Archive for the ‘Corruption’ Category

gamergate in 5 minutes

For reference, this is what those “gamers are dead” articles looked like – all from the same day:

a84

There’s also a pretty good recap at Breitbart here.

How or why would there be 14 articles published decrying gamers as horrible, wretched, misogynistic, angry misanthropes?  Well, that’s explained by the newest revelation.

Remember JournoList?  That secret leftist group of reporters who decided how to set a narrative across the media in order to favor Barack Obama and leftist causes by collaborating behind the scenes?

Well in the video game world, there’s GameJournoPros – another mailing list that seems to be mostly left-leaning “journalists” – just this time the social justice warrior variety who exist in video game journalism to bludgeon you with their club of moral superiority.

Despite the #NotYourShield folks of all stripes, colors, creeds, orientations and varieties saying “hey, video gamers aren’t just straight white males, so stop demonizing all gamers in my name as a _____”, the game “journalist” SJWs continue their assault, violently rejecting any calls for transparency, objectivity, and an end to the incestuous corruption of developers and journalists colluding with each other.

f59

Broadly speaking, gamers don’t want to hear some social commentary on how “E3 is full of white male protagonists again and you’re racist because of it”, nor do they want to hear about how Princess Peach’s very existence is sexist or how Birdo is insensitive to cross-gendered reptiles.

Casual gamers find it obnoxious, preachy, and irritating, and more serious gamers find it… obnoxious, preachy, and irritating.  And now that game “journalists” behavior is being shown to be a collaborative effort for personal gain (as well as financial gain), it’s pretty gone quite a bit beyond that.

In the gaming world, if a game offends you, you don’t buy it.  It’s that simple.  The market will correct itself.  If you like good games and don’t really care that Cloud Strife’s haircut is offensive to the folically challenged, then you certainly don’t need someone going out of their way to scream about it and networking with their fellow game “journalists” to get the game shut down.

You certainly don’t need some games “journalist” using their connections and networks and going out of their way to make sure a game doesn’t get produced, doesn’t get distributed and doesn’t get sold because they find it offensive, or because they want to spike a game in favor of their developer friend’s game – and they’ll use their social justice/political correct angle to get that other game spiked.

Discussing the topic and demanding a reform of games journalism has resulted in predictable responses – including those 14 stories above.

But it’s a matter of course – they’re social justice activists who use the “you’re a racist/sexist/homophobe” as a way to demand that you shut up.

-

As I’ve noted before, the whole GamerGate issue is a microcosm of society where the leftist social justice warrior types have taken it as their personal mission to force everyone to knuckle under to their demands.  It’s pretty similar to what we see in politics and broader culture every time some leftist social justice activist claims some mantle of the oppressed and demands special treatment for it – while simultaneously never doing anything for the oppressed party (because then they’d lose that specialness to make demands).  We’re currently seeing the same thing happen to the NFL, where a handful of dirtbag players (and possibly team organizations that covered for them) have prompted activist groups to target the entire NFL, going so far as to make demands that have in at least one case specifically hurt (financially) the people they claim to want to help.  It’s all part of a broader cultural push, but that’s for another post.

An Intro To GamerGate

Posted: September 6, 2014 by ShortTimer in Corruption, Culture, Media, political correctness, Social Justice
Tags:

The short version is that a few weeks ago, a man who was cheated on posted a long, long blog post about how his ex-girlfriend had used him, cheated on him, and all around mistreated him horribly (including raping him by her own definition).

Turns out that woman was a game developer.  And of the five guys she’d cheated on her boyfriend with, it seems a few, if not all of them, were pretty big in the video game journalism world at places like Kotaku (associated with Gawker), and that she used her relationships with them in order to get her games published and get other people crushed.

Add a little bit of social justice to it and the power of journalism directed to demonize anyone who disagreed with her as a sexist misogynist; as well as the ability to crush game events and redirect them to her own financial ends – and that being found to be a common practice in the incestuous world of social justice game journalism and indie game development, and you have the makings of a huge scandal.

InternetAristocrat explains it really well.  Buckle in, it’s a long ride, but it’s a microcosm of the larger culture.  The first video will give you an idea of the genesis of this, the later ones reveal more and more, but are probably the best way to get caught up on the story.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

And the story was recently picked up on by HotAir after Adam “Animal Mother” Baldwin tweeted about it.

I recommend reading this story for some background first.

From what I’ve read, neither side is doing much right in the Bundy case; and actually seperate, broader state vs federal land control issue is getting muddied because people are missing so much of the broader implications.

As I’ve read it, the rancher, Cliven Bundy, stopped paying grazing fees in 1993.  He tried paying some to the state and county, but the BLM owns and controls the land.  The bills he did pay to the state and county weren’t consistent with what the BLM charged for land usage fees.  Bundy’s lost a lot of court fights, and for whatever reason the BLM changed the grazing rules.  Regardless of why, if that’s part of the contract to graze, and he agreed to it, when they said “lose 90% of your herd or leave”, he simply decided to stay, and fought in court for decades, losing again and again.  He claims that since his family is there, he can graze where he wants, he claims that his improvements to the land mean its his, and he claims that the state should own the land and not the federal government, so BLM be damned.

There are a lot of folks taking his side because they’re blindly sick of fedgov overreach.  But I think a lot of it comes down to pictures of cows and cowboys, and some romanticized western visuals… and some folks hearing what they want to hear.

Why?

Let’s say Reverend Al Sharpton and Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright were in a church in Chicago that was owned by the federal government as a national historical site, and run by the National Park Service since 1848 when it was acquired by the federal government (like how the territory that long predated the state Nevada was acquired by the US government in 1848 due to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo).  Reverends Sharpton and Wright’s congregations rent out the church on a use-basis starting in 1884, and so they’ve been there 130 years.  Sometime around 1993, Sharpton and Wright decide that the National Park Service is racist against them for raising usage rates, and they refuse to pay any more usage fees.  They continue making a profit on the church’s operation, despite the church not being their property.  They install “improvements” that change the historical nature of the church, but it helps their bottom lines.

They tell a story of how other churches have been shut down by the NPS, and they fight in court, all the while occupying the church.  They lose court case after court case, and finally in 2014, more than twenty years after they’ve stopped paying the usage fees to the National Park Service, they start saying the church is really community property and really bleongs to the city of Chicago.  They say they’ve tried to pay Chicago (which doesn’t take their money, citing the church as NPS-controlled federal property), and then finally the NPS sends people to remove the Sharpton and Wright staff and equipment from the church.

Sharpton and Wright summon like-minded armed community activists to their side, Black Panthers come from across the country, and an armed standoff takes place between the Sharpton-Wright group and the NPS.

Okay, now which side seems reasonable?  Sharpton and Wright, who are using public property for their own ends to make a profit and actively courting armed resistance after losing in the courts and making claims with no legal basis of ownership, or the NPS who are enforcing an order after two decades of leniency?

-

That’s why I’m not on Bundy’s side.  He’s using public property that was never his, that was never even Nevada’s, that was never the property of any entity inside the US but the federal government.

He’s made a fanciful story and absurd claims of non-ownership draped in Gadsden flags and wrapped in patriotic rhetoric but it all boils down to wanting to run an industrial operation in stripping public land of vegetation (grazing) with photogenic biological machinery (cows) for the purpose of his own agricultural business.  As well, the “improvements” he’s made to the land, like water troughs and such, are simply improvements for his own business bottom line.  Watering cattle is good for him, but the second and third order effects of watering coyotes and any number of predators and invasive species that would otherwise not thrive so well in the desert distorts and changes the ecology.  As the federal government owns the land, and the BLM manages it, if they don’t want somebody building structures to water cows (and coyotes), that’s up to them – not to the non-paying renter.

Now, as for the BLM, I’m not on their side either.  Their actions that were reported at the end include shooting cattle, driving over the ostensibly endangered desert tortoise burrows, and basically being hamfisted and inept at best.  So the BLM sucked in this case, too.

What may suck even more is that supposedly one of Harry Reid’s kin is in charge of the BLM in Nevada and is out to push for an expansion of the desert tortoise habitat towards the leases Bundy had been squatting (but nobody really cared that much) on in order to allow for a Chinese-based solar energy farm in the desert.  Basically they rezoned the desert tortoise area and then the solar farm could be built.  That makes it a much more conventional land grab.

Now, as for western land control, there’s another problem.

State lawmakers are now gunning for control of federal land.

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

“It’s simply time,” said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. “The urgency is now.”

I don’t trust a leftist demanding a gun ban when they say “it’s simply time” and I don’t trust anyone else saying the same thing, no matter what letter is next to their name.

“Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,” Fielder said, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls.

“We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms,” Fielder said.

Translation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBInZrRx5c

The state legislators want to take the land for their own purposes.

They want to give it to their own cronies.  They want to divide federal lands that might not be being actively used and sell them up to developers, to industrial groups, to investors, to any number of people who aren’t you.

All that federal land sitting there waiting to be snatched could easily be handed off to any number of groups that will make those lawmakers massively wealthy.  Of course, they’ll cut themselves a massive ranch out of that land for themselves, of course.

Federal land right now is difficult to utilize for big operations.  It’s difficult for businesses to use, it’s difficult for politicians to sell off to their cronies at the federal level.  With obnoxious regulations, it’s often more difficult than it needs to be, but the fact that it’s federal land also protects it from instant abuse, sale, and destruction.

If you want to see a land grab and a radical change in the American west, give land to the states.  Millions of acres will go not to you, the hardworking citizen who goes hunting on BLM land, hiking in national forests, and fishing in Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs, but to huge corporations that pay off state legislators, and to multibillionaire investors who pay off state legislatures.

George Soros will have his own 500,000 acre ranch.  You will not.

Jazz Shaw over at HotAir notes what will happen to state land almost by accident, and I’m not sure he realized he said it:

It seems, however, that even if we accept all of the above examples, there is still an argument to be made that public lands which are not being dutifully maintained to serve some valid purpose of the public would be better classified as state lands. There used to be a lot of state land, even where I grew up in rural New York. The state maintained control of such lands and could preserve it or sell it to residents as they saw fit.

Bold emphasis mine.

There used to be a lot of state land… and then somehow it all went away, as if by magic?  No.

Giving it to the states means there’s one less layer of protection for that land as public land, and giving it to state legislatures is just asking for it to be thrown around to their cronies.  That is the predictable and inevitable result.

Public lands in state hands will go away due to state-level corruption.

-

States that were acquired by the federal government, and that didn’t enter the union as states of their own, still have huge amounts of federal land within them.  Could a more receptive fedgov lessen some restrictions?  Absolutely.  That’d be great.

Could the EPA go back to dealing with the ravens that are killing desert tortoises rather than mess around with public lands?  Yes.  Could we amend the Migratory Bird Act that protects the ravens so they can kill some and protect the tortoises?  Sure.  Could we amend the Endangered Species Act to recognize that some species are just on their way to extinction?  Sure.  Could we amend it to allow the free market to save those species?  Maybe have people adopt and own desert tortoises as pets in order to save the species?  Maybe.

Should we go and give state-level corrupt politician X access to hundreds of thousands or millions of acres of land to give to his buddies?  No.

-

What’s lost in the broader context is also that public land is there for everyone.  People who live where all land is private, or where “public land” means a postage-stamp sized park don’t understand.

For example, this is some public land that I went out used as a 900 yard range one day.

sw wy blm range 1a

There are some oil and gas sites out on that expanse of land, but they’re miles apart due to size.  There’s no water on that land except what nature provides, so it’s good for desert animals, but not so much for cattle.  It’s not land meant for cattle either.  It’s the kind of land the buffalo wouldn’t have roamed so much since there’s not much water out there.

But if you want to go hiking in old grassland or go sport shooting or go hunting, or ride your horse or drive your Raptor or just go see what the old prairie was, it’s still there.

If you’re a local and you wanted to graze your cattle there, you’d have to navigate the BLM’s mission that’s to prevent the tragedy of the commons, but you probably could.

And the hiker, the sport shooter, the horse rider, the hunter, the driver and the naturalist and the oil man could all still use that land – because it’s still public land.

If you gave control of that land to state congressman X, he’d sell the whole place to his pal in ConHugeCo Inc. in a heartbeat and instead of a “don’t make ruts and screw up the prairie” sign, there’d be this:

no trespass

This is just giving access to state legislatures to pad their nests with funds pilfered through sale of public lands.

The sale of that public land would radically change the nature and culture of western states.  Instead of the droves of retiring baby boomer leftists deserting California for Colorado and turning it disgustingly leftist, there’d be swarms of occupy leftists warping the entire western US into the same because there’d be so much “free” land available.

The cultural change would be utterly devastating, as states with low populations would be overwhelmed so rapidly they would never have time to adapt, nor to even understand how fast they were being changed.

This has to factor into any discussion as well, because the very nature of the Republic would be at stake as western states that are “deep red” and provide balance in the senate are often low in population.  Heck, Nevada even manages to keep Harry Reid in line with regards to Second Amendment issues.

-

Folks from states that don’t have much public land for a plethora of historical reasons may not quite understand the significance, and some folks out west who think they’ll “get theirs” don’t necessarily think of the second and third order effects of the radical change of land ownership.

The questions always have to be “why?”, “what then?”, and “what happens next?”

If the why is to allow for better usage, that involves pushback against environment laws and regs.  That helps business and private citizen interests without compromising land access for the public.  We know the what then and what happens next still keeps that land open for all of us.

When the “time is now” answer is to give it to the states… well, like Jazz said, there “used to be” a lot of state land.  We know what then and what happened next.

WaPo’s guide on the story certainly isn’t everything you need to know, but it gives some interesting info, like the size and nature of Bundy’s family and the conditions of relations between the federal authorities tasked with managing the land and some rural residents who simply resent any outsiders.  It ignores that a longtime aide of Harry Reid’s just became the national BLM director, as well as Harry Reid’s stupid assertion that Cliven Bundy’s supporters are domestic terrorists (unless the WaPo stories about pipe bombs dropped at federal offices years ago are what he’s confusing here).

Of course, being aimed in on federal agents who have given twenty years of leniency to someone whose cows are grazing on taxpayer grass without paying before finally enforcing an order doesn’t exactly sound of good judgement, either.

Parker from central Idaho aims his weapon from a bridge as protesters gather by the Bureau of Land Management's base camp near Bunkerville

Then there’s also the “put women and children up front first” angle.  It’s not domestic terrorism, but it’s a shady tactic used in order to precipitate a conflict that will look better for the Bundy family.

House Majority whip Republican Kevin McCarthy of California says amnesty is going to happen.

Illinois Democrat Rep. Luis “My Only Loyalty Is To Illegal Aliens” Gutierrez says Republicans are telling him amnesty will happen.

“When I talk to my Republican friends,” Gutierrez said, “[they tell me] all of the parts will lead to the full package.”

He made his comments on Al Jazeera America’s Inside Story on Friday. Gutierrez has called Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) his “ally” in his quest for amnesty and has praised Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) as well. He emphasized that he, like President Barack Obama, does not care if immigration reform is “in parts and pieces as long as in the end, there is a full menu.”

Last week, President Barack Obama said of the comprehensive bill that passed the Senate, “If they want to chop that thing up in five pieces, as long as all five pieces get done, I don’t care what it looks like. Then, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that immigration reform was “absolutely not” dead.

Note Gutierrez was going to Al Jazeera to brag.  And let’s not forget that Paul “Screech” Ryan is so much a RINO that Tanzanian poachers hang out by his house.

Joe Biden’s been hanging out with illegal alien supporters on the national mall, and Pelosi’s willing to let the GOP surrender inch by inch.

Meanwhile, billionaire Mark “Here’s A Tip – I’m Rich So Screw You” Zuckerberg has decided he’s going to flaunt immigration law by hosting “hackathons” with illegal aliens while telling you that it’s a civil right for someone else to break into your house and thereby it becomes their civil right to sleep in your bed.  After all, being a citizen of one nation doesn’t mean you don’t have a civil right to the goods, services, and privileges of another nation.  He’s also funding propaganda to support the right of invaders to live in your house, and telling the agents who are tasked with your protection by enforcing immigration law “screw you”.  (Standby for our Facebook page vanishing if JBH cross-posts it there.)

Nice to know that somebody who made billions in the US market is ready to try to destroy the nation.  And of course he won’t listen to ICE agents about illegal aliens and why we’d want to screen people for admission coming into the country.  He’s a billionaire.  He’s the Ruling Class through and through.  He’s not going to get his store robbed by some gangster illegal alien from the Ukraine, or shanked by a “gardener” illegal alien who was hacking people up with machetes during the El Sal civil war.

He’s going to get cheap labor for programming while he ditches American workers.  Democrats get free votes, Republicans get cheap labor.  The American citizenry, legal immigrants, legal residents, and everyone who played by the rules and believes in the rule of law gets screwed.

>Lame Duck "Immigration Reform" - Amnesty

Nebraska health insurance costs to rise – via HotAir:

The Lincoln Journal Star added to the annals of ‘If you like your plan you can keep your plan (Midwestern edition)” yesterday with a new report on the impact of ObamaCare on health insurance premiums in Nebraska.  Thanks to the mandates in ObamaCare, most of the individual insurance plans offered in the past will no longer be available, whether consumers liked their plan or not.  The replacements will be much more expensive, with cost hikes ranging from 21% increases to as much as 143%

Remember, Ben Nelson was bought off with the Cornhusker Kickback:

In late 2009, the Senate’s 40 Republicans unanimously opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Senate’s version of health-care legislation. To end a Republican filibuster and pass the measure, the Democrats needed the votes of all 58 of their senators, plus those of two independents who caucused with their party. Nelson was the 60th and last senator to agree to vote for cloture.[40]

According to Nelson, he wanted to ensure that the final version of the law prohibited the use of public funds to pay for abortions.[41] His cloture vote came after the measure was amended to permit states to opt out of allowing insurance exchange plans to provide abortion coverage. Persons enrolling in plans that covered abortion costs would pay for that coverage separately from their payment for the rest of the plan.[42] The bill also provided full and permanent federal reimbursement for the expenses that Nebraska would incur in its mandated expansion of Medicaid eligibility,[40] an amount estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at $100 million.[43]

The health-care measure was controversial, and Nelson’s vote provoked a strong response. The Medicaid reimbursement scheme was derided by the measure’s opponents as the “Cornhusker Kickback”

Ultimately Nebraska didn’t even get what he sold his vote for, and now they get less as they’ll mostly be paying much more.

-

Interestingly (or not interestingly, if you pay attention to google’s actions), it’s really hard to find info on the Cornhusker Kickback using google – results come back from leftist sites like Media Matters, Rachel Maddow, and FireDogLake.

Starting with a former president/lawyer talking about guns, from Katie Pavlich writing at bearingarms.com:

During his speech at the 50th anniversary celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s I Have a Dream speech in Washington D.C. Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton implied it was easier to buy an ‘assault weapon’ in the United States of America than it is to vote in elections.

“A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than it does to buy an assault weapon,” Clinton said.

Ms. Pavlich notes that yes, you do in fact have to show ID to buy a firearm and you don’t need to show ID to vote.  One is sovereign franchise over the execution of the nation’s government, the other is a piece of metal and plastic.  Yet you need to show ID for the metal and plastic, but you can vote multiple times with no ID to put someone in office who will be able to wield the power of the state against the populace.

Not letting citizens of MA, CA, DC, or NY vote at all probably isn’t what he means by that.

Although, on the other hand, a truly great democracy simply issues its citizens actual assault rifles to defend themselves.

swiss girls with guns

-

Lawyers in congress are going after guns by using the power to destroy – the power to tax (H/T Gateway Pundit):

There is a new anti-gun bill sitting on Capitol Hill, and it doesn’t deal with banning particular models of firearms or even universal background checks.

The Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013, was proposed by U.S. Reps. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., and Bill Pascrell, D-N.J. The bill seeks to raise the tax rate on gun sales from 10% to 20%.

This stuff does get pushed in every year and usually dies somewhere along the way, but the end result if it passes is actually class warfare by the Democrats against the poor.  If you’re poor and want to defend yourself because you live in a crappy neighborhood, that cheap Hi-Point 9mm pistol you could’ve bought for $150 just went up to $180.  That’s money out of your pocket, money that you need.

It targets the poor, who are disproportionately minorities or rural whites, and targets them for disarmament and makes them the victims of crime.  Of course the statist Democrats want there to be no self-defense, but those few who still might understand the basics of natural law would see they’re hurting people they’re trying to help… because criminals will always be violent, and will always have weapons.  The law-abiding good people will be hurt in their pocketbooks, and will be driven away from self defense due to increased costs.

-

And finally, Democrat congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, representative from DC (and gun-hating tyrant) calling to leave a message on a lobbyist’s answering machine demanding a bribe, called out by self-described progressive liberals at The Young Turks, of all people:

Corruption at its finest.

It’s kind of a hassle to write about the NSA, because since Snowden started telling the world about the NSA’s “spy on everyone” PRISM program and other programs, there’s just so much to say.  It’s somewhat overwhelming to deal with the massive intrusion on American life and gross violations of the Fourth Amendment.

During the W. Bush tenure, Rumsfeld cited a series of terms to deal with levels of intelligence concerning Iraq.  There were known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.  Known knowns are things you know.  Known unknowns are things you know that you don’t know – you may have vague notions but no specifics, or you may be unsure, but you’re aware there’s something that you don’t have full info on.  Unknown unknowns are things you aren’t even aware that you don’t know.

Rep. Bob Corker (R, TN) expains that congress doesn’t know what it doesn’t know:

“Every day there are stories… that are leaked out. The American people want to know that those of us who are elected, Eliot and I, understand fully what’s happening here. I don’t think we do. I would imagine there are even members of the intelligence committee themselves that don’t fully understand the gambit of things that are taking place. It’s our responsibility to know those things, to ensure they’re in balance, and I hope as soon as we get back there’ll be a full briefing from top to bottom so that can happen.”

Except that Congress wrote laws to make the laws secret.  Many congressmen aren’t even allowed to know about the secret courts, and those that are are legally bound to secrecy by laws they wrote.  So we have secret courts, secret agencies, secrets within secrets, and layers and layers of abuses of citizens’ privacy and other rights that we don’t even know about, because they made it secret.

The NSA is full of known unknowns – we know they’re spying, and unknown unknowns – how are they spying, on whom are they spying, why are they spying, what are they doing with it, and what else are they doing?

The Founders did not intend for one secret court to make one secret ruling that would abrogate millions of citizens civil rights.

-

The most recent revelations come from the UK Telegraph (because American media won’t report on things unfavorable to Dear Leader Obama):

Staff working at America’s National Security Agency – the eavesdropping unit that was revealed to have spied on millions of people – have used the technology to spy on their lovers.

The employees even had a code name for the practice – “Love-int” – meaning the gathering of intelligence on their partners.

Dianne Feinstein, a senator who chairs the Senate intelligence committee, said the NSA told her committee about a set of “isolated cases” that have occurred about once a year for the last 10 years. The spying was not within the US, and was carried out when one of the lovers was abroad.

One employee was disciplined for using the NSA’s resources to track a former spouse, the Associated Press said.

Last week it was disclosed that the NSA had broken privacy rules on nearly 3,000 occasions over a one-year period.

John DeLong, NSA chief compliance officer, said that those errors were mainly unintentional, but that there have been “a couple” of wilful violations in the past decade.

Feinstein is the Senate Intel committee chair, so either she’s lying and knew about it, or she’s ignorant of what the NSA is doing, in which case either she’s incompetent or the NSA is lying to her, or both.

This needs to end.

Law enforcement officials who do things like run the license plates of cars next door to their houses if they think their spouses are cheating get fired for abuse of authority.  The NSA used super-secret spy equipment to track their lovers’ every move and they get to tell their overseers that it’s none of their business.

Not only is this an indictment of the agency as an unconstitutional, tyrannical Orwellian nightmare, it’s also an indicator of what the character of these people are and the character of their organization.  They aren’t just run-of-the-mill facebook stalkers, they’re willing to use spy satellites and electronic surveillance to watch your every move at all times.

nsa new directors

nsa overly attached girlfriend director

nsa love int overly attached girlfriend