Posts

Not Even Amateur Radio Will Be Safe in the Future: Mass Collection of RF Audio and Geolocational Data Underway

In the past, intelligence analysts have only had access to classified government satellite data when assessing radio frequency use all over the world. Now, a pilot program with HawkEye 360 is feeding those analysts commercial RF data, potentially opening the floodgates to a torrent of new unclassified data.

“NGA’s analyst community has never had access to commercial RF before. It’s always been in the domain of the government, for them to collect and supply to the analyst,” CEO John Serafini told C4ISRNET. “It’s been highly classified data.”

RF signals play a massive role in the modern world, enabling communications across vast distances without physical connections. With its formation-flying satellites, HawkEye 360 aims to make that invisible world visible. It’s satellites can detect RF emissions all over the world, which can then be used to identify and geolocate the signals’ origins. That level of analysis has a number of applications for the defense and intelligence community, from simply improving maritime domain awareness by detecting ships that have disabled their automatic identification system, to giving war fighters a better understanding of RF activity on the battlefield.

In September, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency launched the RF GEOINT Pilot program, importing HawkEye 360′s unclassified data as well as the company’s processed analytics.

One advantage of using the commercial data is that it’s unclassified, making it easier to share with mission and coalition partners. (Read more from “Not Even Amateur Radio Will Be Safe in the Future: Mass Collection of RF Audio and Geolocational Data Underway” HERE)

Delete Facebook, Delete Twitter, Follow Restoring Liberty and Joe Miller at gab HERE and MeWe HERE

Mike Lee Wants to Fight Cronyism in Government to Restore American Exceptionalism

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) spoke about the problems of cronyism in American government during a speech he gave at the Heritage Foundation Wednesday.

“Cronyism simultaneously corrupts our economy and our government, turning both against the American people,” Lee said. “It forces American families who ‘work hard and play by the rules’ to prop up, bail out, and subsidize elite special interests that don’t.”

Cronyism is leading to unequal opportunity in the United States. Lee said the GOP must address this threat to American exceptionalism by rooting out cronyism privilege and restoring fairness.

“Free enterprise works—morally and materially—because it aligns the interests of the individual and society,” Lee said. “It’s a system governed by an ‘invisible hand’ that rewards the creation of value, and by an ‘invisible foot’ that punishes complacency, especially at the top.”

Lee went after both indirect and direct subsidies in his speech.

Read more from this story HERE.

Jim DeMint: ‘Big Government Benefits the Rich’

FRONT COVER-FALLING IN LOVE WITH AMERICA AGAIN-JIM DEMINT_2When the Census Bureau released its most recent ranking of the U.S. communities with the highest median household incomes, seven of the nation’s ten wealthiest counties were in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.

In an interview about his new book, Falling in Love With America Again, Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint told CNSNews.com he had a theory that might explain this. “[B]ig government benefits the rich and big business,” he said.

In the book, DeMint describes the cozy, symbiotic relationship that often exists between people working for the federal government and people representing big business.

“In Washington,” DeMint wrote, “it’s a rule of thumb that government staffers charged with overseeing an industry want to go to work for that industry one day, for a huge raise. ‘Cashing in,’ it’s called, or ‘moving to K Street’ (the downtown Washington artery that’s synonymous with the lobbying business).”

Here, from his interview with CNSnews.com, is DeMint’s explanation of how people come to Washington to do public service and end up getting rich:

Read more from this story HERE.

Foreign Vote-Count Firm Partners with Big Government Contractor

Photo Credit: WNDScytl, the Spanish-based electronic elections firm, has partnered with a leading online security and access provider to state and federal government clients.

The partnership could help safeguard the election programs of Scytl’s U.S. division.

In January 2012, Scytl acquired 100 percent of SOE Software, the leading software provider of election management solutions in the United States. The sale garnered national attention after it was spotlighted by the popular Drudge Report.

Reads an SOE press release: “SOE is now partnering with VASTEC, a leading accessibility access provider to state and federal government clients. VASTEC currently provides Section 508 compliance services at the highest government levels, including the Social Security Administration, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.”

“VASTEC offers accessibility services and remediation tailored to the client’s needs,” said Shelby Tudor, VASTEC’s program manager for accessibility services.

Read more this story HERE.

In Big Government We Trust

Photo Credit: J. David Ake / AP

Photo Credit: J. David Ake / AP

Buried deep in the heart of mankind is the emotional need for security. For instance, all of us have a need to feel reasonably secure we will have access to food, shelter, clothing, and physical safety both this week and next.

This intense need for emotional security is met in two diametrically opposed ways. Both require a degree of faith because they bridge the gap from the known present to the unknown future. The traditional American way to feel secure is through religious faith. For instance, the once nearly pervasive American belief was that every able person should work hard for a living, give to others less fortunate, and then trust in God to provide for unknown variables outside of one’s personal control. The competing modern secular way to feel secure is to have faith in government security. This government centric world view, which the United States initially shunned for our first two centuries of existence, is now being adopted en masse in America. The question begs- what world view has the best effect on long-term human happiness and financial prosperity?

Americans have a long history of being highly autonomous and fiercely individualistic. Our ancestors stepped off ships like the Mayflower with hardly anything more than the desire for religious freedom in their hearts and the clothes on their backs. Many early colonies operated by the Biblical principle that, “if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either (2 Thessalonians 3:10b NASB).” To provide the emotional security needed to feel happy and secure amidst constant unknown frontier variables they lived by the faith motto, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind [i.e. government] and makes flesh his strength, and whose heart turns away from the Lord. For he will be like a bush in the desert and will not see when prosperity comes, but will live in stony wastes in the wilderness, a land of salt without inhabitant. Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord and whose trust is the Lord. For he will be like a tree planted by the water, that extends its roots by a stream and will not fear when the heat comes; but its leaves will be green, and it will not be anxious in a year of drought nor cease to yield fruit’” (Jeremiah 17:5-8 NASB). The colonist’s lack of need to trade in a portion of their personal freedom for Great Britain’s government security made them indomitable during our War for Independence.

Today as America’s rugged individualistic beliefs of faith, freedom, privacy, and property are being displaced by a bureaucratic redistributive state, are we better off? I would argue that we are not.

History tells us that individual freedom with a competitive market economy outperforms a bureaucratic redistributive economy every single time without exception. For instance, from 1776 to the mid-1960s, the United States topped virtually every country in the world for economic growth, academic performance, individual health, and freedom from crime. Individual freedom and personal responsibility had not only created the most prosperous nation on the planet but also the highest standard of living in world history. Then we decided to tinker with the system to try to pull a small minority of people up out of poverty but in the process sank more people down into it.

President Lyndon Johnson first declared war on poverty in 1964 by throwing billions of dollars at it, and in the process only made it worse and permanently institutionalized it. When the federal government offered a welfare benefit to single-parent families in order to break the poverty cycle, it expanded the single-parent family structure from the minority structure to the majority structure in certain neighborhoods. Today, the more money we provide to programs like food stamps, the more people we permanently ensnare in the program. The first and foremost principle of any social program should be to make it temporary in nature with the express goal of springing people out of the poverty trap- not to create a permanently dependent voting constituency.

The economic challenge with switching from “in God we trust,” to “in government we trust,” is that government bureaucracy is the least efficient mechanism for distributing goods and services throughout a society. Bureaucracies tend to hobble their customers in endless red tape while obfuscating their own personal responsibility and accountability. It stands to reason that a bureaucratically run country will always be the least prosperous. History has shown this to be true. Worse, when bureaucracies become too large, they tend to make self-interest their raison d’être and can develop a paranoia for self-preservation and expansion. In communist countries this paranoia manifests itself in Stasi-style secret police, domestic spying, and armed paramilitary enforcement divisions. These bureaucracies constantly trumpet real or imagined existential threats to our security in order to snatch away personal liberty and privacy while jealously persecuting all rivals to its trust. In certain countries religion itself gets banned as competitor to the faith in the state.

In free countries, an intense market competition always drives down prices, creates constant innovation, and rewards hard work with a better life. In contrast, a centrally planned competitionless society fails to provide the necessary challenge that individuals need to achieve greatness, and therefore lowers academic and economic performance to the lowest common denominator- as is witnessed by our gasping economy and failing public schools now ranked 29th in the world in math.

Freedom is insecure prosperity. Socialism is secure communal misery administered by insecure bureaucracy. Freedom requires privacy for existence and therefore holds it sacrosanct. Socialism declares war on privacy because it fears individual freedom. Freedom challenges individuals to do great things with their lives and conquer what was once deemed unconquerable. Socialism encourages individuals to become collective dependents of the bureaucracy. The Founding Father’s expression of their faith is printed on our currency in the form of, “In God we trust.” We all must choose where to put our faith.

_____________________________________________________________

“Daniel Hamm resides in Palmer Alaska. He is an international airline pilot, small business owner, author, and active in local politics.”

72 Percent of Americans See Big Government as Biggest Threat to Future of Country

Photo Credit: Fox News

Photo Credit: Fox News

Gallup poll: Record 72 percent believe big government is USA’s greatest threat

By Fox News.

A new Gallup poll finds 72 percent of Americans feel big government poses a greater threat to the United States in the future than big business or big labor, a record high since the polling outfit began asking the question nearly 50 years ago.

The response suggests that far-reaching government policies, such as ObamaCare, along with recent revelations of NSA spying tactics, have helped raise concerns among Americans, the company said Wednesday.

“(The findings) may be partly a reaction to an administration that favors the use of government to solve problems,” Gallup wrote.

Big government has always topped business and labor as a concern since Gallup began asking the question in 1965, but its previous high was 65 percent in 1999 and 2000, before the Sept. 11 attacks helped rally American support for government institutions and officials.

Read more from this story HERE.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Record High in U.S. Say Big Government Greatest Threat

By Jeffrey M. Jones.

jlaajnj50uiqlfbphys0qq

Seventy-two percent of Americans say big government is a greater threat to the U.S. in the future than is big business or big labor, a record high in the nearly 50-year history of this question. The prior high for big government was 65% in 1999 and 2000. Big government has always topped big business and big labor, including in the initial asking in 1965, but just 35% named it at that time.

The latest update comes from a Dec. 5-8 poll. Gallup has documented a steady increase in concern about big government since 2009, rising from 55% in March 2009 to 64% in November 2011 and 72% today. This suggests that government policies specific to the period, such as the Affordable Care Act — perhaps coupled with recent revelations of government spying tactics by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden — may be factors.

Currently, 21% name big business as the greatest threat, while 5%, a record low, say big labor. The high point for big labor was 29% in 1965. No more than 11% of Americans have chosen big labor since 1995, clearly reflecting the decline of the labor movement in the United States in recent decades.

The historical high choosing big business, 38%, came in 2002, after a series of corporate scandals rocked major corporations including Enron and Tyco. Also at that time, Americans may have been less willing to choose government given the rally in support for government institutions and officials after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Americans were also more likely to view big business as a big threat during the recent recession, with more than three in 10 choosing it in 2008 and 2009, a time when many large corporations, including financial and automotive companies, failed or were in danger of failing without government intervention. But fewer Americans now view big business as a threat — the current 21% is the lowest Gallup has measured since 1983.

Read more from this story HERE.

Big Government: What Does it Take for America to Wake Up?

Photo Credit: Human EventsSomeone did an experiment to test an old tale — that a frog placed in a pot of cool water, which is then slowly and continuously heated, will be boiled to death. By contrast, if thrown directly into scalding hot water, the frog jumps out. But it turns out that, no, once the water got hot enough, the critter hopped out of Dodge.

This raises a question. At what point does the continuous growth and intrusiveness of government make people wake up? This is not just a matter of theory or philosophy. People are hurting — as a direct result of President Barack Obama, his party and the inability of the GOP to make the case for a smaller, less expensive and less intrusive government.

For five years, we have watched as President Barack Obama successfully pushed the following redistributionist agenda for building an economy: Take from the most productive to “stimulate” the economy by redistributing money, often with political consideration involved or attached; allow bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in the market; issue feel-good, top-down regulations that cost jobs and do little to improve conditions; and dictate the terms of health care with ObamaCare, a monstrosity that places one-seventh of our economy under the control of the federal government.

The results are in.

This is the worst economic recovery since World War II. Unemployment remains high. So many able-bodied people are dropping out of the labor force that the “labor force participation rate” remains near a 30-year low.

Read more from this story HERE.

Newt Blasts ‘Repugnant’ Rove Super PAC, GOP Consulting Class

Photo Credit: BreitbartOn Wednesday, Former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich blistered Republican consultant Karl Rove, saying Rove’s new super PAC that was created to wage war against conservatives and Tea Party candidates in GOP primaries should be “repugnant” to every conservative and Republican.

Gingrich, in his weekly newsletter, writes of Rove, “no one person is smart enough nor do they have the moral right to buy nominations across the country” and that a “bunch of billionaires financing a boss to pick candidates in 50 states” is “the opposite of the Republican tradition of freedom and grassroots small town conservatism.”

“That is the system of Tammany Hall and the Chicago machine,” Gingrich writes.

Gingrich points out that, while Rove likes to point to Christine O’Donnell’s 2010 loss in the Delaware Senate race as a reason for creating his super PAC, Rove-backed candidates in 2012 lost “winnable senate races in Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida.”

“So in seven of the nine losing races, the Rove model has no candidate-based explanation for failure,” Gingrich writes. “Handing millions to Washington based consultants to destroy the candidates they dislike and nominate the candidates they do like is an invitation to cronyism, favoritism and corruption.”

Gingrich writes that it is “appalling how little some Republican consultants have learned from the 2012 defeat” and “even more disturbing how arrogant their plans for the future are.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Conservative Doc Reveals Why He Spoke Out Against Obama’s Policies At Prayer Breakfast- Plus, Would He Ever Run For President?

Photo Credit: Getty ImagesWith President Barack Obama sitting just feet away, Dr. Benjamin Carson stood up for conservative principles in his speech at Thursday’s National Prayer Breakfast, discussing the national debt, political correctness and even healthcare. Readers loved his speech so much that TheBlaze’s story on it went viral.

On Friday, Carson appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity” to explain why he felt compelled to speak out against the big government policies endorsed by Obama, in front of Obama.

Carson, a renown neurosurgeon, said the response to his speech has been “overwhelmingly” positive. However, he argued he didn’t make a conservative argument, but rather a “logical” and “common-sense” one.

“I don’t know where we left our brains,” he told host Sean Hannity.

Carson went on to talk about his life story, saying he grew up in a single parent home in a poverty-stricken area. He said his mother “refused to be a victim” and “never felt sorry for herself,” despite only having a third grade education.

Regarding his comments on political correctness, the neurosurgeon emphasized the importance of “freedom of speech and freedom of expression” in the United States.

Read more from this story HERE.

The Tyranny of Solutions

Sinclair Lewis was so 20th Century.

Progressives have effectively burnt the cross and the flag already. Thus, old-style patriotism and religiosity can’t even win elections in heartland states- just ask Senators Akin and Mourdoch.

No, that’s not where the threat festers. When tyranny comes to America, it will be advanced by earnest public officials, enforcing intrusive rules declared necessary to stamp out social problems and purify us of bad consumer choices. The oppression generally will be applauded by elites and educated people. Whether or not it prevails and becomes the new normal depends on the rest of us, our outrage, and the effectiveness and staying power of our response.

But, those folks who are anxiously monitoring Washington and a president who ill-conceals that, to him, the Constitution presents more of an obstacle than a genius bulwark for freedom, might be missing an important point. Yes, Washington is out of control. For liberty to prevail, it must be confronted, restrained, and redirected. But, so too, our local authorities and institutions can trample our liberties, our privacy, and our domestic tranquility.

Law students learn an aphorism about the development of law: Hard cases make bad law. An incident or two last year in my home state of Colorado illustrate the point: hard circumstances invite bad decisions and establish bad precedents. Citizens can be almost powerless to respond.

Read more from this story HERE.