary McKinnon story. Sorry for the extra email, for those who did actually receive it. --LRP
Gary McKinnon saved from extradition to US on hacking charges 16 Oct 2012 Gary McKinnon, the computer hacker who has been facing extradition to the US for the past decade, has been given a dramatic reprieve by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary told MPs that medical reports warning the computer hacker would kill himself if sent to the US were sufficient grounds to keep him in the UK. She also announced plans to change extradition rules to allow courts to block extradition attempts if it is in the interests of justice.
"Facebook blocks Press TV advertisements"
2012-09-18 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/Facebook-blocks-Press-TV-advertisements]:
Facebook has blocked Press TV’s advertisements on the social networking website, saying that the Iranian news network is located in a region which is "not eligible to use this feature." Facebook’s risk management department informed Press TV in an email that the social networking website’s security systems had shut down the payments functionality on Press TV’s account. [Note: CLG cannot include direct links to Press TV's news items because filters then block the delivery of the CLG Newsletter when such links are included.]
Facebook blocks Press TV advertisements [www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/18/262308/facebook-blocks-press-tv-ads/]
"Facebook issues 'mental health' warning to CLG editor over posts; 'You're receiving this message because a friend is concerned about something you posted on Facebook'"
2012-09-11 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/Facebook-issues-mental-health-warning-CLG-editor-over-posts-0]:
On Monday, I received a 'substance abuse' warning email from Facebook. The CLG Facebook page has over 4,200 'likes' and frequently includes '9/11 inside job' commentary. A trace of the email header indicates that the email was actually from Facebook. The email is posted below. [Hey, Zuckerberg: I don't need 'Psychology Today.' I need a real investigation into the pre-9/11 put options, why Building 7 fell after the BBC reported its collapse following the command given by 'Lucky' Larry Silverstein to 'pull' it.]
This is not my first tango with Facebook. In February, I was forced to change my profile name [http://www.legitgov.org/Facebook-Disables-CLG-Editors-Account-Name-Claiming-It-Illegitimate].
Facebook has decided that 'Lori Price Legitgov,' the personal Facebook account title of the Editor-in-Chief of Citizens for Legitimate Government, is (suddenly) not 'legitimate' and therefore disabled. Price's Facebook account was established in September 2007 as 'Lori Price Legitgov,' and she never received any notifications or warnings from Facebook regarding the account. The official page for Citizens for Legitimate Government was not affected.
Update: On September 11, Facebook would *not allow me access* until I checked a box on a pop-up to acknowledge their 'substance abuse warning,' purportedly issued due to the 'nature' of my posts. The message was identical to the email I received from Facebook below, with this additional wording: 'I have read the message above,' and a box which had to be checked in order to access my account.
[begin excerpt]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Facebook" <notification+ovzlcgzz@facebookmail.com>
To: <lori at legitgov dot org>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 8:36 AM
Subject: Facebook Warning
Hello,
You're receiving this message because a friend is concerned about something you posted on Facebook. Facebook is working with the the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to provide resources and support for those who may be struggling with substance abuse.
You can contact the SAMHSA's National Helpline at 1-800-662-HELP (4357) or 1-800-487-4889 (TDD), where help is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The Helpline provides free and confidential information and treatment referrals, in English and Spanish.
SAMHSA also offers a Treatment Facility Locator (http://findtreatment.samhsa.gov/), which provides a comprehensive listing of drug and alcohol treatment programs across the United States.
To learn more about SAMHSA, please visit http://www.samhsa.gov/.
You can also find support through resources like Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and Psychology Today's online listing of counselors and therapists.
Note that we provide these resources whenever this type of content is reported to us.
Thanks,
The Facebook Team [Yes, The Facebook Team: NSA, CIA, DHS, FBI, DOD, DARPA, and Facebook.]
[end excerpt]
Here is a portion of the email header:
[begin excerpt]
Return-Path: <notification+ovzlcgzz@facebookmail.com>
X-Original-To: lori at legitgov.org [redacted info]
Received: from mx-out.facebook.com (outmail003.snc7.facebook.com [69.171.232.137])
X-Facebook: from zuckmail ([MTI3LjAuMC4x])
by our.intern.facebook.com with HTTP (ZuckMail);
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:36:13 -0700
Subject: Facebook Warning
X-Mailer: ZuckMail [version 1.00]
[end excerpt]
"Facebook Disables CLG Editor's Account Name, Claiming It Is 'Illegitimate'"
2012-02-16 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/Facebook-Disables-CLG-Editors-Account-Name-Claiming-It-Illegitimate]:
'The name you entered was not approved by our system.'
Facebook has decided that 'Lori Price Legitgov,' the personal Facebook account title of the Editor-in-Chief of Citizens for Legitimate Government, is (suddenly) not 'legitimate' and therefore disabled. Price's Facebook account was established in September 2007 as 'Lori Price Legitgov,' and she never received any notifications or warnings from Facebook regarding the account. The official page for Citizens for Legitimate Government [http://www.facebook.com/pages/Citizens-For-Legitimate-Government/93486533659] was not affected.
On 16 February, Lori Price attempted to log on to Facebook and received the following message from Facebook, preventing her from logging in:
[begin excerpt]
Your account has been temporarily suspended because it appears that you have not listed your
real name. As a reminder, Facebook requires all members to provide their real first and last
names. Don't worry -- you'll be able to update your profile with your full, real name or verify
your name in the following steps. [Untrue.] And when you successfully complete this process, your account
will be accessible again. Please also note that Facebook profiles are for individual use only
and cannot be shared or used to represent other entities...
[end excerpt]
Price then re-entered her account name First Name, Lori; Middle Name, Price; last name, Legitgov. Facebook rejected that combination, then one Lori Price had for nearly four and one-half years. Facebook continued to block access for Price, stating:
[begin excerpt]
Inauthentic name -- temporary block
Unfortunately, the name you entered was not approved by our system. Please wait 10 minutes and
then try again.
Make sure you enter your name correctly and that it complies with our formatting guidelines.
Please note that if your next attempt is also unsuccessful, your account may be disabled.
[end excerpt]
Due to Facebook's threat to disable the account entirely, Price entered the following information: First name, Lori; Middle name, Legitgov; Last name, Price - 'Lori Legitgov Price.'
Although this data has been accepted, Facebook has succeeded in forcing Price to change her profile name.
On Thursday, Price attempted to edit her profile in an effort to revert to the original name.
Facebook precluded that change, claiming that Price had changed her name 'too many times.' [!?!]
"NSA Buddy Google Relegating CLG Newsletters to the Spam Bin" 2012-06-12 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/NSA-Buddy-Google-Relegating-CLG-Newsletters-Spam-Bin]:
If you are wondering why you do not receive your CLG Newsletters, and you (unfortunately) have Gmail as your mail client, check your spam bin. Often, CLG subscribers send emails similar to one received Monday from CLG reader Kerry B., which read in part:
[begin excerpt]
I assume this is common, but for the record... First I'd like to thank you for the excellent information you share! I'm writing to report a problem I've had with Gmail and your newsletter ever since I first subscribed. Even though I have marked countless newsletters as "not spam" and added CLG to my contacts multiple times, "random" newsletters will still slip quietly into my spam folder without fail. I'm now in the habit of rummaging through my spam with the sole purpose of catching and rescuing CLG's emails.
Again today after realizing that I haven't seen anything lately from you, I went digging. Sure enough, the update sent earlier today entitled "3,000 U.S. soldiers to serve in Africa next year 11 Jun 2012" had been marked as spam, again, with absolutely no legitimate reason. I'm not sure if these types of occurrences are common or if you are aware of such an issue, but I want you to know that this is happening to me, and it happens often...
[end excerpt]
And so, if you did NOT receive the CLG Newsletter titled, '3,000 U.S. soldiers to serve in Africa next year 11 Jun 2012,' please write [signup (@ legitgov.org] and I will pass it along.
"FBI Agents Approach CLG's Webhoster in Bomb Threat Investigation"
2012-04-12 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/FBI-Agents-Approach-CLGs-Webhoster-Bomb-Threat-Investigation]:
Emphasizing: CLG's webhoster, MayFirst, was approached by two FBI agents, not CLG itself. MayFirst responded, "We will not cooperate with any investigation into the identities, activities or perspectives of any of our members or any of the users of our systems." [Well, I guess that explains the norfolk.gov visit in the CLG logs on Thursday!]
I received the following email Thursday evening, as a member of MayFirst's Support Team [support.mayfirst.org/ticket/5583]:
[begin email]
Reported by [https://id.mayfirst.org/jamie]
Today, at about noon, two agents of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation came to the May First/People Link offices as part of what they said was an investigation of emailed bomb threats being sent to accounts at the University of Pittsburgh.
MFPL Director Jamie McClelland met them at the door and the two agents showed Jamie copies of three such emails. It appears that the emails were being relayed from a server that May First houses. The FBI identified the IP address assigned to the server with the ECN, a progressive Internet provider in Italy. Among its activities, ECN runs an anonymous email server: a server you can use to send email that isn't logged or stored.
The agents asked Jamie questions about these emails. He couldn't answer their questions and still can't. We have no control over that server and no access to it and since it is an anonymous email server there is no record of who is using it. We simply cannot cooperate because we have no information to share.
But there are underlying issues here that transcend the limitations in this situation. Because even if we could cooperate, we wouldn't.
May First considers the use of our Internet resources to make violent threats or carry on campaigns that threaten or facilitate violence to be unacceptable and unworthy of support. Not only does most of our membership oppose that type of activity but its propagation over our servers puts our organization and each of its members in severe jeopardy. This is not the purpose of the Internet.
At the same time, it's the Internet's purpose that drives our unwavering and consistent position on this type of investigation. The Internet was created for free and unfettered communications and any infringement on the privacy, activities or free speech of anyone is in complete contradiction to that.
We will not cooperate with any investigation into the identities, activities or perspectives of any of our members or any of the users of our systems.
At the moment, we have no reason to believe that this investigation will continue in a way that impacts MFPL members. We're sending this to you because we are committed to transparency and full communication with our members and we will continue, the best of our ability, to keep you informed as the case progresses.
We believe that the future of the world and the survival of the human race depend on the open, uninterrupted and unfettered communication among the people of the world. We will strongly resist any attempt by anyone, including governments, to mitigate that kind of communication or to use the systems of communication as an investigative or repressive tool.
[end email]
"Secret Service visits CLG member, asks about Seize DC"
2011-07-03 by Lori Price from "legitgov.org" [www.legitgov.org/Secret-Service-visits-CLG-member-asks-about-SeizeDC]:
In two-hour session, Secret Service agents ask, 'What do you know about Seize DC?'
Citizens for Legitimate Government readers are aware of the numerous .govs and .mils in the CLG website logs. See "CLG Sunshine Project" [http://www.legitgov.org/CLG-Under-Surveillance]. The US Senate, Secret Service, CIA, Naval Research Laboratory, DHS, DIA, etc., troll the CLG website on a regular basis. Now, apparently, the Feds have started to troll the people in addition to the site. On Friday, a CLG Newsletter subscriber and CLG Facebook friend/Twitter 'follower,' informed CLG that he received a visit from two Secret Service agents at his home.
The Feds' inquiry target, Chad Smith*, sent CLG an email that included the following information.
[begin message]
After receiving a visit from two Secret Service agents and a two-hour interview about "my credible threats against President Obama" the police state is here! I never advocated violence against Bush or Obama so I believe that we have Facebook moles or that Facebook and Twitter are just letting the government have access to any information they wish (without warrants). 4th Amendment? Not anymore! Just keep this in mind going forward.
[end message]
CLG sought additional details from Chad, who explained that on 01 July, two Secret Service agents arrived at his home, in a suburb** of Connecticut. They asked him about the intentions of CLG's September 10, 2011, protest, Seize DC.
The agents arrived in an unmarked, Chevy Cruze sedan. Chad, a runner, informed me that he had "seen the car before" on other occasions in his neighborhood.
Chad expressed the following.
[begin message]
They did mention 'Seize DC' and FB friend Justin J.* not CLG, you or Dr. [Michael] Rectenwald [legitgov.org/mikerectenwald_writings_101501.html] but obviously they have good background on your organization since they are on the mailing list no doubt...lol. They gave their names and were extremely polite. They were in an unmarked, blue, Chevy Cruze sedan. Nothing like you see on crime shows. (Budget cuts where we need them. Ha ha ha ha!) ...If they come back I'll request business cards. As long as they don't request a formal sit-down in the New Haven office we should be cool.
[end message]
"They [the Secret Service agents] seemed to know a lot about your Facebook page," Chad told the CLG. Chad said that the agents inquired, "What do you know about Seize DC?"
The Secret Service also asked Chad to provide details of his involvement in the group. Chad replied that "he intended to go to the protest, to seek redress from the government." He added, "As to the name -- Seize DC -- which is great -- violence is not our intent." Chad amplified, "We have no intentions for violence... We're not going there with tanks and grenades."
Additional details were provided of the visit, via email.
[begin email]
Hey Lori-
All the questions were general in nature and just peppering me to see if I knew of anyone that was thinking about protesting with violent acts or who planned on using vandalism as a resource.
I assured them that everyone I knew was planning on PEACEFUL protest and nothing more. They couldn't tell me what I supposedly said about the president to prompt a visit. As I recall I said the same or worse regarding Bush. Just know that the fishing net has been cast and that old Rockwell song 'Somebody's Watching Me' seems a fitting. If they spend all this time watching us, then who the hell is watching Al-CIADUH and the Tea Party? LOL...
[end email]
I asked how the two-hour questioning session ended. Chad said that they "thanked me for my time."
Albeit "polite," Chad hopes that the two-hour questioning session by the Secret Service would be the last.
More about the Seize DC protest can be found here [http://www.legitgov.org/seizedc].
*Chad's last name has been redacted, at his request.
**Suburb name redacted, at Chad's request.
***Justin's last name redacted by CLG.