Bitcoin, light bulbs, and a new financial tyranny


Photo Credit: GoodwinAndGoodwin.com

Most Americans, if they know the answer to the question “who invented the light bulb” at all, believe that it was Thomas Edison. But did you know there is some evidence to indicate that Thomas Edison originated the idea of an alternative currency exchange like Bitcoin?

That bit about the light bulb is not quite true. At least not in the way most of us have learned it in grade school. At the time of Edison’s invention, several people were working on developing a light bulb. What Edison invented, in addition to his version of the light bulb, was the network infrastructure (i.e. the ecosystem) to support the light bulb.

Edison had to arrange for coal barges to deliver coal from the mines in Pennsylvania to his new electrical generator which he built in NY City, string the wires to the business and homes of his subscribers, wire those business and homes and install the light bulbs. In addition, he had to develop metering and billing systems to charge his customers for the new service. Still, Edison’s unique mix of drive, ingenuity, and grit put him in a position to do this when few others could have pulled it off.

What has become painfully obvious in the past several weeks is that while Bitcoin (i.e. the latest “light bulb”) works, the supporting infrastructure (i.e. the ecosystem) doesn’t work. This is due to serious security issues which were never identified and/or addressed at its inception.

In the newest revelations pertaining to Bitcoin, and even going back to December 2013, we find some news reports that JPMorgan has been filing patent applications to gain control of a Bitcoin-like technology and the supporting ecosystem. Below are some news reports, links and two very recent patent applications by JPMorgan.

One of the standard tricks of the Capital City Ruling Class is to take a computer-generated document and render it as a non-searchable graphic in a PDF. The two attached PDFs from the US Patent Office have been OCR scanned to restore text searching.

Just as the Internet can be the greatest force for the liberation of humanity in the past ten thousand years, in the hands of a group like the NSA it can be the instrument of our enslavement. Likewise, Bitcoin, which has the potential of liberating financial transactions from the tyranny of government control, in the hands of a willing government proxy such as JPMorgan would give the government total control of the economy.

What is not yet apparent in any declaration is whether the Bitcoin technology is in the public Domain. GNU is happy to accept donations in Bitcode but there doesn’t appear to be any deceleration as to its status in GNU.

Bottom line: The Bitcoin Foundation had better start declaring all the technology in the public domain or plan to start paying very high royalties to JPMorgan.

Also included below is a report from Think Progress pertaining to the evils of Bitcoin, which is historically funny. It looks like Think Progress and JPMorgan may have found a common cause.

Bitcoin: By The Privileged, For The Privileged

Bitcoin rival or lost chance? J.P. Morgan applies to renew a 13-year old anonymous payments patent

J.P. Morgan files for digital-payment patent

JPMorgan Chase Building Bitcoin-Killer

Method and system for processing internet payments using the electronic funds transfer network (A patent application for Bitcoin by JPMorgan!)

System and Method for Sharing Information in a Private Ecosystem (Another JPMorgan patent application for a supporting ecosystem!)

Apparently the JPMorgan patent is not meeting with much success at the USPTO as the following report makes very clear.

JPMorgan’s “Bitcoin-Alternative” Patent Rejected (175 Times)

Meanwhile JPMorgan reaches new levels of hypocrisy.

Jamie Dimon is not a Bitcoin fan despite JPMorgan filing patent for similar payment system

Advertisements

Google and Yahoo! privacy measures regularly infiltrated by NSA.


Image representing Edward Snowden as depicted ...

Image by None via CrunchBase

Your Christmas newsletter in Google Docs is now being proofread by NSA contractors

It should come as no surprise that encryption has become a very topical news item which has been appearing with increasing frequency. Yesterday the Washington Post revealed exactly what was going on by publishing these news stories:

The opening line of the first news report says it all:

The National Security Agency has secretly broken into the main communications links that connect Yahoo and Google data centers around the world, according to documents obtained from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and interviews with knowledgeable officials.

One of the more interesting tidbits from the Washington Post’s story was this item:

In an NSA presentation slide on “Google Cloud Exploitation,” however, a sketch shows where the “Public Internet” meets the internal “Google Cloud” where their data reside. In hand-printed letters, the drawing notes that encryption is “added and removed here!” The artist adds a smiley face, a cheeky celebration of victory over Google security.

Two engineers with close ties to Google exploded in profanity when they saw the drawing. “I hope you publish this,” one of them said.

The question becomes what did Google know and when did they know it. Fortunately the news reports establish a chronology for the events describe by the Washington Post. On or about 2013-09-06 stories began to appear that Google had embarked on an extensive effort to encrypt all the data passing between its datacenters worldwide but there were not too many details as to why other than a distrust of the NSA. Apparently Google had become aware that their networks had been hacked in early September based on these stories which suddenly began to appear about that date.

This was a joint project between the governments of the United States and Great Britain and is clearly illegal under the laws of both nations. This makes Watergate look like a Sunday Social. Clearly corporations need to expand their security perimeters into areas which were previously believed to be secure. All data in motion must be encrypted, even on internal networks!

Vatican Fulfills Ancient Prophecy About Anti-Christ: Calls for ‘Central World Bank’


I don’t believe in the Rapture, per se, but I do believe in the signs of Christ’s Second Coming and that He will come again…if only to rescue those who want to be rescued from complete and total annihilation at our own hands because of our own stupidity.

Euro Zone: Vatican Calls for ‘Central World Bank’ to Be Set Up – CNBC

Update: The October 2011 article on CNBC is now down the memory hole. Luckily others had copy/pasted it for posterity. I quote:

The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.

A major document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should be music to the ears of the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn.

The 18-page document, “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority,” was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions.

“The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence,” it said.

It condemned what it called “the idolatry of the market” as well as a “neo-liberal thinking” that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems.

“In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviors like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale,” it said, adding that world economics needed an “ethic of solidarity” among rich and poor nations.

“If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid,” it said.

It called for the establishment of “a supranational authority” with worldwide scope and “universal jurisdiction” to guide economic policies and decisions.

Such an authority should start with the United Nations as its reference point but later become independent and be endowed with the power to see to it that developed countries were not allowed to wield “excessive power over the weaker countries.”

Effective Structures

In a section explaining why the Vatican felt the reform of the global economy was necessary, the document said:

“In economic and financial matters, the most significant difficulties come from the lack of an effective set of structures that can guarantee, in addition to a system of governance, a system of government for the economy and international finance.”

It said the International Monetary Fund (IMF) no longer had the power or ability to stabilize world finance by regulating overall money supply and it was no longer able to watch “over the amount of credit risk taken on by the system.”

The world needed a “minimum shared body of rules to manage the global financial market” and “some form of global monetary management.”

“In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of ‘central world bank’ that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks,” it said.

The document, which was being presented at a news conference later on Monday, acknowledged that such change would take years to put into place and was bound to encounter resistance.

“Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world authority and to regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalizes world.”

This article reads like it came right out of a Tim LaHaye novel.

Better yet, forget novels. It’s ripped straight from the prophetic headlines of the Book of Revelation.

After reading and reviewing the book Aftershock: Protect Yourself and Profit in the Next Global Financial Meltdown and then Shadow Government: How the Secret Global Elite Is Using Surveillance Against You, which also describes a concerted effort to merge all banks into one, I have a hard time believing that what I’m reading daily in the news is just part of an imagined conspiracy theory.

Cover of "Aftershock: Protect Yourself an...

Cover via Amazon

The very real possibility of there being a single world bank in the near future should ring every alarm bell in every human being’s mind. The puppetmasters are now acting in the open. They have leveraged the principle of the Overton Window to break down our barriers and defenses against authoritarianism and have reduced our individual and sovereign governments to ashes by their Machiavellian machinations.

Now they stand at the precipice of that New World Order we were conditioned to think was the invention of the mad Jim Birchers and their ilk. I, too, used to think they were nuts until I actually started paying attention to the news of the world, current events, politicians, and the like. I’m not exactly a card-carrying Jim Bircher, but I do think they have a point and that the preponderance of evidence in this debate is definitely in their favor!

It’s very clear to me now that we, as individuals, can no longer count on our present government to stave off foreign and elitist influence into our daily lives. We are forcibly becoming part of a new scheme to centralize the world’s wealth into the hands of a secret and untouchable few. Their new world diktats will control the details of every aspect of our lives. Their systems of control will spy on our every transaction and our every movement through the world economy they are setting up.

Reverse of the Great Seal of the United States.

Image via Wikipedia

It’s still the same old game of three-card Monte. It’s just that it’s moving to the global playing field. Anyone who thinks that this is Occupy Wall Street’s, or anyone’s, great moment to equalize wealth distribution is about to learn a very painful and troublesome lesson. The Builders are about to erect a new tower to Heaven, with us as their slaves to help them build their monolith. They seek to dethrone God and become gods among men.

They will fail. They have forgotten their history as we also have forgotten ours.

 

Rosanne says “Stop at $100M” or heads will roll! Ignores her own net worth.


Rosanne Barr wants a $100M cap on personal wealth, or heads will literally roll. Rosanne had better be careful….she’s only $20M shy of her noggin’ goin’ joggin’.

A new twist on an old fable


The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

This one is a little different. Two different versions; two different morals.

OLD VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:

Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green..’

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, “We shall overcome”.

Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper’s sake.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid  exclaim in an interview with Wolf Blitzer that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of  the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having  nothing left to  pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government  Green Czar and given  to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t  maintain it.

The ant has  disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper  is found  dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over  by a gang of spiders who terrorize and ramshackle, the once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

Be careful how you vote in 2012.

It’s LGBT Pride Month at work! Are you sufficiently repentant, you mean old conservative, you?


www.gaydar.nl

Image via Wikipedia

I just got the company’s monthly diversity newsletter. Guess what? June is “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month”!  This year’s theme, at least at my place of employment, is about “Building Bridges”.

The problem I have with this “Gay Pride Month” stuff has less to do with the present, sexual behavior-driven culture than with the fact that if I were to propose a similar “Christian Pride Month”, I would get a pink slip quicker than I could drop the suggestion in the suggestion box.

Let’s break this down.

Without getting too specific (and therefore possibly raising red flags with my employer), the topic of the first diversity workshop this month is exclusively focused on teaching “straight” people to accept the LGBT culture within the company.

Question: How does a workshop on accepting sexual behaviors that I believe to be biologically and theologically incorrect help me to do my job better? Can’t I just “not ask” and “not be told” what certain folks’ sexual proclivities are and just get to the business at hand? I’m much happier with that option, thank you. Besides, nobody’s bothering to ask me what my sex life is all about. How are my co-workers going to be able to function professionally without this knowledge?

Another workshop proposes to show the financial and business gains to be had simply by ensuring that we focus our hiring efforts on homosexuals. Ok, correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t the point of fostering an atmosphere of “inclusion” to actually, you know, foster an atmosphere of inclusion by not saying that one group has an advantage over another?

If they’re making the case that “LGBT businesspeople are just as good as straight ones”, they’ve mangled the execution by titling the workshop to focus just on the advantages of hiring LGBT folks. The assumption that any rational human being would rightly make is that if a hiring manager has a pile of résumés on the desk, there are going to be at least a handful of LGBT applicants mixed in with “straight” ones and that the purpose of the workshop is to boost LGBT hires by persuading managers to favor the LGBT applicants.

And what is going to be the criteria by which a hiring manager selects an LGBT candidate over a straight one? Ask them in the interview? Last I heard, it was an EEOC no-no to ask deeply personal questions during a job interview. I’d be curious to know if there are LGBT folks putting their sexual orientation on their CVs to try to fish for some affirmative action. Straights, don’t try this trick at home. Common sense has long held that by putting the fact that you married someone of the opposite gender on your job application, you are putting your future employment at risk. Does the same no longer hold true for LGBT applicants?

But let’s cut through the crap. What this is really about is payback, pure and simple. A vocal minority of the population with an axe to grind has managed to capture the popular sexual-political zeitgeist and is using that as leverage to exact a bit of sweet revenge for their oppression.  The Indian (er, sorry, Native American, er, sorry, Disenfranchised Original Occupant) saying about walking a mile in another’s shoes is an apt one. If I were in their shoes, I guess I couldn’t resist the opportunity to “stick it to the man” either.

But what if you were “the man”. Further, let’s say that you, as “the man”, own a small to medium-sized business. Let’s also say you’re a Christian who believes in complete abstinence before heterosexual marriage and complete fidelity after heterosexual marriage, and you happen to support political causes that reflect those beliefs, not out of meanness, but out of a sense of attempting to recover a long-lost morality that used to make this nation great. Let’s also say that, like the majority of good Christians out there, you’re inclined to live as the Savior lived, accepting all kinds of people as the children of God they are and not excluding them, as the Pharisees did, simply because they’re struggling against temptations and natural (or unnatural) urges.

Would you hold a “Gay Pride Inclusion” month?  Or would you simply honor all human beings, 365 and one quarter days of the year, as ought to be the method of respecting our differences?

And can we do away with that word already? DIVersity = DIVision. I prefer the term “variety“. Besides, the only thing God divided at Creation was dark from light, night from day, evil from good. We are supposed to be one, not diverse.

Are we more selfish under capitalism or socialism?


Marley's ghost, from Charles Dickens: A Christ...

Image via Wikipedia

Dennis Prager asks whether the welfare state creates a more selfish society or a more generous one.

The question has been part and parcel of the ongoing political debate around Obamacare and other federal entitlement programs on the chopping block in budget battles. Who do we trust more to administer charity to the masses…the federal government or the individual?

I’ve been told by a Progressive friend that it’s cruel and cavalier to think that government shouldn’t have a role in helping people because simply because life has no guaranteed outcomes.

I disagree.

It is not cruel or cavalier to point out what is obvious to everyone. Nobody can say that… from the moment they were born until today that they have been able to cheat the laws of probability and relative reaction 100% of the time. In fact, I think it would be a service to everyone if the “hard knocks” philosophy were taught in schools again as it once was. Sadly, that philosophy has morphed into “Whatever bad thing happens to you, the federal government will get you out of it.” It’s a ridiculous and naïve way to think, but it’s been seeping into our society over the past 85 years of social entitlement programs.

In thinking about this more, I was considering the “Dickensian England” state Progressives like to believe this nation to be in at the moment. It’s nowhere near that yet, but is about to be due to the government debt bubble threatening to burst as a result of runaway federal entitlement spending. I was reminded of Scrooge’s conversation with the two men seeking donations to charity from Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. In Googling the original text to make that point here, I found an excellent article published by Hillsdale College that makes my point much better than I could myself. (Emphasis and links are mine)

In the same year that Dickens published A Christmas Carol, Herbert Spencer published an essay, “The Proper Sphere of Government.” Spencer wrote that one of the most under-looked and most harmful effects of the Poor Laws of Britain – their welfare system – was that the wealthy would lose their sense of charity and feeling towards the less fortunate.

He put in an essay the very point that Scrooge was making in Dickens’s novel. Spencer wrote that wealthier classes would feel the annoyance towards the forced contributions to the poor that is evident in Scrooge’s response to the gentlemen that were asking him to help out the poor. One hundred and sixty-seven years on from Dickens and Spencer we must ask ourselves: Have we arrived at the point where we see those less fortunate than we as an annoyance, something to be taken care of by our government with the taxes taken out of our paychecks so we don’t have to be bothered to even think about them?

When the federal government takes your tax dollars to pay for someone else’s doctor’s visit you are not being charitable. You had no choice in the matter.

The federal bureaucrat who sent the doctor the check is not being charitable for he or she is spending your money, not theirs.

The doctor is not being charitable, for he is being paid for their service.

On the other hand, St. Peter’s Free Clinic in Hillsdale is an example of true charity. Volunteers provide the medical care and other services, local residents and churches provide donations to pay for the medicine and supplies, and those who receive the service recognize the love and respect that they are being given.

America remains the most charitable of all nations. Despite the recession, American charitable giving exceeded $300 billion in 2009. Probably every reader of this column has given to some charity this year. But this Christmas we should make an effort to examine how we can make the transition from a government that makes us into Scrooges to a government that gives us the opportunity to be truly philanthropic.