The new surveillance program
- Thread starter CORRECTION2007
- Start date
The most annoying part of the aftermath of my run-in with the Department of Homeland Security is how the Department is getting the people around me to constantly lie to me that I am not a target of their surveillance. The most bizarre instance of this involves my aunt and uncle.
My aunt and uncle work at Northrop Grumman. Once late October last year they came to my church at Long Beach (California) to pick me up for lunch. That, remember, is just the time when the Department of Homeland Security had put the city of Long Beach under a covert state of emergency but had not yet sealed me completely in a "surveillance bubble". As we arrived at the Chinese restaurant Haixienge in Westminster in Orange County and were waiting outside for seats, a DHS surveillance agent (a young Chinese guy) went behind my aunt to try to record her conversation. I waved my hand in front of his face. My aunt turned around and asked me what was going on. I told her about the whole DHS deal, how they would evacuate the entire bus and refill it with surveillance agents only when I needed to take the bus, and how their surveillance agents were so easily identifiable, sometimes just by looking at their face. My aunt and uncle were stunned, withdrew the reservation at the restaurant, took me instead to the Mexican place next to my apartment in Long Beach, and were super-courteous to all the surveillance agents that filled up the whole restaurant there. Apparently they must have heard of my story at work -- Nothrop Grumman having all those business dealings with the Department of Homeland Security -- how one insignificant guy completely exposed the weakness of DHS surveillance program and the incompetence of the Department and humiliated their Secretary, save that they didn't know the guy in question happened to be their very nephew.
At first they simply told me that whether or not the DHS was conducting surveillance on me it was not my business. Good Evangelical Christians they may be, from then on they were progressively instructed by the DHS on how exactly to lie to me: how I was not important enough for the DHS -- as if DHS ever did anything important -- then how I simply imagined the whole thing -- as if I could imagine up more than 40,000 surveillance agents -- and how DHS could still get me if I go live in a foreign country -- now that is true. When with my other family members they were obliged to change the episode just described into my hitting on a little girl at a restaurant, which greatly angered my grand father. It is only too bizarre that the government would be responsible for creating so much tension between me and the rest of my family. To this day my aunt and uncle were instructed to lie to me and to the rest of my family that I have never been a target of DHS. They are, in other words, no longer good Christians.
My aunt and uncle work at Northrop Grumman. Once late October last year they came to my church at Long Beach (California) to pick me up for lunch. That, remember, is just the time when the Department of Homeland Security had put the city of Long Beach under a covert state of emergency but had not yet sealed me completely in a "surveillance bubble". As we arrived at the Chinese restaurant Haixienge in Westminster in Orange County and were waiting outside for seats, a DHS surveillance agent (a young Chinese guy) went behind my aunt to try to record her conversation. I waved my hand in front of his face. My aunt turned around and asked me what was going on. I told her about the whole DHS deal, how they would evacuate the entire bus and refill it with surveillance agents only when I needed to take the bus, and how their surveillance agents were so easily identifiable, sometimes just by looking at their face. My aunt and uncle were stunned, withdrew the reservation at the restaurant, took me instead to the Mexican place next to my apartment in Long Beach, and were super-courteous to all the surveillance agents that filled up the whole restaurant there. Apparently they must have heard of my story at work -- Nothrop Grumman having all those business dealings with the Department of Homeland Security -- how one insignificant guy completely exposed the weakness of DHS surveillance program and the incompetence of the Department and humiliated their Secretary, save that they didn't know the guy in question happened to be their very nephew.
At first they simply told me that whether or not the DHS was conducting surveillance on me it was not my business. Good Evangelical Christians they may be, from then on they were progressively instructed by the DHS on how exactly to lie to me: how I was not important enough for the DHS -- as if DHS ever did anything important -- then how I simply imagined the whole thing -- as if I could imagine up more than 40,000 surveillance agents -- and how DHS could still get me if I go live in a foreign country -- now that is true. When with my other family members they were obliged to change the episode just described into my hitting on a little girl at a restaurant, which greatly angered my grand father. It is only too bizarre that the government would be responsible for creating so much tension between me and the rest of my family. To this day my aunt and uncle were instructed to lie to me and to the rest of my family that I have never been a target of DHS. They are, in other words, no longer good Christians.
Clearly this individual is either:
a) all alone in the world and this is how he amuses himself OR
b) desperately in need of professional help
I am going to have to go with (b).
This individual SHOULD be reported to the proper authorities (not necessarily Homeland Security) because if he genuinely believes what he has written, he is clearly a danger to himself and to others.
This could be a genuine cry for help!
a) all alone in the world and this is how he amuses himself OR
b) desperately in need of professional help
I am going to have to go with (b).
This individual SHOULD be reported to the proper authorities (not necessarily Homeland Security) because if he genuinely believes what he has written, he is clearly a danger to himself and to others.
This could be a genuine cry for help!
Actually, those laws that enable that haven't been around a long time... some of them run contrary to a little document known at the Constitution... which I recall saying something about unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment).CORRECTION2007 said:
What does that mean?
It means that it's a matter of time before draconian wiretap laws get struck down if they start actually using those wiretaps to prosecute.
So yeah, at the moment they can collect info... but if they try to use it in any aggressive way, it will blow up in their face. They have info they can't use because the way they got it wouldn't hold up under the 4th amendment in the US.
The constitution of a country like Canada or the USA trumps any law that gets drafted.
Basically... if you're a politician and you can get enough votes, you can get 'unconstitutional' legislation passed. But all that happens is that when it comes time to enforce the law, it gets struck down for being unconstitutional (assuming the lawyer is smart enough to figure it out).
That's what happened to the law that defined marriage in Canada. Legal precedent and the constitution (specifically, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) means that politicians can draft any "male-female only" marriage law they want, but it will be a waste of time because it will just get tossed the second there is a court challenge.
And as a followup to my post... I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume everything is exactly as you say.
So they watch you and collect info, but they can't do fuck-all with it if they didn't satisfy the 4th Amendment. They threaten you... you threaten them by launching a court case that would strike any law that doesn't satisfy the 4th Amendment. And if you're in Canada, The Charter of Rights also affords this same protection.
What does this mean?
It means all the watching in the world is meaningless and useless if it's unconstitutional.
Them: "We're Watching You"
You: "So? Now watch me pull my pants down and moon you."
So they watch you and collect info, but they can't do fuck-all with it if they didn't satisfy the 4th Amendment. They threaten you... you threaten them by launching a court case that would strike any law that doesn't satisfy the 4th Amendment. And if you're in Canada, The Charter of Rights also affords this same protection.
What does this mean?
It means all the watching in the world is meaningless and useless if it's unconstitutional.
Them: "We're Watching You"
You: "So? Now watch me pull my pants down and moon you."
When you read all the meaningless drivel that he posts from his paranoid little world you can't help but think that the tov has a new handle.
Seriously, think about it.
.
Seriously, think about it.
.
The poster is telling the truth. I am currently an undercover agent (watcher) with Homeland Security. Although I was not part of the 10,000 agents assigned to Correction, I was assigned to watch Paris Hilton. Unfortunately Paris fell in love with my undercover persona (a cute teddy bear) and took me to bed every night even when she was in jail. And no the details are much to private to be revealed here on Terb. This is the truth. GB
great bear said:
If you were a teddy thats ok, just so long as you were not stuffed by any strap on wearing dykes.
I was recruited by the government to provide detailed information on the activites that go on in area strip clubs.....My right nipple is the recording button, my left the play back! ROFLMAO 
longlegs12 said:I was recruited by the government to provide detailed information on the activites that go on in area strip clubs.....My right nipple is the recording button, my left the play back! ROFLMAO
Luckily I was a field radio operator.
I cover a wide areola with great frequency with my net.
people are having fun.
zekes is deflecting the issue. the purpose of the warrantless wire tapping of everyday people is to collect info on what people are doing, not prosecution. most of the people under surveillance, whether it be animal rights activists or 911 truth people, have not committed any crime.
the american government is simply interested in knowing as much as possible about its people so far. the info may be used in the future when it comes time to send people to concentration camp. but there is no prosecution in mind for the moment.
and the age of the Constitution is soon passing.
zekes is deflecting the issue. the purpose of the warrantless wire tapping of everyday people is to collect info on what people are doing, not prosecution. most of the people under surveillance, whether it be animal rights activists or 911 truth people, have not committed any crime.
the american government is simply interested in knowing as much as possible about its people so far. the info may be used in the future when it comes time to send people to concentration camp. but there is no prosecution in mind for the moment.
and the age of the Constitution is soon passing.
Deflecting the issue? Age of the Constitution Passing?CORRECTION2007 said:
I don't think so.
By saying that I'm deflecting the issue, you are implying that there will be a change to the Constitutions of countries like Canada and the US that would make that admissible.
Now my memory is long enough to remember how the Conservatives tried to ram through the Meech Lake Accord... and they couldn't do it.
Constitutions are usually very hard to change.
Also, the whole 'concentration camp' thing has happened in the past. But there is one fundamental difference between the past and today... today it is much harder to control the spread of info. Plus, there is a VERY large number of people who are VERY paranoid over something like that happening again. This works both in favour and against the government.
It works in favour in the sense that it's easier than ever to get info on someone. But the flip side is that it's easier than ever to publicly embarrass the government into doing or not doing something.
The best example of this is China. 100 years ago, something like Tiananmen Square would have been easily suppressed. Any reporter that did see what was going on wouldn't have had any means to get the info out of the country quickly... unlike in 1989... and even more today. It forced Chinese authorities to moderate their behaviour (although they still have a long way to go).
If things were moving the way you think they are, I would be one of the many many people embarrassing the government out of that behaviour, one way or another.
If they are watching you as you say, why don't you have some fun with it?
Buy a camcorder and start recording/watching them. Then for added fun, make a 'best of' compilation and give a few copies to those watching you when Christmas rolls around.
Hell, offer up some copies to people here. I'd be interested in seeing what you'd record.
CORRECTION2007 said:
Thank God, you are still safe and able to post.
Best to go into hiding now in that safe spot and don't come out again to post until we give you the all clear.
