“From Constitution… To Algorithms”

“from-constitution…-to-algorithms”

14-10-19 08:18:00,

Via Jim Quinn’s Burning Platform blog,

Comment from Aldous Huxley:

For those too ignorant or too full of cognitive dissonance here is a short understanding for ya…

It is Saturday morning and I like to wake up early so I had set my iPhone alarm to wake me at 5am. (Apple now knows what time i woke). I grab my iPhone and head to the kitchen and turn the coffee maker on (it wirelessly informs several other kitchen appliances, Alexa and my iPhone denotes this too). I open the fridge (it sends a signal to other kitchen appliances and my iPhone) and to grab a few items. Yogurt, orange juice, some blueberries. When I shut the fridge door the RFID signal on the packages I took out were read by the fridge so it knows what was removed and at what time. Now apple and others know, with near certainty who was up, rummaging in the fridge and what they took out. (Ok I think you get the point of “breakfast in the new age” so let’s move on. )

I go to my closet and grab blue jeans a button down shoes belt. Each has an RFID from the retail location I purchased as does my cleaners who placed a very small RFID barcode on each garment for tracking purposes. Both these signals are tracked by my iPhone, wifi signals, kitchen appliances etc. The kitchen appliances are still snooping on me so they can sell my activity tracking information to other retailers. Seems if you purchased a microwave for hundreds of dollars you should get a huge discount if they informed you they were going to spy on you and sell your activity or at least offer a choice of no spying. Seems every single thing I buy, with MY hard earned money, is now making money OFF ME. But I digress.

Anyway, I head out to the basement and every door has a sensor from my home security. It can track every door that opens and infrared movement. It tracks me via door openings going to the basement and the motion sensor follows my every move. I open my safe grab my gun and head to my vehicle.

 » Lees verder

Ukraine : NATO in the Constitution, by Manlio Dinucci

ukraine-nato-in-the-constitution-by-manlio-dinucci

13-02-19 10:20:00,

Moving always further away from democratic principles, the Ukrainian parliament has outlawed political parties and personalities who contest the project of membership of NATO and the European Union.

JPEG - 33.5 kb
Andriy Parubiy

The day after the signature of NATO’s membership protocol with North Macedonia as its 30th member, Ukraine did something without precedent : it included in its Constitution the engagement to enter officially into NATO and the European Union at the same time.

On 7 February, on a proposition by President Petro Poroshenko – the oligarch who made himself rich by plundering public properties, and who is once again a candidate for the presidency – the Kiev parliament, by 334 votes to 35 with 16 abstentions, approved these amendments to the Constitution.

The Introduction pronounces « the irreversible movement of Ukraine towards Euro-Atlantic integration » ; articles 85 and 116 state that it is a fundamental duty of the parliament and the government to « obtain Ukraine’s full membership of NATO and the EU » ; article 102 stipulates that « the President of Ukraine is the guarantor of the strategic decisions of the State aimed at obtaining full membership of NATO and the EU ».

The inclusion in the Ukrainian Constitution of the engagement to enter officially into NATO bears with it some very serious consequences.

On the interior, it alienates the future of Ukraine from this choice, by excluding any alternative, and outlaws de facto any party or person who might oppose the « strategic decisions of the state ». Already, the Central Electoral Commission has forbidden Petro Simonenko, director of the Ukrainian Communist Party, to participate in the Presidential elections to be held in March.

The merit for having introduced into the Ukrainian Constitution the engagement to enter officially into NATO goes in particular to Parliamentary President Andriy Parubiy [1]. Co-founder in 1991 of the Ukrainian National-Socialist Party, on the model of Adolf Hitler’s National-Socialist Party ; head of the neo-Nazi paramilitary formations which were used in 2014 during the putsch of Place Maïdan under US/NATO command, and in the massacre of Odessa [2] ; head of the Ukraine National Security and Defense Council, which, with the Azov Battalion [3] and other neo-Nazi units,

 » Lees verder

Ukraine: NATO in the Constitution – Global Research

ukraine-nato-in-the-constitution-8211-global-research

13-02-19 08:21:00,

The day after the signature of NATO’s membership protocol with North Macedonia as its 30th member, Ukraine did something without precedent: it included in its Constitution the engagement to enter officially into NATO and the European Union at the same time.

On 7 February, on a proposition by President Petro Poroshenko – the oligarch who made himself rich by plundering public properties, and who is once again a candidate for the presidency – the Kiev parliament, by 34 votes to 35 with 16 abstentions, approved these amendments to the Constitution.

The Introduction pronounces “the irreversible movement of Ukraine towards Euro-Atlantic integration”; articles 85 and 116 state that it is a fundamental duty of the parliament and the government to “obtain Ukraine’s full membership of NATO and the EU”; article 102 stipulates that “the President of Ukraine is the guarantor of the strategic decisions of the State aimed at obtaining full membership of NATO and the EU”.

The inclusion in the Ukrainian Constitution of the engagement to enter officially into NATO bears with it some very serious consequences.

On the interior, it alienates the future of Ukraine from this choice, by excluding any alternative, and outlaws de facto any party or person who might oppose the “strategic decisions of the state”. Already, the Central Electoral Commission has forbidden Petro Simonenko, director of the Ukrainian Communist Party, to participate in the Presidential elections to be held in March.

The merit for having introduced into the Ukrainian Constitution the engagement to enter officially into NATO goes in particular to Parliamentary President Andriy Parubiy. Co-founder in 1991 of the Ukrainian National-Socialist Party, on the model of Adolf Hitler’s National-Socialist Party; head of the neo-Nazi paramilitary formations which were used in 2014 during the putsch of Place Maïdan under US/NATO command, and in the massacre of Odessa; head of the Ukraine National Security and Defense Council, which, with the Azov Battalion and other neo-Nazi units, attacked Ukrainian civilians of Russian nationality in the Eastern part of the country and used his squadrons for acts of ferocious abuse, the plunder of political headquarters and other auto-da-fés in a truly Nazi style.

On the international level, we should keep in mind that Ukraine is already linked to NATO,

 » Lees verder

What the Venezuelan Constitution Says About Changing the President

what-the-venezuelan-constitution-says-about-changing-the-president

31-01-19 12:10:00,

What the Venezuelan Constitution Says About Changing the President

Venezuela’s Constitution simply does not permit what US President Trump is demanding, which is overthrowing and replacing the elected Venezuelan President by the second-in-line-of succession. What Trump demands is comparable in Venezuela to, in America, removing Trump and skipping over the Vice President and appointing Nancy Pelosi as America’s President, and it also violates the Venezuelan Constitution’s requirement that the Supreme Judicial Tribunal must first approve before there can be ANY change of the President without an election by the voters.

Here are the relevant Constitutional provisions:

ARTICLE 266: The following are powers of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice: (1) To exercise constitutional jurisdiction in accordance with title VIII of this Constitution. (2) To rule as to whether or not there are grounds for impeaching the President of the Republic or whomever may be acting in that capacity, and if so, to retain competence of the proceedings, subject to the approval of the National Assembly, until the final judgment. (3) To rule as to whether or not there are grounds for impeaching the Vice-President of the Republic; members of the National Assembly or the Supreme Tribunal of Justice itself, Ministers; the General Attorney; General Prosecutor; General Comptroller of the Republic; the People Defender; Governors; general officers and naval admirals of the National Armed Forces; or the heads of Venezuelan diplomatic missions; and, if so, to refer the record to the General Prosecutor of the Republic or whomever is acting in his capacity, where appropriate, and if the offense charged is a common crime, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice shall retain competence of the matter until a final judgment is handed down. …

ARTICLE 233: The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote. When an elected President becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. 

 » Lees verder

Suspending The Constitution: In America Today, The Government Does Whatever It Wants

Suspending The Constitution: In America Today, The Government Does Whatever It Wants

19-09-18 08:59:00,

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document.

The reality we must come to terms with, however, is that in the America we live in today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

“We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

The bogeyman’s names and faces may change over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, etc.), but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security.

Thus, in the so-called named of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago.

Most of the damage, however, has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—which historically served as the bulwark from government abuse. 

A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, the courts and the like)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution today.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media,

 » Lees verder