Hackers take over law enforcement websites

Hackers take over law enforcement websites

BOSTON (AP) – Hackers have taken over the websites of several law enforcement agencies worldwide in attacks attributed to the collective called Anonymous, including in Boston and in Salt Lake City, where police say personal information of confidential informants and tipsters was accessed.

The Utah hackers gained access Tuesday to sensitive data, including citizen complaints about drug crimes, including phone numbers, addresses and other personal information, police said.

Full Story Here:
Hackers take over law enforcement websites

I see stories like the above, and this:

Hackers intercept FBI, Scotland Yard call

LONDON (AP) — They trade jokes, chuckle and talk shop about a hacker plot called “Project Mayhem.”

But at the heart of the conference call between the FBI and Scotland Yard was a strategy aimed at bringing down the hacking collective known as Anonymous, which has launched a series of embarrassing attacks across the Internet.

Full Story Here:
Hackers intercept FBI, Scotland Yard call

And I have to ask myself; what are WE, The People worried about? Please bear with me as this post develops, it’s about to take an unexpected turn to the idea of American freedom, rights of the American citizen and the encroachment thereof.

First, the First Amendment; I have exercised my right to Free Speech for several years now, and so far, no one has knocked on MY door and taken me to The FEMA Camps that I hear so many of both sides of the political spectrum voice their paranoia over.

There are NO FEMA re-education camps. They existed in the minds of Bush and Cheney hating Liberals and within the minds of so-called Conservatives that hate Obama and are simply recycling the paranoia of the left, the paranoia that so many openly made fun of and severely criticised not too long ago.

I’m not saying that some government entity can’t just pull the plug and turn off the WWW, but if they did, whoever THEY may be, the entire world economic markets would collapse.

The second thing on my mind is The Second Amendment and the massive paranoia that exists in MANY minds on the RIGHT side of politics; those that fear having their guns and ammo taken away from them.

I see posts on various blogs, in emails from friends and readers, on Facebook and the like, stating a real fear that Barack Hussein Obama will issue an Executive edict that makes ALL guns illegal and demanding that Americans proceed to some as yet to be named place to turn in their guns and ammo.

So? What if he did?

If YOU don’t go to this as yet to be named gathering site and turn in YOUR guns and ammo, what’s going to happen then?

Nothing, that’s what!

Do you think the Obama forces are going to go door to door across this nation demanding that you give them your guns? Seriously?

There might be those connected to Obama that would try to enforce a suspension of the Constitution and our God given rights, but here’s why I don’t think it will work, and I have stated this in several posts in the past, so, let me state it once again.

And this time, pay attention. 😛

Iraq and Afghanistan are each about the same size, in land area, as is the state of Texas.

Bringing the military might of the United States to bear in those nations has yet to disarm or pacify either. Do you see my point?

If you need any further proof that the mass paranoia of BOTH sides is totally unfounded, re-read the 2 stories that inspired this post. The federal government can’t secure itself and stop some bunch of Anonymous HACKERS from taking them down at every opportunity.

How can THEY, again, whoever THEY may be, stop Americans from speaking freely or owning guns unless Americans roll over and surrender?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This entry was posted in America 1st and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Hackers take over law enforcement websites

  1. Capt Ron says:

    What? Fred take a turn to the right? Whoever heard of such… 🙂

  2. BobF says:

    You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
    Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

    Exactly right Fred. Our Forefathers made sure that couldn’t happen.

  3. TexasFred says:

    I have a great friend that thinks a lot along the same lines I do, he sent me this to share with my readers… Thank you B.

    A Citizen has a gun, a Subject doesn’t

    What this country needs is more unemployed politicians.

    As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago gun ban, this Marine offered a letter that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

    Interesting take and one you don’t hear much.

    Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter.

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
    Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people w ho consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

    People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

    People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

    The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that ‘s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

    So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

  4. Maj Caudill is ABSOLUTELY correct.

    “An armed society is a polite society.”


  5. WOW!!! I have never read a more compelling statement of fact. Love it Fred, thank you for sharing. I have been very much enriched in reading this post. Simply awesome.

  6. Bunkerville says:

    I hope you are right as rain Fred. It is why I enjoy your blog. Meanwhile the EPA is trying to ban lead in ammo. It is the small steps that concern me. How much ammo does the average gun toter have? I load my own, and for awhile it was hard to get supplies. Just saying, ever alert.

Comments are closed.