Obama Supporters Threaten To Kill Romney If He Wins Election

U$A govt kills unwanted winners of foreign and domestic elections all the time. No biggie, people should be able to publicly threaten whomever they want. Isn’t that why people pay taxes? 😉

Nwo Report

Violent remarks continue to permeate Twitter

Source: Paul Joseph Watson

Having already threatened to riot if Obama is unsuccessful in securing a second term, Obama supporters are also flooding Twitter with threats to assassinate Mitt Romney if he wins the presidential election.

As we reported yesterday, innumerable Obama supporters spoke of their plans to provoke violence and mayhem if Obama lost, aggrieved at fears that Mitt Romney would take away government handouts.

However, it seems that threats to assassinate Romney are proving just as popular on the social network as threats to riot.

Twitchy first reported on the death threats on Sunday but a deluge of new ones have flooded in since, including the following;

“I swear if Mitt Romney becomes president, I’m gonna be the one to assassinate his ass!!!” (SOURCE)

“im telling you if romney gets elected somebody gon have to take a L and…

View original post 355 more words

Sovereign Citizens A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement By the FBI’s Counterterrorism Analysis Section

This is a little old, but it is pretty interesting to see the law-enforcement side. Monitoring a Sheriff’s website clued me into the fact that those little police fundraising efforts where their walk up to your vehicle’s window is just a way to look into your shit without a warrant.

image

Sovereign Citizens A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement By the FBI’s Counterterrorism Analysis Section

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/september-2011/sovereign-citizens#disablemobile

They could be dismissed as a nuisance, a loose network of individuals living in the United States who call themselves “sovereign citizens” and believe that federal, state, and local governments operate illegally. Some of their actions, although quirky, are not crimes. The offenses they do commit seem minor: They do not pay their taxes and regularly create false license plates, driver’s licenses, even currency.

However, a closer look at sovereign citizens’ more severe crimes, from financial scams to impersonating or threatening law enforcement officials, gives reason for concern. If someone challenges (e.g., a standard traffic stop for false license plates) their ideology, the behavior of these sovereign-citizen extremists quickly can escalate to violence. Since 2000, lone-offender sovereign-citizen extremists have killed six law enforcement officers. In 2010, two Arkansas police officers stopped sovereign-citizen extremists Jerry Kane and his 16-year-old son Joseph during a routine traffic stop on Interstate 40. Joseph Kane jumped out of the vehicle and opened fire with an AK-47 assault rifle, killing both officers.

The sovereign-citizen threat likely will grow as the nationwide movement is fueled by the Internet, the economic downturn, and seminars held across the country that spread their ideology and show people how they can tap into funds and eliminate debt through fraudulent methods. As sovereign citizens’ numbers grow, so do the chances of contact with law enforcement and, thus, the risks that incidents will end in violence. Law enforcement and judicial officials must understand the sovereign-citizen movement, be able to identify indicators, and know how to protect themselves from the group’s threatening tactics.

Ideology and Motivation

The FBI considers sovereign-citizen extremists as comprising a domestic terrorist movement, which, scattered across the United States, has existed for decades, with well-known members, such as Terry Nichols, who helped plan the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, bombing. Sovereign citizens do not represent an anarchist group, nor are they a militia, although they sometimes use or buy illegal weapons. Rather, they operate as individuals without established leadership and only come together in loosely affiliated groups to train, help each other with paperwork, or socialize and talk about their ideology. They may refer to themselves as “constitutionalists” or “freemen,” which is not necessarily a connection to a specific group, but, rather, an indication that they are free from government control. They follow their own set of laws. While the philosophies and conspiracy theories can vary from person to person, their core beliefs are the same: The government operates outside of its jurisdiction. Because of this belief, they do not recognize federal, state, or local laws, policies, or regulations. 1

One prevalent sovereign-citizen theory is the Redemption Theory, which claims the U.S. government went bankrupt when it abandoned the gold standard basis for currency in 1933 and began using citizens as collateral in trade agreements with foreign governments. 2 These beliefs can provide a gateway to illegal activity because such individuals believe the U.S. government does not act in the best interests of the American people. By announcing themselves as sovereign citizens, they are emancipated from the responsibilities of being a U.S. citizen, including paying taxes, possessing a state driver’s license, or obeying the law.

[…]

Indicators

Sovereign citizens often produce documents that contain peculiar or out-of-place language. In some cases, they speak their own language or will write only in certain colors, such as in red crayon. Several indicators can help identify these individuals.

References to the Bible, The Constitution of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or treaties with foreign governments 8

Personal names spelled in all capital letters or interspersed with colons (e.g., JOHN SMITH or Smith: John) Signatures followed by the words “under duress,” “Sovereign Living Soul” (SLS), or a copyright symbol (©) Personal seals, stamps, or thumb prints in red ink The words “accepted for value” 9

They also carry fraudulent drivers’ licenses to indicate their view that law enforcement does not have the authority to stop their vehicle or may write “No Liability Accepted” above their signature on a driver’s license to signify that they do not accept it as a legitimate identification document.

AntiSec hack of 12 million Apple IDs

From DigitalJournal.com : AntiSec hack of 12 million Apple IDs gets ridiculous denials

Op-Ed: AntiSec hack of 12 million Apple IDs gets ridiculous denials

by Paul Wallis – Sept 5 2012

Does this sound familiar? Massive security breach, queue of people
denying it’s important, nobody’s responsible and a bit of propaganda. As
usual, a simple denial followed production of facts. Looks like
nobody’s even pretending to cover up any more

The story is that AntiSec, a hacking group related
to Anonymous, obtained 12 million records of Apple users, supposedly
from the laptop of an FBI agent. Those who use Apple products will be
aware of the type of information provided to Apple on purchase of their
products. This is fairly basic stuff, but it’s also a healthy slice of
personal ID.

AntiSec released user ID numbers, 40 character identifying numbers.
These numbers are not of themselves a way of accessing information
related to users. It looks more like they were used as proof of having
obtained the information.

The New York Times:

While the leaked identification numbers appeared to be real,
security experts said the release posed little risk. They said that
without more information on the devices’ owners — like e-mail addresses
or date of birth — it would be hard for someone to use the numbers to do
harm.

Not so much of a surprise. The “controlled release” of the Apple user
information was apparently vetted by hacker group AntiSec to make a
point, not damage user security. They had a lot more info than just user
IDs to play with.

A little more information than was contained in The New York Times article comes from CBS News:

Antisec claims that it breached the laptop of FBI special
agent Christopher K. Stangl. The group says a spreadsheet on Stangl’s
computer contained a list over 12 million Apple devices and included
UDIDs, user names, name of device, type of device, Apple push
notification service tokens, zip codes, mobile phone numbers and
addresses.

That is a hell of a lot of sensitive personal information. You could swipe 12 million identities with that material.

NYT apparently also had a few bones to pick with Anonymous, which recently targeted the newspaper.

In February, Anonymous hackers intercepted a call between
the bureau and Scotland Yard. But the frequency of such attacks tapered
off after several members of Anonymous and a spinoff group, LulzSec,
were arrested in March.

Maybe not so unbiased. Global Post.com explains:

Anonymous is targeting the New York Times for the “failure of the press”
to give adequate coverage to Trapwire, what some say is a global system
of surveillance run by the US government.

I counted over 1500 news articles on Google News on the subject of Anonymous’ activities worldwide. If that’s tapering off, what’s not tapering off?

Why did the FBI have that information?

Meanwhile back on the subject which everyone seems to be trying very hard to blur as much as possible:

AntiSec did obtain those Apple user IDs.

How?

1. If they were accessed from the FBI as claimed, how did they know where the files were?

2. If the FBI had those files, what the hell were they doing on a laptop?

3. That information, if used for law enforcement purposes, may require a warrant.

4. If not being used for law enforcement, why was it being acquired?

5. Who’s responsible for security of information held by the agency?

6. Is the FBI saying it really needs to have information on 12 million Apple users?

7. If so, why?

Denial, denial and more denial

Those questions have ramifications. The FBI denies it had the
information at all. It wouldn’t look too good if it admitted it did. The
denial didn’t wash with Anonymous.

ITProPortal.com:

Despite the FBI’s denial, Anonymous was not deterred.

“You know you’re doing something right if @FBIPressOffice throws caps at
you on twitter to deny an #Anonymous statement,” the @AnonymousIRC
Twitter feed wrote yesterday evening.

“Also, before you deny too much: Remember we’re sitting on 3TB
additional data. We have not even started. #funtimes #fff,” the group
posted a few minutes later.

Some more spin, this time absolutely absurd, followed on ITProPortal’s article.

However, security experts were sceptical.

“I personally think it is a PR scam by Anonymous,” F-Secure security advisor Sean Sullivan said.

PR scam? Someone gets 12 million user information files with authentic
ID numbers and it’s a PR scam for Anonymous? What are they trying to do,
sell more cookies by forcing Apple users to buy them or they’ll release
their info? Start a chat show and they need the publicity?

This is the other usual component of security excuse-making. The
security that was breached, either the FBI’s, Apple’s or more likely
both, is obviously is a major contract for somebody. Trivialize the
security breach, and downplay the significance of the failure of
security, however colossal. Someone will be dumb enough to believe the
excuse.

This ridiculous crap is also pretty similar to the Wikileaks pattern of
denial. The military dropped the ball on security of major information
streams. The information was allegedly accessed by Bradley Manning, and
was released by Wikileaks. Not one other person responsible for security
has even been mentioned as having any sort of accountability for that
colossal failure. The motives of the leaks were the first thing targeted
by the spin factories.

The idea of a protest rarely gets through. All of this brings us back to
Trapwire. If surveillance is the game, the information obtained by
Trapwire obviously can’t be secure. Personal information can be obtained
by security systems which are themselves insecure. Legitimate
surveillance of actual criminals and terrorists could be compromised and
made accessible to the people under surveillance. That information
could also be “edited”.