Obama Green Jobs Czar Communist?
Van Jones Green Jobs Czar
By Shannon Bell

Let’s take a look at Van Jones for a moment shall we? A young African-American, Yale Law School Graduate, advocate for the downtrodden and all around white knight for the misfortunate; sounds like a top notch guy to have as an advisor if you’re the President.

There was a little incident though back in 1992 that some of you may remember. The Rodney King beating and subsequent riot that took place after the police officers were acquitted. Van Jones happened to be one of those who was arrested during that awful period. From a 2005 interview with East Bay Express:



Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said,

“I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’”


Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco.


“I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.”





In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist" on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

It gets better, [or worse] Van Jones Green Jobs Czar Communist (self-proclaimed), founded an organization called Storm. From the same interview:

In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia.

One of Storm's projects was the “Bay Area Police Watch”, basically a bunch of thugs keeping tabs on the police and reporting “abuses” by law enforcement. I guess for Van Jones, the best thing about being Green Jobs Czar is that he didn’t have to sit in front of Congress and be confirmed. Nobody can ask him questions about his past and his proclivity for trouble. Of course given the make-up of Congress right now, it may not really matter.


Obama sure can pick em’, tax dodgers, communists, anarchists, liars and thieves. But I’m sure Obama has no idea about Van Jones' checkered past. So the question remains; is Van Jones Green Jobs Czar a Communist? I suppose you’d have to ask him, problem is nobody will.


Van Jones, 'Green Jobs Czar', a self-described 'communist' arrested during Rodney King riots
The 41-year-old Yale Law School graduate and civil rights lawyer Van Jones is also the founder of California's Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, "a non-profit agency for justice, opportunities and peace."

Sounds idyllic, but Jones' past isn't so pastoral.

The Ella Baker Center was connected to STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement), a "multi-racial activist collective with Marxist influences" with which Jones was involved.

In 1992, Van Jones founded another STORM project, Bay Area PoliceWatch, a "hotline and lawyer-referral service for victims and survivors of police abuse." This is fitting, perhaps, since Jones was himself arrested and detained briefly during a protest after the Rodney King verdict that same year.


Jones told the East Bay Express in 2005:

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th [1992], and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist. (...)"

"I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary."

Like a character out of The Big Chill, Van Jones seems to have evolved from radical activist to Establishment insider. Perhaps only a left-wing administration incapable of recognizing irony would put a self-described communist in charge of creating jobs.

Luckily for Van Jones, and Obama's many other "Czars" with dubious credentials and troubling backgrounds, his new job was not dependent upon making it through Congressional hearings.

July 14, 2009
Green Jobs Czar Van Jones Is a Communist and Black Nationalist
John Holdren

The guy who wanted to put a sterilizing agent in our water supply and is now in charge of federal science policy — is hardly the only dangerous radical to attain "Czar" status in the Obama regime. NewsBusters reports:

The administration's "Green Jobs" czar, Van Jones, has a "very checkered past" deep-rooted in radical politics, including black nationalism, anarchism, and communism. The broadcast network newscasts have mostly failed to report on Mr. Jones's past political affiliations which are lock-step with the network's downplay of coverage regarding President Obama's associations with the former radical and terrorist William Ayers during the election.

Jones is a San Francisco extremist who admits to having been "radicalized in jail." Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity draws the clear parallel between Jones' communist and environmentalist advocacy:

"I think it's pretty instructive what his past is… it's the same sort of philosophy, the idea that government ought to be reordering society in accordance with some utopian vision that failed with communism and socialism, and will fail with this green jobs idea."

Jones views environmental activism as a means to advance the ultra-left's Orwellian notion of "justice." He has referred to himself not only as a "communist," but as a "rowdy black nationalist."

What kind of "Czars" did you think would be appointed by someone whose worldview was molded by Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers?

Our country is now being run by people who have made a godless religion out of hating everything it stands for. Unsurprisingly, they are destroying it before our eyes.

Want to read a novel that is so real
you'll understand why we are living in very strange days?

Ride the storm of Nimrod Rising!

amazon.com barnesandnoble.com bordersstores.com booksamillion.com powells.com copperfields.com

Once again, President Barack Obama has appointed a smart and well-spoken proponent of the Culture of Death as his Regulatory Czar. His name is Cass Sunstein. Czar Sunstein is well known for his opposition to free speech, a la Constitution.

Cass Sunstein has not made it a secret that he wishes to limit our ability to speak out against things for which we disagree. He has said that the internet should limit what is said and that if anything is found to be ‘untrue’ it should be prosecuted with penalties up to two years in prison.

So, Mr. Sunstein, you should love this because I have very accurately tried to show what you believe and what the raw results will be if you and your team of deconstructionists succeed in transforming America into a nation enraged and afraid to say what they think, as it will then no longer be permitted.




We are all so thin skinned nowadays, and the forces of death are extending their reach throughout the entire government's bureaucracy. I have tried to demonstrate and illustrate all this with the words of others and Mr. Sunstein's own statements. I came to the conclusion that Cass Sunstein and his like-minded political proteges are smart but misguided enemies of Freedom. Mr. Cass Sunstein, like many others in Barack Obama's shadow government, does not understand the power of the force of the voice and the hearts of a heretofore free people.












The things espoused by Cass Sunstein, Ezekiel Emanuel, Peter Singer and so many more will be the greatest attack against Liberty in our nation's history, if they achieve their goals. But, their are millions who have not bowed the knew to Baal and we have been speaking loudly, as of late, and it shall not stop. Whether they like it or not, this is America, and we will not shut up. Mr. Sunstein, you hold a post that is unconstitutional, power that is abusive and views that run totally contrary to the views of the people of the United States of America. You will never shut us up!

Steven Clark Bradley
Author of Patriot Acts Nimrod Rising StillBorn! Probable Cause

Cass R. Sunstein - Yet Another Wacky Totalitarian Czar
Right Wing News July 23, 2009

What a coincidence — another one of Chairman Zero's "Czars" just happens to be a totalitarian screwball. Cass Sunstein is the Moonbat Messiah's pick for Regulatory Czar. Considering the mountains of extraneous regulations that accrue in the District of Criminals with each passing day, he'll have many opportunities to apply his ideology. Knowledge is power introduces us to his point of view.

 

The idea of libertarian paternalism might seem to be an oxymoron, but it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice. Often people's preferences are ill-formed, and their choices will inevitably be influenced by default rules, framing effects, and starting points. In these circumstances, a form of paternalism cannot be avoided. Equipped with an understanding of behavioral findings of bounded rationality and bounded self-control, libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people's choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice. It is also possible to show how a libertarian paternalist might select among the possible options and to assess how much choice to offer.

In other words, our authoritarian masters will be "libertarian" by letting us decide if we want our cot on the left side of the cell or the right side.

Cass gets even wackier:

Representatives of animals should be able to bring private suits to ensure that anticruelty and related laws are actually enforced. Of course, any animals would be represented by human beings, just like any other litigant who lacks ordinary (human) competence; for example, the interests of children are protected by prosecutors, and also by trustees and guardians in private litigation brought on children's behalf. … If getting rid of the idea that animals are property is helpful in reducing suffering, then we should get rid of the idea that animals are property.

If the government is going to treat citizens like farm animals, why shouldn't animals be treated like citizens? Sorry, hunters!

This sounds especially ominous:

The cruel and abusive practices generally involved in contemporary farming are largely unregulated at the state level.

Now might be a good time to start stockpiling food. Maybe next week's crisis requiring immediate draconian legislation will be animal oppression, solvable only by federal seizure of all farms. Something similar kept Stalin in power for a generation.

Unsurprisingly, Ass doesn't like the Internet:

We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet. We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?

 

Let me guess: Regulate online communication.

Sure enough, Sunstein thinks bloggers should be held punishable for anything any commenter says that can't be proven to be true. FDR killed the Tenth Amendment; this Ivy League cockroach might help Chairman Zero do the same to the First.

Cass R. Sunstein is currently the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Mr. Sunstein graduated in 1975 from Harvard College and in 1978 from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. After graduation, he clerked for Justice Benjamin Kaplan of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court, and then he worked as an attorney-advisor in the Office of the Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice. He was a faculty member at the Law School from 1981 to 2008.

Mr. Sunstein has testified before congressional committees on many subjects, and he has been involved in constitution-making and law reform activities in a number of nations, including Ukraine, Poland, China, South Africa, and Russia. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Mr. Sunstein has been Samuel Rubin Visiting Professor of Law at Columbia, visiting professor of law at Harvard, vice-chair of the ABA Committee on Separation of Powers and Governmental Organizations, chair of the Administrative Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools, a member of the ABA Committee on the future of the FTC, and a member of the President's Advisory Committee on the Public Service Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters.

Mr. Sunstein is author of many articles and a number of books, including Republic.com (2001), Risk and ReasonThe Second Bill of Rights (2004), Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (2005), Worst-Case Scenarios (2001), and Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness (with Richard H. Thaler, 2008). He is now working on various projects involving the relationship between law and human behavior. (2002), Why Societies Need Dissent (2003),

Books by Cass R. Sunstein:

Behavioral Law and Economics (editor, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming, 2000)

One Case At A Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court The Cost of Rights (with Stephen Holmes




Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict (1998)





Free Markets and Social Justice





Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech





The Partial Constitution






After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State





The Bill of Rights and the Modern State (co-editor with Geoffey R. Stone and Richard A. Epstein)




Radicals In Robes

Speaking about the US Constitution

Barack Obama and Cass Sunstein has said:

“It [the Constitution] is an imperfect document.”
Barack Obama

“Why should we be governed by people long dead? … In any case, the group that ratified the Constitution included just a small subset of the society; it excluded all women, the vast majority of African Americans, many of those without property, and numerous others who were not permitted to vote.” Cass Sunstein

“We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” Signers of The Declaration of Independence

Have Barack Obama or Cass Sunstein pledging their lives, their fortunes or their sacred honor to preserve the US.

Quotes from the Anti-Constitutional mind of Cass Sunstein

Second Amendment
“Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns. The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on various grounds.”

“The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as jurisprudential twins.”

Hunting & Animal Rights

“We ought to ban hunting”

“[Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.”

Free Speech

“A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.”

"I have argued in favor of a reformulation of the first amendment. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”

“Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and television broadcasters: …[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of the First Amendment in the democratic process.”

Taxes

In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”

Second Bill of Rights

“My major aim in this book is to uncover an important but neglected part of America’s heritage: the idea of a second bill of rights. In brief, the second bill attempts to protect both opportunity and security, by creating rights to employment, adequate food and clothing, decent shelter, education, recreation, and medical care.”

“Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust “government intervention” and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.”

“For better or worse, the Constitution’s framers gave no thought to including social and economic guarantees in the bill of rights.”

Cass Sunstein's despicable ideas on regulating the internet

American Thinker - Ed Lasky July 12, 2009

In the past, we have seen Barack Obama and his supporters attempt to chill any sort of scrutiny or criticism of him. Many of his records - whether they are transcripts from Occidental or Columbia - have not been released. He lost his senior thesis (on Soviet nuclear disarmament) from Columbia University (how likely was that to happen, given that he felt his own life was important enough to write an autobiography in his young 20s), and his records from his time in the Illinois state senate were "lost".

Having records "disappeared" (as well as ditching embarrassing people from his past under the bus) was just one aspect of attempts to avoid scrutiny. Another manifestation of this dynamic, was the constant use during the campaign of the "race card" to brand any critics as racists or smear artists (even Sean Wilent of the liberal The New Republic noticed this strategy).

One more manifestation of this phenomenon was his campaign's use of supporters to bombard radio hosts with calls to jam lines when critics of Barack Obama appeared on radio call in shows. The "authoritarian tactics being employed by the Obama campaign to stifle and intimidate its critics" were on full display. Of course, the specter of the Fairness Doctrine being passed by Congress is also another card in the deck meant to chill criticism of Barack Obama and his fellow travelers.

Now comes a more insidious form of thought control a la 1984, courtesy of long-time friend and probable new regulatory czar Cass Sunstein (who recently married another long-time confidant of Barack Obama's, foreign policy guru Samantha Power). Kyle Smith writes in the New York Post about one aspect of Sunstein's ideology:

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

Advance copies of Sunstein's new book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the prominence with which Sunstein is about to be endowed, his worrying views are fair game now. Sunstein is President Obama's choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It's the bland titles that should scare you the most.

In "On Rumors," Sunstein reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary. He worries that we are headed for a future in which "people's beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire." That future, though, is already here, according to Sunstein. "We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet," he writes. "We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?"

Sunstein's book is a blueprint for online censorship as he wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading "rumors."

Smith notes that bloggers and others would be forced to remove such criticism unless they could be "proven". The litigation expense would be daunting; the time necessary to defend a posting (or an article) would work to the benefit of the public figure being criticized since the delay would probably allow the figure to win an election before the truth "won out". The mere threat of retaliatory actions would be enough to dissuade many commentators from daring to issue a word of criticism or skepticism.

Often bloggers raise issues to encourage others (perhaps with more resources) to further investigate issues. Skepticism about candidates often begins on the web or talk radio-these steps (so vital to a democracy) would be chilled should Sunstein's ideas be put into practice. One should not dismiss that prospect: this is the most ideologically driven administration in many years. A Democratic Congress willing to do Barack Obama's bidding will not serve as a check on Sunstein (or Obama). Democrats know that criticism over their conduct often emerges from the web and talk radio since traditional media is so reliably in their corner. Sunstein did not join the administration for a title or to be close to his wife. He joined, as have other ideologues throughout history, to put his ideas into practice.

We should note that another step is being taken by Congress that might chill free speech on the internet. Representative Linda Sanchez from California is behind the Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Prevention Act, an effort to impose regulations on the internet. Eugene Volokh, the brilliant law professor who founded Volokh Conspiracy (one of the leading, and most stimulating, blogs) noted the overly broad language of the bill. And, how it can be used by a politician to stifle criticism.

Federal Felony To Use Blogs, the Web, Etc. To Cause Substantial Emotional Distress Through "Severe, Repeated, and Hostile" Speech?

That's what a House of Representatives bill, proposed by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others, would do. Here's the relevant text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both....

["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; ...

["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

He questions the motives of the lawmakers supporting such a constitutionally vague bill which would make just about any criticism made by blogs subject to fines or imprisonment.

As we should question the motives not just of them but of Barack Obama and his close friend, Cass Sunstein.

 

 

MEDIA MATTERS
U.S. regulatory czar nominee wants Net 'Fairness Doctrine'
Cass Sunstein sees Web as anti-democratic, proposed 24-hour delay on sending e-mail

Posted: April 27, 2009
8:41 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama's "Regulatory Czar" has advocated a "Fairness Doctrine" for the that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.

 

The revelations about Cass Sunstein, Obama's friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, come in a new book by Brad O'Leary, "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech." OIRA will oversee regulation throughout the U.S. government.

Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.

"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."

Sunstein first proposed the notion of imposing mandatory "electronic sidewalks" for the Net. These "sidewalks" would display links to opposing viewpoints. Adam Thierer, senior fellow and director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at the Progress and Freedom Center, has characterized the proposal as "The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet."

"Apparently in Sunstein's world, people have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one desires," Thierer wrote.

Later, Sunstein rethought his proposal, explaining that it would be "too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns." He also acknowledged that it was "almost certainly unconstitutional."

Perhaps Sunstein's most novel idea regarding the Internet was his proposal, in his book "Nudge," written with Richard Thaler, for a "Civility Check" for e-mails and other online communications.

"The modern world suffers from insufficient civility," they wrote. "Every hour of every day, people send angry e-mails they soon regret, cursing people they barely know (or even worse, their friends and loved ones). A few of us have learned a simple rule: don't send an angry e-mail in the heat of the moment. File it, and wait a day before you send it. (In fact, the next day you may have calmed down so much that you forget even to look at it. So much the better.) But many people either haven't learned the rule or don’t always follow it. Technology could easily help. In fact, we have no doubt that technologically savvy types could design a helpful program by next month."

That's where the "Civility Check" comes in.

"We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the e-mail you're about to send is angry and caution you, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. do you really and truly want to send it?'" they wrote. "(Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful e-mail message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in 24 hours.' With the stronger version, you might be able to bypass the delay with some work (by inputting, say, your Social Security number and your grandfather’s birth date, or maybe by solving some irritating math problem!)."

President Obama’s White House Health Care policy adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of Obama’s Chief of Staff and President Obama’s own personal protector in chief of the President, Rahm Emanuel.

Dr. Emanuel has some very frightening and disturbing views about healthcare “reform” and now, he worksge the way we live and how long we live for all Americans. Dr. Emanuel advocates a collectivist system of “merit-based” healthcare services called The Complete Lives System.


Ezekiel J. Emanuel is at the top of the Department of Bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health and a breast oncologist. He is on extended detail as a special advisor for health policy to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

He completed his studies at Amherst College, where he received his M.Sc. from Oxford University in Biochemistry. His M.D. is from Harvard Medical School. He was given his Ph.D. in political philosophy by Harvard University. His final dissertation was granted the Toppan Award for the finest political science dissertation of the year. In 1987-88, he became a fellow in the Program in Ethics and the Professions at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

After completing his internship and residency in internal medicine at Boston's Beth Israel Hospital and his oncology fellowship at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, he joined the faculty at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Dr. Emanuel was an Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School before joining the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Emanuel developed The Medical Directive, a comprehensive living will that has been endorsed by Consumer Reports on Health, Harvard Health Letter, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. He has published widely on the ethics of clinical research, health care reform, international research ethics, end of life care issues, euthanasia, the ethics of managed care, and the physician-patient relationship in the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, and many other medical journals. His book on medical ethics, The Ends of Human Life, has been widely praised and received honorable mention for the Rosenhaupt Memorial Book Award by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. He has also published No Margin, No Mission: Health-Care Organizations and the Quest for Ethical Excellence and co-edited Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research: Readings and Commentary. Dr. Emanuel has written extensively for the popular press, with articles and op-eds appearing in The Atlantic, The New Republic, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and many other publications.

One only must listen to Dr. Emanuel only slightly to discover that he is very intelligent and very flawed in the areas as the sacredness of life and someone who rides dangerously close to views also held by Nazi Germany. These is a very discernable lack of humanity in his call for very efficient and well-thought-out legal ways to commit legal mass murder. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel calls his Eugenic-like plan the Complete Lives System.

Dr. Emanuel first published his ideas of merit-based healthcare in the 1996 Hastings Center Report (Volume 26, No. 6) of which you can read a portion right here, in his own words:

“This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity – those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations – are to be socially guaranteed as basic.


OBAMA ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE

Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.”




The proposed healthcare bills now in development in both houses of congress will all ultimately put the decisions about your care and your longevity in the hands of presidential appointees, Czars who were never elected nor confirmed. They are deciding what plans will cover, how much independence your doctor can have and what treatments and care senior citizens deserve. Medicare will eventually become a thing of the past.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that much power. One of them is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two very important positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Emanuel has already warned the American public that the reductions in care for the very young and elderly will not be free of pain. Read Dr. Emanuel’s words below:


"Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

He has stated that savings would require that doctors change how they think about their patients: He believes that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).


Yes, that may be what you want your doctor to do, but Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look at the bigger picture and not just at the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. I would imagine that that most doctors are shocked and worried by the belief that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" (another word for Socialist) should dictate decisions on who gets care. He insists that medical care should be limited for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . as he felt similarly about not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96). That means that care to a grandmother with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson's or to a child with capacity issue like cerebral palsy should be seriously limited at best.


He unambiguously supports, defends, and encourages discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).


Dr. Emanuel has revealed his malicious and dictatorial ideas of his plan over several years and he published it in the January, 2009 issue (Volume 373, Issue 9661) of The Lancet. Here are some excerpts from the article follow:

Some people wrongly suggest that allocation can be based purely on scientific or clinical facts, often using the term “medical need”. There are no value-free medical criteria for allocation.

Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life.




When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.



Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending.

Dr. Emanuel’s Complete Lives methodology of applying his interpretation of both “allocative” and “distributive” justice to healthcare is put forth in the context of making sure that scarce medical resources are available first to those who remain productive and inclusive in society. That’s an important consideration when reviewing his “Complete Lives” proposal; it is not meant to address the allocation and distribution of readily available and plentiful medical resources, only scarce ones. It is a system divided into two levels of medical care, basic (guaranteed) and discretionary (not guaranteed) medical services. Some citizens (The very young and the elderly) will receive only basic services while others (Those who, in the government’s eyes, have not exhausted their complete lives) will receive both basic and some discretionary health services.


One of President Obama’s most proclaimed goals has always been healthcare “reform” and the reduction of costs and the spending of America’s treasure on healthcare. That certainly implies that money – tax dollars or deficit dollars – will essentially be a medical resource. This could very easily create a manufactured scenario that could produce the kind of scarcity that would


automatically invoke Dr. Emanuel’s bio-ethical philosophies. Dr Emanuel, Special Advisor to the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy and would undoubtedly be consulted on forced reductions in spending on healthcare.

It is all terribly frightening and not for the faint of heart. There are just too many ways that Dr. Emanuel’s own personal type of eugenics; this evil form of rationing could be law very soon into the future.



Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative:



This system incorporates five principles (table 2): youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice: “individual human lives, rather than individual experiences, [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate.”1,75,76 Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system. Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants (figure). Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life.77 As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, “It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when
an adolescent does”;78 this argument is supported by empirical surveys.41,79 Importantly, the prioritization of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo. Consequently, poor adolescents should be treated the same as wealthy ones, even though they may have received less investment owing to social injustice.

The complete lives system also considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses.42 When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable.1,30 Some small benefits, such as a few weeks of life, might also be intrinsically insignificant when compared with large benefits.8


Saving the most lives is also included in this system because enabling more people to live complete lives is better than enabling fewer.8,44 In a public health emergency, instrumental value could also be included to enable more

people to live complete lives. Lotteries could be used when making choices between roughly equal recipients, and also potentially to ensure that no individual—irrespective of age or prognosis—is seen as beyond saving.34,80

Thus, the complete lives system is complete in another way: it incorporates each morally relevant simple principle. When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated (figure).78 It therefore superficially resembles the proposal made by DALY advocates; however, the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely, DALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled people as objectively less valuable.

Finally, the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.58,59

Objections

We consider several important objections to the complete lives system.

The complete lives system discriminates against older people.81,82 Age-based allocation is ageism.82 Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age.8,39 Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.16 Treating 65-yearolds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.

Age, like income, is a “non-medical criterion” inappropriate for allocation of medical resources.14,83 In contrast to income, a complete life is a health outcome. Long-term survival and life expectancy at birth are key health-care outcome variables.84 Delaying the age at onset of a disease is desirable.85,86 The complete lives system is insensitive to international differences in typical lifespan. Although broad consensus
favors adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over the very elderly people, implementation can reasonably differ between, even within, nation-states.87,88 Some people believe that a complete life is a universal limit founded in natural human capacities, which everyone should accept even without scarcity.37 By contrast, the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, and accept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources.

Principles must be ordered lexically: less important principles should come into play only when more important ones are fulfilled.10 Rawls himself agreed that lexical priority was inappropriate when distributing specific resources in society, though appropriate for ordering the principles of basic social justice that shape the distribution of basic rights, opportunities, and income.1 As an alternative, balancing priority to the worst-off against maximizing benefits has won wide support in discussions of allocative local justice.1,8,30 As Amartya Sen argues, justice “does not specify how much more is to be given to the deprived person, but merely that he should receive more”.89

Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must fi rst reduce waste and increase spending.81,90 The complete lives system explicitly rejects waste and corruption, such as multiple listing for transplantation. Although it may be applicable more generally, the complete lives system has been developed to justly allocate persistently scarce life-saving interventions.39,80 Hearts for transplant and influenza vaccines, unlike money, cannot be replaced or diverted to non-health goals; denying a heart to one person makes it available to another. Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create “classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on”,91 but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.

Ultimately, none of the eight simple principles recognize all morally relevant values, and some recognize irrelevant values. QALY and DALY multi-principle systems neglect the importance of fair distribution. UNOS points systems attempt to address distributive justice, but recognize morally irrelevant values and are vulnerable to corruption. By contrast, the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives. In pandemic situations, it also allocates scarce interventions to people instrumental in realizing these four principles. Importantly, it is not an algorithm, but a framework that expresses widely affirmed values: priority to the worst-off , maximizing benefits, and treating people equally. To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multi-principle framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.











There may be many in Washington D.C who want to do as they please without having to explain themselves to the American people. Nevertheless, the American people are the ones who must decide what is good for them. The whole goal of Barack Obama and his shadow government is to reduce the population, reduce cost and to accomplish this however the ends justify the means. If this bill passes, there will never be a return to capitalism, to free speech, to self-determination. It is time to stand up. I do agree that the anger is manufactured. It is the Obama Administration who has manufactured this outpouring of worry and emotion, and it is we the people, who are now and who will continue to declare, Read the bill, Hear our voice, Get out of our lives and restore the constitution. Unless we stand up now and refuse intimidation or forced legislation that will ruin our lives, you will one day weep for the great nation that will be no more.

Steven Clark Bradley

















amazon.com barnesandnoble.com bordersstores.com booksamillion.com powells.com copperfields.com


What If...

Author
Frank F. Fiore

How Far Will an ArtificialIntelligence Go for Revenge?

I have gotten to know Frank Fiore well over the past year. I have found him to be a man of great integrity and imagination. He has a real love for his country and a profound and intense mind. He, like millions of us unsung heroes in America, is constantly doing his part to speak out about the obtuse changes now attacking this country. His love of country and insistence on exercising his Freedom of Speech in his writing as well shine clearly through his words and deeds, and truly demonstrated that he has the Voice of a Patriot.

Frank's writing experience also includes guest columns on social commentary and future trends published in the Arizona Republic and the Tribune papers in the metro Phoenix area.

Alvin Toffler

Through his writings, he has shown an ability to explain in a simplified manner, complex issues and trends. During his college years, he started, wrote and edited the New Times newspaper which is now a multi-state operation. Frank's interests in future patterns and trends range over many years and many projects. He co-wrote the Terran Project, a self-published book on community futures design processes, and worked as a researcher for Alvin Toffler on a series of high school texts on the future. He has designed and taught courses and seminars on the future of society, technology and business and was appointed by the Mayor of Phoenix to serve on the Phoenix Futures Forum as co-chairperson and served on several vital committees.

Frank has a B.A. in Liberal Arts and General Systems Theory from Stockton State College and a Master Degree in Education at the University of Phoenix. He and his wife of 30 years have one son. They live in Paradise Valley, AZ.

How Far Will an Artificial Intelligence Go for Revenge?

Fans of Tom Clancy, James Patterson and Clive Cussler, would enjoy this twist on the Frankenstein myth. A brilliant programmer, Travis Cole, inadvertently creates "Dorian," an artificial intelligence that lives on the Internet. After Cole attempts to terminate his creation, Dorian stalks his young daughter through cyberspace in an attempt to reach Cole to seek revenge. When cyber-terrorism events threaten the United States, they turn out to stem from the forsaken and bitter Dorian. In the final conflict, Dorian seeks to kill his creator - even if it has to destroy all of humanity to do it.

Cyberkill

Almost every novel has a back story. It’s the author’s way of pushing his or her’s particular opinion on a subject. CyberKill is no exception.

 

The geographic locations, government and military installations and organizations, information warfare scenarios, artificial intelligence, robots, and the information and communications technology in this book all exist.

As for SIRUS, pieces of the technology are either in existence or in the research and development stage. According to the Department of Defense, it doesn’t exist.

 

On October 23rd 2007, The Fars News Agency of Iran, accused the US of manufacturing a genetic weapon. Head of the Foundation for the Protection of the Values of the Sacred Defense, General Mir Feysal Bagherzadeh said the US was seeking to manufacture a weapon which could kill specific peoples in a limited geographical area. The General further pointed out that the move should be considered as a case of genocide, “because they intend to massacre specific peoples and ethnicities” with the help of this weapon. The US Department of Defense denies the report.

Travis Cole is an artificial intelligence (AI) researcher hired by the US Army Information Warfare Laboratory (IWL) after 9-11 to program their top secret nano-dust used to monitor and report biological or chemical warfare agents in a given area. But the dust has a second even more secret use - one only known by the military and BioNan, the manufacturer of the nano-dust. It’s really a new type of viral weapon named SIRUS (short for ‘silicon virus’) that can be programmed using Cole’s code to read a victim’s ethnic DNA and kill only them.

Unknown to the government, the military had dispersed the dust all around the globe in readiness for any enemy to appear anywhere and at anytime, with the potential of creating genocide on a global scale. The military also conspired with the dominant wireless chip manufactures to include Cole’s code in their wireless chip programming so that the dust can communicate and be launched from wherever it is around the world through any wireless device containing the chips.

A few years before joining the IWL, Cole ran an AI research project at MIT. He created a series of intelligent software agents and released them onto the Internet to learn, grow and evolve. When he was called to the IWL, he sent out a series of commands to terminate the agents. All were terminated except one that had developed into a very smart artificial intelligence. That agent interpreted Cole’s program termination as an attempt on its life. In turn, it decided to seek revenge on Cole.

The harassment of Cole, the online stalking of his young daughter, the cyber-terrorism attacks of the People’s Brigade, and threats of information warfare by a cybercult called the Digitari Brotherhood, are all the result of the surviving agent bent on seeking revenge on Cole. The rogue agent takes the name of Dorian and sets himself up as the leader of the Brotherhood that he uses to vent his revenge on Cole.

What Are The Subplots That Converge

By The End Of The Novel?

The first is the killing of Michael Bates who is a VP at a large wireless chip manufacture. He stumbled upon the military and chipmakers conspiracy. He is ordered killed by Dorian who doesn’t want the conspiracy to be known because Dorian uses the new wireless chips to access the Internet anywhere and anyway he chooses.

The second subplot is the harassment and then attempts on Cole’s life by Dorian using the cyber-terrorists of the People’s Brigade – an arm of the Digitari Brotherhood. A year before, Dorian tried to kill Cole but missed, and killed his wife instead, making it look like an automobile accident.

The third subplot is that of the Digitari Brotherhood. They hack the web sites of the major news agencies around the world and post a manifesto threatening to take back the Internet from the multinational corporations and governments who control it and oppress it’s cyber-citizens. Their goal is the digital emancipation of cyberspace.

The fourth is the online stalking of Cole’s 4-year old computer savvy daughter by her imaginary playmate called Goppy –who is really Dorian. In its obsession to take revenge on Cole, Dorian uses any person he can to get close to Cole. He uses Cole’s daughter to transfer himself into her birthday gift – a Sony AIBO robot dog. Then using the threat of a dirty bomb explosion, it drives Cole and his daughter with Dorian in the robot dog, into the IWL where Dorian gains access to the Lab’s computer network and all the digital weapons stored there – including SIRUS.

The fifth subplot is the clandestine development and global dispersion of SIRUS.

 

After all of these events emerge, Cole finally realizes that what has transpired were not the results of cyber-terrorists but only attempts on his life. By the end of the book, Cole discovers the nature of SIRUS, that Dorian is the agent he did not terminate and seeks revenge on Cole, and in the final climatic battle at the IWL between Cole’s team, homicidal battlebots and an ASIMO called Isaac, all controlled by Dorian, he prevents Dorian from launching SIRUS in its last attempt at trying to kill Cole – even if it has to destroy most of the human population of earth to do it.

~~~~

What Do Readers Think About

Cyberkill

A Captivating, Fast-Paced Thriller, July 27, 2009

By	C S Weinblatt "Charles Weinblatt, Author of &... (Ohio USA)

Cyberkill is the thrilling story of a mendacious artificial intelligence, created by a brilliant scientist and adapted into an evil conspiracy. Author Frank Fiore weaves an intricate plot of wickedness, as the iniquitous Dorian sweeps electronically into the fabric of American life. Replete with action, suspense and adventure, Cyberkill carries the reader through a chilling escapade of international conspiracy, science run amok and terrifying homicide.

Fiore's new work is a compelling piece of science fiction, with persuasive mystery, convincing characters, ubiquitous trepidation, and a thrilling conclusion. This tale is wrapped together into a taught package of excitement and intrigue. Fiore has created a powerful page-turner, with gripping tension; it contains a suspenseful timeline and the ultimate evil, a computer-generated malevolence eager to prey upon an innocent child and the child's father - its creator.

Fiore employs believable scenarios with existing scientific technology to weave a frightening tale fraught with continuous peril. A computer virus that has the potential to morph into a deadly human illness seems both plausible and devastatingly traumatic. The fact that such military weapons could be employed in the near future makes this tale that much more startling and conceivable.

A twisted, evil computer-generated entity was created inadvertently from the mind of brilliant scientist Travis Cole. Originally designed to "sniff out" biological and chemical weapons, the computer program becomes warped into the evil "Dorian," a terrifying cybernetic murderer. Dorian stalks Cole's young daughter and initiates cyber terrorism attacks throughout the world. When Cole discovers that his own creation was distorted into this terrifying beast, he tries to demolish it. The evil creature eventually turns upon its creator in an attempt to murder Cole.

Most of the science Fiore uses is valid or close to being current. Many people fear being tracked electronically by telephones, computers or vendors. In a viral way, Big Brother is upon us and this fear has been exacerbated effectively by the author. Nor is it difficult to hate an electronic villain. Such ubiquities litter our cultural landscape. The author plays with a latent unstable confidence in the security of our inventions. From the Andromeda Strain to 2001 to A Space Odyssey, our love/fear relationship with technology is strongly ingrained. The thought of a dark, calculating entity can grasp an audience tightly, particularly when sinister emotions prevail. Since Robbie the Robot in Forbidden Planet and Asimov's I Robot, to Hal in 2001, A Space Odyssey, and the cybernetic science officer in Alien, our culture has become obsessed with emotionally unstable and dangerous computers that think like humans and can kill.

Many international and US government entities explored through this book exist, as does the technology surrounding this mendacious cybernetic being. All of this helps to make Cyberkill genuine as well as intriguing.

Congratulations to Fiore for his captivating, fast-paced thriller. One can only anticipate the cinematic appearance of this frightening yarn.

Charles S. Weinblatt Author, Jacob's Courage Jacob's Courage: A Holocaust Love Story

~~~

Is Cyberkill A Plausible Scenario?

Read this Related Article and Become a Believer

Is The U.S. Headed For A Cyberwar?

http://reviews.cnet.com/1990-3513_7-5021272-1.html

Robert used to think the threat of cyber war was nonexistent--but he's changed his mind. Now he believes our country's information infrastructure may very well be the target of guerilla warfare over the Net. Here's why.

Earlier this year, I dismissed the idea that the United States would see an all-out cyber war anytime soon. I have since changed my mind. I still don't believe we'll see a large-scale, well-coordinated offensive. But I do think small, spontaneous, politically motivated attacks are possible in the near future.

What changed my mind about the possibility of cyber war was a series of articles by Giles Trendle, a former war correspondent who now writes about cyber terrorism. In the 1980s, Trendle covered the ground war in Lebanon and became an expert on guerrilla warfare, which is essentially what cyber warfare is. Although his articles focus largely on the cyber conflict between Arabs and Israelis, it's easy to see how the same type of attacks could occur elsewhere in the world, too.

Cyberwars are already here

Cyberattacks are already part of modern warfare. In the past two years, malicious users on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict have deployed viruses and worms, inundated government sites with huge amounts of e-mail, and launched distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on e-commerce sites. As part of the Kashmir conflict, an Indian-authored worm, Yaha, created a DDoS attack on the main Pakistani government Web site earlier this year.

One phenomenon Trendle talks about--the so-called swarm factor--helped change my mind about the nature of cyber war. The swarm factor describes the unpredictable ability of like-minded individuals to show up at an event, create mayhem, and then disperse. The spontaneous 1999 World Trade Organization riot in Seattle is an example of this. It's easy to see how, in accordance with the swarm factor, a handful of politically motivated Web sites could act as lightning rods, supplying the tools for malicious users to carry out cyber attacks.

The idea that the United States' current and future military actions could bring about aggression in cyberspace is not that far-fetched. In a recent article, Trendle cites the number of pro-Palestinian followers who see a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq as cause to begin attacking U.S. interests online.

Cybersuicide attacks

Trendle also presents evidence that suicide attacks could be a key part of future cyber conflicts. He interviewed a pro-Palestinian hacker who made a pledge to carry out online suicide attacks. While most malicious users act with some caution because they don't want to be identified, a suicide cyber attack could inflict greater damage because the attacker wouldn't have to go to the trouble of hiding his or her identity.

Such a low-budget cyber war scenario is not implausible to the U.S. government. In his video interview with CNET Radio's Brian Cooley, President Bush's cyber security advisor Richard Clarke admitted that several of our enemies are capable of attacks via the Internet. Clarke said that in the 1980s, Iraq spent hundreds of millions of dollars and employed several thousand people to build an atomic bomb. Engaging in a cyber war would cost considerably less than that, Clarke continued, and would not require the resources of a nation state.

Advance preparation

How prepared are you--or your company--for such a cyber attack? You can find out at ZDNet's Digital Defense special report. The report includes a test to discover how well you're protected against malicious users. (If you're not prepared, you'll receive links to resources that can help secure your home or office.) In addition, the Digital Defense report shows the results of a comprehensive survey on enterprise security, presents three possible cyber attack scenarios, and offers advice from security experts in government and private industry.

I think we're still years away from seeing armies of well-funded cyber soldiers plundering through our data resources. But a single malicious user can cause a lot of damage--and a handful of politically motivated script kiddies, pooling their resources, could be even more dangerous. It's not hard to imagine how that type of individual and small-group action could escalate into a true cyber conflict.

Excerpt From

Cyberkill by Frank Fiore

Prologue

The airplane was leaving in a few hours, but Travis Cole still had some unfinished business. One of which was to get his in-law off his back.

“Please, John. We’ve been over this a hundred times,” Cole murmured, leaning forward on his desk to stare down at the computer monitor in front of him. He rested his fingers lightly on the keyboard, his hazel eyes focused on the command prompt on the screen:

DO YOU WANT TO EXECUTE? Y/N

Could he really do it?

Though Cole had made up his mind, it was now formal decision time. Pressing ‘N’ would continue his life as a well-known researcher in eco-biology at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Pressing ‘Y’ would end three years of cutting-edge work and move him and his daughter to a new home in Washington, DC and a lucrative research job with the U.S. Army.

Cole’s finger hovered over the keyboard--he felt sick.

John François was, as usual, sucking on the end of an ornately carved wood and leather pipe. It went along with his academic look elbow-patched sports coat, baggy brown pants, and loafers.

“It’s not right, Travis,” François implored. “It’s not right to take Shannon away from the environment she knows just weeks after her mother’s death. It’s just not right.”

Cole kept his focus on the task at hand. They had been over this a thousand times. Shannon, Cole’s young daughter, was already in the car, waiting. In fact, all of his luggage and many of his important worldly belongings waited there as well. He was going to return later for the rest of his stuff.

For now....

For now, he had to just get away.

Cole’s finger still hovered. He blinked hard. Could he really do this?

Yes, I can do this.

“And what about this?” François said as he opened the cover of a three-ring binder with the title TERRAN PROJECT written in blue across the front. François gently thumbed through the pages and pointed at the different artificial intelligent programs that Cole had cataloged and tracked while at MIT. “You’re just going to throw away years of work?”

Cole ignored François and turned back to the computer terminal with its blinking white cursor awaiting a reply.

He took in some air--and pressed the ‘Y’ key on the keyboard.

He turned to François while the computer executed his command. Cole couldn’t watch. Instead, he looked at his aging in-law with compassion for the man. François had lived alone since his wife died of leukemia ten years before. Cole and Shannon were the closest thing he had to family.

“John--” said Cole gently, but François cut him off.

“Shannon’s only eight years old, Travis. Taking her away from the environment she knew isn’t the answer,” he pleaded. The older man had tears in his eyes.

Damn. Cole gently placed his hand on François’s arm. “John, I don’t know what I would have done without your help after Kathy’s death. But I know what’s best for Shannon. I have to give her a change of environment.” Cole squeezed François’s arm, then looked back to the computer terminal. He watched as file name after file name appeared on the screen, all tagged with the statement:

FILE FOUND. FILE TERMINATED

Cole looked at his watch. “Jeez. We have to go. You’ll see us off?”

François nodded in resignation.

“Thanks. Shannon will like that.” Cole glanced once more at the scrolling text on the computer screen, turned, and hurried out the office with François close behind.

In the darkness of the vacated room, the program reached the end of its routine, and then stopped on the last file. The text that glowed from the LCD screen turned from white to red and blinked repeatedly insisting on an answer.

FILE FOUND. FILE ACTIVE.

ABORT OR CONTINUE?

* One Year Later *

Taishi, China

“I’m sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Supervisor, but we’ve found something--odd.”

Alexi Chenko put down the latest issue of Pravda and frowned at his head lab technician Ho Quan, a little man with dark-rimmed spherical glasses and a stubby bearded chin. His round head sat atop an even rounder body. Quan, normally stoic and reserved, looked agitated, and sweat lined his brow. As always, he spoke crisply in his Mandarin Chinese, the official spoken language of the People’s Republic of China.

Chenko was having a bad morning, and this latest interruption didn’t bode well. Already he’d received numerous infuriating calls from high-level Beijing bureaucrats, wanting to know when various communication devices would be cleared and ready for use. Followed by his wife calling to remind him of a dinner party tonight, a party Chenko had done his best to forget about. And now this. Whatever this is.

“What’s wrong?” Chenko asked in his near-perfect Chinese. He’d always had a penchant for picking up languages, a facility that had served him well as he rose quickly up the Kremlin ranks. But now, semi-exiled and banished from Mother Russia, he filled his days working in a tiny three-man facility outside a small village in southern China.

“May I show you?” asked Quan, and Chenko noted the man was visibly shaken.

Something’s wrong, thought Chenko. Seriously wrong…

Frank Fiore’s Other Books:

The Chronicles of Jeremy Nash

Combining the best of Indiana Jones, National Treasure and the X-Files, the Chronicles of Jeremy Nash © is a new continuing series featuring the skeptic and debunker Jeremy Nash ©. Each of the Nash chronicles in the series is a thriller that sends Nash on an investigation of a conspiracy theory, unsolved mystery, urban myth, New Age belief or paranormal practice. Though he doesn't believe in any of them, he is forced into pursuing them by threats to the lives of his family members, himself or his reputation.

The thrilling formula of the chronicles forces Nash to pursue a series of clues and puzzles that he must solve; combined with an underlying real world threat of event, organization or persons that is somehow connected to what he is pursuing. All this makes for a good action/adventure read.

To Christopher: From A Father To His Son

Under the guise of a book to my adolescent son, I've written one for adults. It guides the reader on a journey through the values, hopes and promises of the last three generations. Through personal experiences, teaching stories, and the social and cultural history of the last 100 years, I discuss with Christopher the values we must hold for the future and why we are here. I hoped that the book may act as both sage words for the reader and a valuable guide to Christopher as he grows up.

 

Frank Fiore is a bestselling author of over 50,000 copies of his non-fiction books that include:

• Launching Your Yahoo! Business - Que Publishing
• Succeeding at Your Yahoo! Business - Que Publishing
• Write a Business Plan in No Time - Que Publishing
• The 2005 Online Shopping Directory for Dummies - Que Publishing
• The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Starting an Online Business - Que Publishing
• eMarketing Strategies (translated into other languages)- Que Publishing
• Successful Affiliate Marketing for Merchants - Que Publishing
• TechTV’s Starting an Online Business - Que Publishing
• Dr. Livingston’s Online Shopping Safari Guidebook - Maximum Press

 

Be sure your older friends and loved ones see

it. They'll be the first to be rationed.I can't wait

for my suicide counseling sessions

with a bureaucrat.

I did not compile this very important material. Yet, I am grateful to whomever did and I would love to give them credit for all the hard work they did here. I am just simply trying to help them disseminate the information they thought was vital for Americans.

Just so you know what is really in President Obama's health care bill, I have prepared this informational blog to give everyone a heads-up about reforms of America's Health Care system that will ultimately kill many of us. Please read these key points and decide if this is really...

OH Really? Let's See About That...

Subject: A few highlights from the first 500 pages of the Healthcare bill in congress

Contact your Representatives and let them know how you feel about this. We, as a country, cannot afford another 1000 page bill to go through congress without being read. Another 500 pages to go. I have highlighted a few of the items that are down right unconstitutional.

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

There Is Nothing Like Freedom,

and This Is Nothing Like Freedom!

• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

 

What Is This A Precursor To?

• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

 

E2 Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

So, who will want to be a Doctor Now?

• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange

Total government control of private plans?

• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens

They don't pay - Not even in taxes - We DO!

• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

Are Acorn and Americorp

Obama's Civillian Army?

• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for pr ice-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.

• Page 149: Any employer with a payr oll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
0 Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.

What's That Mean?

Goodbye Yellow-Brick Road?

• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate20taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

• Main
• Archives
• Albums
• Links
• Send us a story or an E-Mail
• Summary-Blog Directory
• Admin

«	August 2009					»
Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa	Su
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

• The United States of America Vassal State of The People's Republic of China
• Automated response - A New Line Emerges by Steven Clark Bradley
• All Fall Down - Patriot Acts Part Three by Steven Clark Bradley
• Take A Look At "Homeless Like Me" by Donald James Parker
• Take A Look At "Homeless Like Me" by Donald James Parker
• have You Ever Felt...?
• What I Am Prepared NOT To Do? by Steven Clark Bradley
• Four Lessons For Willow Morgan by Steven Clark Bradley & Selin Alicia Bradley

• stevenbradley [66]
• General [6]

• RSS 0.90
• RSS 1.0
• RSS 2.0
• Atom