Sometimes A Good Cook May Be All That Stands Between Us And Tyranny

Tim Cook is absolutely right in trying to prevent the government from compelling Apple to assist in cracking the iPhone that was issued to Syed Rizwan Farook by San Bernardino County.

This explains why:

San Bernardino County had the responsibility to manage their phones via a centrally controlled management environment so that San Bernardino County could lock, save, manage, change the password, transfer data, etc.

San Bernardino County made the decision to abdicate that responsibility. That fault rests squarely on San Bernardino County.

Since San Bernardino County failed the people its supposed to serve, the story should end there. The phone is inaccessible due to failed governance of San Bernardino County.

There were also several other opportunities to gain access to the phone, that the FBI squandered. One example is that the County of San Bernardino did know the password of Syed Rizwan Farook’s iCloud account, and because they knew that they gave it to the FBI when asked and FBI changed the iCloud password, before the iPhone automatically backed up. If that password wasn’t changed, the FBI could have connected the phone to a known WIFI connextion that the phone was prevoously clnnected to, so that the iCloud backup would have automaticlaly run, then the FBI could have gotten the all the data off of iCloud via the backup.

So before we start, lets place responsibility for this issue on both San Bernardino County and the FBI. If those two agencies didn’t act so irresponsibly, we never would be in a situation where the FBI is ordering Apple to help them break into the iPhone.

Now, in the situation of this iPhone, the FBI is not trying to solve a crime. Their actions are not part of normal “evidence gathering” in an attempt to implicate a suspect and prove a particular suspect was the person who committed the crime.

The suspect is already dead and has already forensically admitted to committing the crime.

So if what the FBI wants to do with the phone is not part of the normal process of gathering evidence to prove a particular suspect committed a crime, then what is it?

This act, the desire of the FBI to hack this iPhone, is akin to running an Intelligence Operation.

An Intelligence Operation is substantively, structurally, and categorically different than a Criminal Investigation.

In a Criminal Investigation, law enforcement is tasked with collecting evidence in order to prove that a suspect committed a crime.

In an Intelligence Operation, law enforcement is tasked with going out into the world and looking at whatever they want to look at (within the law) to see if they can figure out who is bad and who they might want to take a closer look at. In an Intelligence Operation, you are not necessarily tasked with solving any particular crime, you are only tasked with gathering as much information about whatever you can. Sort of like the NSA when it’s stated mission was to “Collect All Data”.

We already know the suspect, Syed Rizwan Farook, committed the crime. That closes the case and stops the criminal investigation. The suspect is dead, and both forensic evidence and all the witnesses universally name him as the perpetrator. This means the crime has been solved, and the FBI must now go on to the next case.

It also begs the question of why is the FBI is trying to do is something outside of and above its crime solving process. Other agencies have intelligence gathering roles. The roles are separate. One agency has a crime fighting role, and another agency has an intelligence collection role. So, why is the crime fighting agency trying to insert itself into an intelligence gathering role? If anything it should be the agency whose role is intelligence collection that is making the case for the iPhone. But since that other agency has no legal way to walk into a courtroom and say “we want to look at this iPhone because we want to know who he talks to” – because the judge would laugh them out of the courtroom, that other agency has asked their friends in the FBI to use this case as the entry point to Intelligence Collection. See what happened?

The government wants to see who else may have associated with Syed Rizwan Farook, similar to how it wanted to know who Al Capone and other criminals and terrorists of by gone era’s associated and interacted with. Such a desire on the part of the government is a very noble goal and they should pursue that goal within the power limiting framework that is already in place. They should not be allowed by a judge to break through that framework. Congress needs to pass a law and the president must sign it, if America wants to change that framework. Using an unelected judge to make laws from the bench against the will of the people is something the government keeps using to take more and more power. The way the FBI is trying to do it is patently wrong and Apple is correct in its opposition.

In a free society the goal of wanting to know who speaks and meets with whom must be balanced with the right of citizens to protect themselves from government intrusion.

Consider this:

In the 1980’s and 90’s most criminals and terrorists used code words and pay phones. They also used in-person meetings at secret locations and often communicated with letters that would then be burned upon receipt.

How could the government read the letters that were already ashes?

How could they see who attended secret meetings when there were no video cameras on street corners, and they didn’t even know the location of the meeting?

How could the government listen to the calls that were made to and from random pay phones, unless they targeted a specific individual, and followed them to listen in?

They could not, and that’s the point.

Without hacking this iPhone, the FBI is no worse off than it has been for the past 60+ years.

However, once they compel Apple to open this up, the FBI just expanded their reach in unprecedented ways that exponentially grows their surveillance and intelligence collection capabilities.

Unless the government specifically obtained a warrant in advance to tap a specific pay phone, they would never be able to determine what was said or who called whom and when.

Unless the government specifically targeted a specific person for investigation in advance, nobody would be able to observe in person meetings at secret locations, nor would the FBI be able to read letters that have already been burned to ashes.

So then, where does the iPhone fit into all this? How should we understand it?

The correct way to interpret and understand the iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, is to interpret it as being no different than any of those things: (1) un-wiretapped pay phone, (2) or an in-person secret meeting with no witnesses, (3) or a pile of ashes that was at one time a secret letter.  

The FBI never had that information. Just because the information exists or existed, does not give the FBI the right to collect it.

Interaction by the FBI with the iPhone outside of the traditional criminal investigative framework described above, expands government power exponentially into an Intelligence Operation. It’s completely different and separate and must be treated as such.

Now, many say that whatever tool Apple creates, would just be used on this one iPhone.

Anyone who understands anything about technology knows that is not true. Once such a tool exists, it could very easily be used on any iPhone. There is no technical reason or legal reason that it would not be. Technically, all the FBI or Apple would need to do is make a small change to the program’s source code, and it would work on a different iPhone or any phone. Criminals would eventually get their hands on it and would modify it to work on any iPhone.

But, rather than focusing on these nuances, lets return to the real issue.

Why is the FBI trying to run an Intelligence Operation?

Why is it not satisfied with its law enforcement role?

If the FBI is allowed to get its way and run an Intelligence Operation on this iPhone today, what is the next power it will want and get tomorrow?

Where does that power end?

Who will end it?

How do we really know that?

As long as the people and lawmakers continue to allow the government to use Judges to legislate from the bench, the government will always be able to do whatever it wants.



The Only Way for GOP is a Cruz/Rubio Ticket

This is the only way to prevent 1/4 of republicans from not voting if Donald Trump or Marco Rubio is the GOP Presidental Nominee. This solution is THE ONLY way to win.


Manny Pacquaio Was Correct, He Just Articulated His Message Wrong

Manny Pacquiao’s message was correct but it was articulated incorrectly.

Observing nature shows that Animals act on sexual impulses outside of the design of those impulses.

This includes sexual activity without the involvement of another animal such as rubbing against a pole, homosexual activity, and even other types of sexual activity in a virety of circumstances. An animal gets an impulse or urge, and the animal acts to release that urge, even if it acts outside of, or against, the design of the systems and faculties involved.

Animals are creatures of raw instinct not of intellect or spiratuaity.

That is why when mankind performs acts of impulse, which may include of savagery, violence, or other acts of debochery, such certain sexual actions, those acts are often talked about as “animalistic behaviour”.

Animals do not have the capacity for critical thought and analysis, nor do they have a capcity for self control. Animals do not have the capcity to hold a belief in God, nor are they capable of deploying intelligence to seek out and live in accordance with truth.

Man, unlike anmials, have that capacity.

Therefore, when man participates in actions of raw impulse, such as sexual activity outside of marriage, or acts of violence, or other such actions, man is acting worse than animals due to his refusal to use his intellect or self control.

I think Manny was trying to express a very complex idea, and because he has not spent years of studying just that topic he was not able to accurately discuss the topic.

Manny, if you want to be able to speak about and express complex ideas in a way that will be accurate but also enable others to truly appreciate your message, we would like to help you. Please contact us. We can also help you with your political messaging.

As for Nike, a company that claims to pride itself on diversity, tolerance, and acceptance of diverse ideas, has clearly shown itself to be the bigot because it revoked sponsorship of Paquaio based on what be said. By doing that, Nike has shown it is not comitted to diversity and only tolerates opinions and beliefs that match its own. Nike should be the one who apologizes.

Manny should not have to issue an apology


Only in Truth, Can You Have Power: A Response to Chris Christie’s Abortion Comments on Self-Defense

According to a Daily Caller Report on Chris Christie Equating Abortion to Self Defense,
Chris Christie said this: “…if a woman is raped or if a woman is the victim of incest, to be forced to have that child is not appropriate, and that it can be an act of self-defense to end that.”

His choice of words is a classic example of misdirection or lying without being obvious and you can read a little bit about those methods here – The Lie of Misdirection

We will get to exactly what his lies are in a moment, but first we need to explain misdirection and what it serves here.

This naturally begs the question “Why use Misdirection? What is the benefit?”

Humans are logical creatures. Misdirection is often used when a person wants to do something they know is inconsistent with previously accepted and agreed upon logic, and they need to hide that inconsistency so they are not forced to look at it, since looking at it would stop them from being able to temporary abandon the logic in favor of whatever fleeting emotion is driving their desire to directly contradict and violate the logic.

In fact, most religions have a special word they use to describe the act driven by that fleeting emotion, that can only be committed after first lying to ourselves via misdirection (or by using other logic structures). Most religions that derive from the Christian tradition use the word “sin” but many eastern religions and non-Christian religions have their own unique word which essentially describes the same reality. And no matter where it comes from, the word usually has a negative connotation. Meaning good things generally don’t come from the practice of deceit.

Christie has carefully chosen deceitful words. He tells a lie by misdirection, so as to help others abandon logic in favor of responding to fleeting feelings, while himself remaining forever exempt from being in a position to commit that act.

The use of deadly force via self-defense, is generally understood to be necessary and permissible when a person’s life is under immediate and direct threat of grave danger, meaning danger that can and will kill you. When the danger of immediate death is that great, the law allows you to kill the attacker to save your own life. That’s why anyone who shoots at a robber that is driving away after robbing you ends up going to jail or at the least the typical result is being charged and convicted of a crime. This happens because the act is in retaliation, and not in self-defense. Nobody running away from you at high speed is an immediate, direct, grave threat to your life unless they have a trigger for a bomb or some type of non-standard weapon.

Christie’s fist lie in his statement is that his words perpetuate and imply a disordered or distorted concept of self-defense and deadly force. Kill the baby because the baby has a gun to your head? Or kill the baby because you were violated, and you want to minimize the things that might trigger memories of the crime, so by killing the innocent baby (not giving it up for adoption, but killing it), who is also a victim by the way, that will solve the problem right? Since your choice to kill the baby was the product of logic and not of fleeting emotions, and you didn’t lie to yourself via misdirection, then did you also kill the other victims in the room so you don’t see them and remember the crime? What about the furniture, or pictures on the wall? You are going to burn all that right? And if it happened in your own house, I am sure you are already in the process of burning that down too. If strong and fleeting emotion is valid justification for action, then everyone else needs to act. Oh wait, the enlightenment is starting because the folks in Ferguson and Baltimore did that.

Seriously, those who fall victim to lies perpetuated by misdirection are falling victim to the method of trickery that is as old as prostitution and murder. All this emphasis on progress that has been put forth by various women’s movements, yet with this total dedication to misdirection, it is clear that no significant progress has been made.

Christie’s second lie is that by using misdirection to focus on the temporary fleeting emotions of the woman, he has completely erased the baby from the equation. Therefore, by erasing that baby, and only looking at some of the components of the situation, while applying an action to the whole situation as he only considers a few parts of it, he has inadvertently accepted error as truth, and the result of accepting error as truth is destruction.

Want an example? What happens when your car isn’t working properly and you take it to the mechanic? If the mechanic does not look at everything, he might think he found the problem, and if its only part of situation, and he fixes only that part, your car may sustain even more damage that it originally had. And you may return to the mechanic with an even larger problem than what you had originally. That is the natural result when error is accepted as truth. Both the mechanic and car owner are good people, they are doing what they believe is right. But that doesn’t stop nature.

Nature only deals with truth. Intent, good, evil, all that is irrelevant to nature. Nature is like a mechanical process, if you push X, then Y happens. It’s pure logic. Unforgiving consistency. Nothing else matters. So error is very dangerous, but it is especially dangerous when we want the error, and do all in our power to seek the error instead of the truth.

Now, let’s return to the Christie situation and remove the section of Christie’s statement where he uses carefully constructed words to perpetuate the trick of misdirection and replace those words with blank spaces, where the misdirection previously was.

“…if a woman is raped or if a woman is the victim of incest, ______________________, and that it can be an act of self-defense to _____ that.”

Now, we replace the blank spaces with raw truth, instead of using a ‘misdirection phrase”.

“…if a woman is raped or if a woman is the victim of incest, she must be permitted to kill the innocent little child who did not rape her, or subject her to incest, or commit any other act of violence or evil against her, and that it can be an act of self-defense to kill that.”

That’s the pure truth right there. No misdirection involved.

Now, with this in mind, let’s look at how a similar situation might look.

“…if a man or woman is robbed or beaten or if a man or woman is stuck with a hypodermic needle containing a toxic chemical, he or she must be permitted to kill an innocent bystander who did not beat him/her, or stick him/her with a hypodermic needle, or commit any other act of violence or evil against him/her, and who was not even present to witness the violence, and that it can be an act of self-defense to kill that innocent person who was not even standing nearby to witness the violence or was even aware of it.”

Now, to be consistent, that’s what you have to allow under the law. If you are going to allow people who don’t have anything to do with the act, to be killed as a form of “self-defense”, then you need to allow that to happen.

You can’t have it both ways. It’s like saying you can’t drive through an intersection when the light is red, while at the same time telling someone else that because the light is red, they can drive through the intersection. That is how you create chaos, through total inconsistency it’s impossible not to create and grow chaos.

Do you see how helpful misdirection is when you want to act in violation of nature? Misdirection and obfuscation will allow you to do anything no matter how illogical or erroneous it is, because by removing truth it allows you to see only a partial reality. When you only see part of reality, you are seeing error by means of being incomplete, making decisions on incomplete information means error is involved in the decision, and as the situation moves forward, the error just compounds on top of itself.

With that in mind, politicians who use misdirection like Christie are dangerous. And the more misdirection and obfuscation one uses, the more dangerous to truth and to justice they become. Christie can’t win obviously, but there are other candidates on both sides who are much better at misdirection and obfuscation than he is.

Don’t lie to yourself. Face the truth. If you want the right to murder unborn babies, and you know its illogical because you can’t kill born humans, but you don’t care, own that.

Say to the world, I believe a woman should be able to murder her unborn child for any reason she wants.

Admit it, and stop lying to yourself.

Face it and be proud of it.

At least that way, you become a more honest and pure version of yourself.

And if you can’t face truth, and you keep seeking misdirection, ask yourself “why?”. Perhaps that means it’s time to cut the bullshit and face what you know is right. Find someone who can help you do that. You will be a much happier person, when you do. The strongest people, are those who are not afraid to stare truth in the face, and doing that is the fastest way someone can go from their current state in life, to being a strong, powerful, and liberated person.

Do you want to do this but need some advice, help, or direction?

We can help. Depending on your question, we can direct you toward materials or point you towards resources that you can use on your quest for truth.

Call us at (631) 572-8902 or Send us a Message us on Facebook at il Conservatore Media

All communication will be kept strictly confidential. We are in the media business, but our greater calling is to do what we can to help hearts and minds seek truth. And that greater calling outranks everything else.

The Ted Cruz Campaign Told the Truth about Ben Carson

CNN Reporter Chris Moody tweeted this right before the Iowa caucuses began.

This tweet by CNN’s Chris Moody clearly says Carson is leaving the campaign trail because he is not going to either of next two primary locations, which is New Hampshire followed by South Carolina.

Every candidate goes to each primary location to campaign and fight for votes.

This Chris Moody tweet, which went out right before the Iowa caucuses began, clearly implies that Carson is dropping out.

It’s the kind of tweet that goes out “ahead of official news” by newsroom insiders and happens all the time.

How America’s Fake Poor Live Better than its Middle Class

In America, one person can eat for $62.00 per month as shown in the Elon Musk challenge (click here). However, the US food stamp program called SNAP currently pays an impoverished person an average of $125.35 per person per month for food.

Impoverished means you earn less than a certain amount of money in accordance with this chart.

As long as you earn in accordance with that chart, you qualify for free food. You also get free housing, free medical, free utilities, free smartphones, free internet, and a ton of other free stuff paid for by money America borrows from China and takes from its own citizens via taxes. It’s unsustainable.

However, the $125.35 you get for food, (in addition to housing, gas, medical, and all the other free things you get as a “poor person” in America) is more than double the $62 that has already been proven to be more than sufficient amount for food via the Elon Musk challenge.

This means welfare and state food subsidy payments are far too high.

Double payments are also occurring under the flawed food stamp snap benefit because children get free meals in school plus they still get the food stamps so it’s a double dip kind of payment.

For example children of impoverished families receive free breakfast and free lunch at school Monday thru Friday 365 days a year (yes even in the summer in most schools) yet each child plus the parents still receive $125 per month per person in food stamps. A house with 4 kids could get over $800 per month just in food stamps and because the kids eat free in school $500 is left over to sell or trade for luxuries since housing and other necessities are already provided free.

Could this be one of the reasons why many of those children wear $125/pair of Nike Air Jordan shoes?

Could this be why their homes have several big screen televisions?

Might this be why people receiving food stamps and are defined as impoverished always seem to have the latest iPhones, iPods, and iPads?

The people recieving these benefits live better and have more luxuries than most middle class folks who work 80 hours a week and can never get ahead.

Many people have witnessed food stamp recipients selling access to their SNAP cards so for $1.25 in cash per $2.00 food stamp. Meaning a food stamp recipient offers to go with a non food stamp person to the grocery store and let them do their shopping for cheap via their SNAP card if that person pays them anywhere from $0.50 to $1.25 in cash for each block of $2.00 food stamps.

That means the seller is illegally selling food stamps they clearly don’t need for cash and will then most likely use that cash for luxury products, drugs, or other things. It’s fraud on a grand scale.

Our families are suffering. We don’t have big screen televisions or iPhones or Air Jordan’s because the government is talking too much of our money to give to the people who happily accept it and demand more and more of it.

This kind of socialist based robbery of the working class needs to stop.

When the government meets 100% of a “poor person’s” basic needs by taxing and punishing the working class, the poor live like kings because every dollar they earn for themselves can be spent on luxuries, since their basic needs are already paid for.

Which politicians are going to stop it?