Allegations that senior ranks of the FBI were involved in “dirty tricks” to fix the 2016 presidential vote in favor of Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton – potentially highly criminal conduct – are treated as if such allegations are scurrilous distractions thrown up by the Trump White House or Republican supporters.

Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
It’s hilariously naive how mainstream American news media feign an air of disdain concerning accusations of impropriety by the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the last presidential elections.

Allegations that senior ranks of the FBI were involved in “dirty tricks” to fix the 2016 presidential vote in favor of Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton – potentially highly criminal conduct – are treated as if such allegations are scurrilous distractions thrown up by the Trump White House or Republican supporters.
When President Donald Trump has alluded to FBI collusion with the previous Obama Democrat administration to destroy his election campaign, or when Republican congressmen released a secret memo earlier this month also suggesting Deep State dirty tricks, there were gasps of disdain among major news media. Outlets like the New York Times and CNN affected a sanctimonious air that such allegations were contemptible slurs against the honor of the Feds – the nation’s top law-enforcement agency.
“Don’t dare impugn the reputation of our law officers,” is the attitude. Former FBI director James Comey – who was fired by Trump – is held up as a paragon of civic duty and squeaky-clean conduct. So too is Robert Mueller, a previous FBI chief who is carrying out a probe into alleged Russian collusion during the last election.
Of course, those media outlets would prefer to keep the focus on allegations of Russian interference in the US elections and supposed Kremlin collusion with the Trump campaign that somehow got him into the White House. That media bias is partly to do with their current political affiliation with Democrats and supposedly liberal politics.
Even though, after more than a year of constant, saturated media coverage on the so-called Russiagate story there is an embarrassing paucity of any supporting evidence. More reliable observers like Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen have cogentlyargued that the real story is US “Intelgate”, not the media sensationalized “Russiagate”.
One thing that would help the American public discern the relative merits of those competing narratives is greater awareness of the dark history of the FBI. Over the past century, the FBI’s political “influence campaigns” to control elected members of US government, including presidents, are on a scale that the Kremlin could only envy.
While the New York Times, CNN and others project a pious view of the FBI, as well as other secret arms of the Deep State, the reality is that the bureau has a long history of endemic political corruption – corruption that begs disturbing questions about the very integrity of American democracy.
No other individual in modern US history has a more sinister legacy than John Edgar Hoover, the founder and lifetime director of the FBI. He founded the bureau in 1924 and was its director until his death in 1972 at the age of 77.
Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned into a “Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail”. That’s how President Harry Truman (1943-53) reportedly characterized Hoover’s bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five decades – as the nation’s top law enforcer?
J Edgar Hoover and his henchmen kept files on thousands of politicians, judges, journalists and other public figures, according to biographer Anthony Summers. Hoover ruthlessly used those files on the secret and often sordid private lives of senior public figures to control their career conduct and official decisions so as to serve his interests.
And Hoover’s interests were of a rightwing, anti-communist, racist bigot.
Ironically, his own suppressed homosexuality also manifested in witch-hunts against homosexuals in public life.
It was Hoover’s secret files that largely informed the McCarthyite anti-communist inquisitions of the 1950s, whose baleful legacy on American democracy, foreign policy and freedom of expression continues to this day.
One of Hoover’s mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb.
Absurdly, the FBI chief maintained that there was “no such thing as the Mafia” in public statements.
Two notorious cases of how FBI wiretapping worked under Hoover can be seen in the presidencies of John F Kennedy (1961-63) and Richard Nixon (1969-74).
As recounted by Laurent Guyénot in his 2013 book, ‘JFK to 9/11: 50 Years of Deep State’, Hoover made a point of letting each new president know of compromising information he had on them. It wouldn’t be brandished overtly as blackmail; the president would be briefed subtly, “Sir, if someone were to have copies of this it would be damaging to your career”. Enough said.
JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once confided to his aides that “the bastards” had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ. Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ into the White House.
However, Hoover’s blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald – a cover-up that persists to this day.
As for Richard Nixon, it is believed that “Tricky Dicky” engaged in secret communications with the US-backed South Vietnamese regime on the cusp of the presidential elections in 1968. Nixon promised the South Vietnamese stronger military support if they held off entering peace talks with communist North Vietnam, which incumbent President Johnson was trying to organize. LBJ wanted to claim a peace process was underway in order to boost the election chances of his vice president Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon’s scheming prevailed. The Vietnam peace gambit was scuttled, the Vietnam war raged on, and so the Democrat candidate lost. Nixon finally got into the White House, which he had long coveted from the time he lost out to JFK back in 1960.
But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career.
These are but only two examples of how Deep State politics works in controlling and subverting American democracy. The notion that lawmakers and presidents are free to serve the people is a quaintly naive one. For the US media to pretend otherwise, and to hail the FBI as some kind of benign bastion of justice, while also deprecating claims of “Deep State” intrusion as “conspiracy theory”, is either impossibly ignorant of history – or a sign of the media’s own compromised complicity.
Nonetheless, to blame this culture of institutionalized blackmail and corruption on one individual – J Edgar Hoover – is not fair either.
Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others.
Once formed, the Deep State – as an alternate, unaccountable, unelected government – does not surrender its immense power willingly. It has learnt to hold on to its power through blackmail, media control, incitement of wars, and, even ultimately, assassination of American dissenters.
The illegal tapping of private communications is an oxygen supply for the depredations of the American Deep State.
Thinking that such agencies are not actively warping and working the electoral system to fix the figurehead in the White House is a dangerous delusion.
So too are claims that American democracy is being “influenced” by malign Russian enemies, as the US intelligence chiefs once again chorused in front of the Senate this past week. The consummate irony of it!
The real “influence campaigns” corrupting American democracy are those of the “All-American” agencies who claim to be law enforcers and defenders of national security.
US citizens would do well to refresh on the untold history of their country to appreciate how they are being manipulated.
We might even surmise that a good number of citizens are already aware, if only vaguely, of the elite corruption – and that is why Washington DC is viewed with increasing contempt by the people.

man was arrested by a private security guard and an off-duty police officer after asking pointed questions to American diplomat and author Dennis Ross during a library discussion. When a library employee attempted to intervene, he was also arrested.

Arrested for asking a question?

Nazi Germany anyone? Stalinist Russia?

USA 21st century!

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The following story hasn’t received the attention it deserves.
Back in May, a man was arrested by a private security guard and an off-duty police officer after asking pointed questions to American diplomat and author Dennis Ross during a library discussion. When a library employee attempted to intervene, he was also arrested.
ABC News reports:

The executive director the Kansas City library system says he is “outraged” that prosecutors continue to pursue charges against a man who was arrested after asking pointed questions during a library discussion about the Middle East peace process and an employee who tried to intervene.

Although the arrests occurred in May following a speech by author and diplomat Dennis Ross, the library system only recently went public about its opposition to charges, the Kansas City Star reported.

R. Crosby Kemper III, executive director of the city’s library system, said “we’re going to be living in a different kind of country” if people can be arrested for asking questions at a library. “If this kind of behavior is unacceptable to the police, then I guess we’re going to have to shut the library down.”

Issues arose after Ross finished speaking and took a question from Jeremy Rothe-Kushel concerning whether Jewish Americans like Rothe-Kushel should be concerned about actions by the U.S. and Israel that amount to “state-sponsored terrorism.”

“When are we going to stand up and be ethical Jews and Americans?” Rothe-Kushel asked.

When Rothe-Kushel tried to ask another question, a private security guard grasped his arm, followed by an off-duty police officer, both employed by the Jewish Community Foundation. Rothe-Kushel then shouted, “Get your hands off of me right now!”

Kemper said the private security guards had no right to remove a patron for asking a question.

Ross’ speech was the inaugural Truman and Israel Lecture, established by the Truman Library Institute and the Jewish Community Foundation of Greater Kansas City.

BoingBoing also covered the incident:

Take care when asking provocative questions at Kansas City’s library events: you might end up in jail.

The executive director of Kansas City Libraries says he’s outraged by the charges against Jeremy Rothe-Kushel, a Jewish man grabbed by private security after asking the event’s speaker, former diplomat Dennis Ross, uninvited follow-up questions. Off-duty cops moved in to arrest Rothe-Kushel when he objected to the hands-on treatment—as well as a library staffer who had moved to intervene.

On-duty officers posted to the event apparently did not get involved until later: he was arrested by a man out of uniform and paid by the event’s organizers.

Rothe-Kushel was charged with trespassing and resisting arrest. Steve Woolfolk, director of public programming for the library, was charged with interfering with an arrest. The libraries’ executive director, R. Crosby Kemper III. Kemper, said the private security guards have no right to remove library patrons and that he was going public because prosecutors refuse to drop the charges.

Land of the free? I think not.

Police State: You will be murdered for no reason and for being innocent of any crimes.

In an age dominated with news of school shootings, school lockdowns, police shootings of unarmed citizens (including children), SWAT team raids gone awry (leaving children devastated and damaged), reports of school resource officers tasering and shackling unruly students, and public schools undergoing lockdowns and active drills, I find myself wrestling with the question: how do you prepare a child for life in the American police state?
Every parent lives with a fear of the dangers that prey on young children: the predators who lurk at bus stops and playgrounds, the traffickers who make a living by selling young bodies, the peddlers who push drugs that ensnare and addict, the gangs that deal in violence and bullets, the drunk drivers, the school bullies, the madmen with guns, the diseases that can end a life before it’s truly begun, the cynicism of a modern age that can tarnish innocence, and the greed of a corporate age that makes its living by trading on young consumers.
It’s difficult enough raising a child in a world ravaged by war, disease, poverty and hate, but when you add the police state into the mix—with its battlefield mindset, weaponry, rigidity, surveillance, fascism, indoctrination, violence, etc.—it becomes near impossible to guard against the toxic stress of police shootings, SWAT team raids, students being tasered and shackled, lockdown drills, and a growing unease that some of the monsters of our age come dressed in government uniforms.
Children are taught from an early age that there are consequences for their actions. Hurt somebody, lie, steal, cheat, etc., and you will get punished. But how do you explain to a child that a police officer can shoot someone who was doing nothing wrong and get away with it? That a cop can lie, steal, cheat, or kill and still not be punished?
Kids understand accidents: sometimes drinks get spilled, dishes get broken, people slip and fall and hurt themselves, or you bump into someone without meaning to, and they get hurt. As long as it wasn’t intentional and done with malice, you forgive them and you move on. Police shootings of unarmed people—of children and old people and disabled people—can’t just be shrugged off as accidents, however.
Tamir Rice was no accident. Cleveland police shot and killed the 12-year-old, who was seen playing on a playground with a pellet gun. Surveillance footage shows police shooting the boy two seconds after getting out of a moving patrol car. Incredibly, the shooting was deemed “reasonable” and “justified” by two law enforcement experts who concluded that the police use of force “did not violate Tamir's constitutional rights.”
Aiyana Jones was also no accident. The 7-year-old was killed after a Detroit SWAT team launched a flash-bang grenade into her family’s apartment, broke through the door and opened fire, hitting the little girl who was asleep on the living room couch. The cops weren’t even in the right apartment. Ironically, on the same day that President Obama refused to stop equipping police with the very same kinds of military weapons and gear used to raid Aiyana’s home, it was reported that the police officer who shot and killed the little girl would not face involuntary manslaughter charges.
Obama insists that $263 million to purchase body cameras for police will prevent any further erosions of trust, but a body camera would not have prevented Aiyana from being shot in the head. Indeed, the entire sorry affair was captured on camera: a TV crew was filming the raid for an episode of The First 48, a true-crime reality show in which homicide detectives have 48 hours to crack a case.
While that $263 million will make Taser International, the manufacturer of the body cameras, a whole lot richer, it’s doubtful it would have prevented a SWAT team from shooting 14-month-old Sincere in the shoulder and hand and killing his mother.
No body camera could have stopped a Georgia SWAT team from launching a flash-bang grenade into the house in which Baby Bou Bou, his three sisters and his parents were staying. The grenade landed in the 2-year-old’s crib, burning a hole in his chest and leaving him with scarring that a lifetime of surgeries will not be able to easily undo.
No body camera could have prevented 10-year-old Dakota Corbitt from being shot by a Georgia police officer who tried to shoot an inquisitive dog, missed, and hit the young boy, instead.
When police shot 4-year-old Ava Ellis in the leg, shattering the bone, it actually was an accident, but it was an accident that could have been prevented. Police reported to Ava’s house after being told that Ava’s mother, who had cut her arm, was in need of a paramedic. Cops claimed that the family pet charged the officer who was approaching the house, causing him to fire his gun and hit the little girl.
Alberto Sepulveda, 11, died from one “accidental” shotgun round to the back, after a SWAT team raided his parents’ home. Thirteen-year-old Andy Lopez Cruz was shot 7 times in 10 seconds by a California police officer who mistook the boy’s toy gun for an assault rifle. Christopher Roupe, 17, was shot and killed after opening the door to a police officer. The officer, mistaking the Wii remote control in Roupe’s hand for a gun, shot him in the chest.
These children are more than grim statistics on a police blotter. They are the heartbreaking casualties of the government’s endless, deadly wars on terror, on drugs, and on the American people themselves.
Not even the children who survive their encounters with police escape unscathed. Increasingly, their lives are daily lessons in compliance and terror, meted out with every SWAT team raid, roadside strip search, and school drill.
Who is calculating the damage being done to the young people forced to watch as their homes are trashed and their dogs are shot during SWAT team raids? A Minnesota SWAT team actually burst into one family’s house, shot the family’s dog, handcuffed the children and forced them to “sit next to the carcass of their dead and bloody pet for more than an hour.” They later claimed it was the wrong house.
More than 80% of American communities have their own SWAT teams, with more than 80,000 of these paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, terrorize adults and children alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening—and all in the pursuit of someone merely suspected of a crime, usually some small amount of drugs.
What are we to tell our nation’s children about the role of police in their lives? Do you parrot the government line that police officers are community helpers who are to be trusted and obeyed at all times? Do you caution them to steer clear of a police officer, warning them that any interactions could have disastrous consequences? Or is there some happy medium between the two that, while being neither fairy tale nor horror story, can serve as a cautionary tale for young people who will encounter police at virtually every turn?
No matter what you say, there can be no avoiding the hands-on lessons being taught in the schools about the role of police in our lives, ranging from active shooter drills and school-wide lockdowns to incidents in which children engaging in typically childlike behavior are suspended (for shooting an imaginary “arrow” at a fellow classmate), handcuffed (for being disruptive at school), arrested (for throwing water balloons as part of a school prank), and even tasered (for not obeying instructions).
For example, a middle school in Washington State went on lockdown after a student brought a toy gun to class. A Boston high school went into lockdown for four hours after a bullet was discovered in a classroom. A North Carolina elementary school locked down and called in police after a fifth grader reported seeing an unfamiliar man in the school (it turned out to be a parent).
Better safe than sorry is the rationale offered to those who worry that these drills are terrorizing and traumatizing young children. As journalist Dahlia Lithwick points out: “I don’t recall any serious national public dialogue about lockdown protocols or how they became the norm. It seems simply to have begun, modeling itself on the lockdowns that occur during prison riots, and then spread until school lockdowns and lockdown drills are as common for our children as fire drills, and as routine as duck-and-cover drills were in the 1950s.”
These drills have, indeed, become routine.
As the New York Times reports: “Most states have passed laws requiring schools to devise safety plans, and several states, including Michigan, Kentucky and North Dakota, specifically require lockdown drills. Some drills are as simple as a principal making an announcement and students sitting quietly in a darkened classroom. At other schools, police officers and school officials playact a shooting, stalking through the halls like gunmen and testing whether doors have been locked.”
Police officers at a Florida middle school carried out an active shooter drill in an effort to educate students about how to respond in the event of an actual shooting crisis. Two armed officers, guns loaded and drawn, burst into classrooms, terrorizing the students and placing the school into lockdown mode.
What is particularly chilling is how effective these lessons in compliance are in indoctrinating young people to accept their role in the police state, either as criminals or prison guards. If these exercises are intended to instill fear and compliance into young people, they’re working.
Sociologist Alice Goffman understands how far-reaching the impact of such “exercises” can be on young people. For six years, Goffman lived in a low-income urban neighborhood, documenting the impact such an environment—a microcosm of the police state—on its residents. Her account of neighborhood children playing cops and robbers speaks volumes about how constant exposure to pat downs, strip searches, surveillance and arrests can result in a populace that meekly allows itself to be prodded, poked and stripped.
As journalist Malcolm Gladwell writing for the New Yorker reports:

Goffman sometimes saw young children playing the age-old game of cops and robbers in the street, only the child acting the part of the robber wouldn’t even bother to run away: I saw children give up running and simply stick their hands behind their back, as if in handcuffs; push their body up against a car without being asked; or lie flat on the ground and put their hands over their head. The children yelled, “I’m going to lock you up! I’m going to lock you up, and you ain’t never coming home!” I once saw a six-year-old pull another child’s pants down to do a “cavity search.”

Clearly, our children are getting the message, but it’s not the message that was intended by those who fomented a revolution and wrote our founding documents. Their philosophy was that the police work for us, and “we the people” are the masters, and they are to be our servants. Now that has been turned on its head, fueled by our fears (some legitimate, some hyped along by the government and its media mouthpieces) about the terrors and terrorists that lurk among us.
It’s getting harder by the day to tell young people that we live in a nation that values freedom and which is governed by the rule of law without feeling like a teller of tall tales. Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, unless something changes and soon for the young people growing up, there will be nothing left of freedom as we have known it but a fairy tale without a happy ending.

So, you teach your children that 1 in 5 Americans work for the police state system. These people can and will murder anyone without ever being held accountable for their actions. EVER. Teach them they are more likely to be robbed by a cop then by any armed thug. And if ever shot, the bullet will come from a gun and badge, as the stats prove out. Teach them that over 10,000 UNARMED people a year in the USA ALONE, are shot down by cops. And this number is growing. THese realities are more scary than anything Hollywood can cook up with their horror factories. Because these facts ARE TRUE AND NOT FICTION.

 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-15/how-do-you-prepare-child-life-american-police-state

News Forage: Cop Accidentally Shoots 4-Year-Old Girl: 'Mommy Am...

What was the little dog going to do? Nip at your bum? Eat your shoelaces and for that you pull your piece, and fire off a round to kill a small dog and shoot a little girl?





Who are these monsters?



News Forage: Cop Accidentally Shoots 4-Year-Old Girl: 'Mommy Am...: A cop accidentally shot a four-year-old girl while responding to an incident inside her home. Her mother, Andrea Ellis, had  cut her arm...

SB350

 

Welcome to the new police state. Same as the old police state. Obey or this thing goes off...

This law will limit how often we can drive our own cars.  

The state will also be collecting and monitoring our personal driving habits and tracking how much gas we use. 

They’re now reviewing regulations to force automakers to include data monitoring systems in all cars so that regulators will be able to penalize and fine us if we drive too much or use too much gas.

sign the petition to stop this fascist madness before it is too late 

Similarly, black parents, advising their kids on how to deal with police, tell them to just obey the officer’s orders. “The goal,” as one parent pointed out, “is to stay alive.”

Drivers, Beware: The Costly, Deadly Dangers Of Traffic Stops In The American Police State

 

Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.
The odds weren’t in Walter L. Scott’s favor. Reportedly pulled over for a broken taillight, Scott—unarmed—ran away from the police officer, who pursued and shot him from behind, first with a Taser, then with a gun. Scott was struck five times, “three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart.”
Samuel Dubose, also unarmed, was pulled over for a missing front license plate. He was reportedly shot in the head after a brief struggle in which his car began rolling forward.
Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.
Bobby Canipe was pulled over for having an expired registration. When the 70-year-old reached into the back of his truck for his walking cane, the officer fired several shots at him, hitting him once in the abdomen.
Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.
If there is any lesson to be learned from these “routine” traffic stops, it is that drivers should beware.
At a time when police can do no wrong—at least in the eyes of the courts, police unions and politicians dependent on their votes—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct, “we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.
According to the Justice Department, the most common reason for a citizen to come into contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop. On average, one in 10 Americans gets pulled over by police. Black drivers are 31 percent more likely to be pulled over than white drivers, or about 23 percent more likely than Hispanic drivers. As the Washington Post concludes, “‘Driving while black’ is, indeed, a measurable phenomenon.”
As Sandra Bland learned the hard way, the reason for a traffic stop no longer matters. Bland, who was pulled over for allegedly failing to use her turn signal, was arrested after refusing to comply with the police officer’s order to extinguish her cigarette and exit her vehicle. The encounter escalated, with the officer threatening to “light” Bland up with his taser. Three days later, Bland was found dead in her jail cell.
“You’re doing all of this for a failure to signal?” Bland asked as she got out of her car, after having been yelled at and threatened repeatedly. Had she only known, drivers have been pulled over for far less. Indeed, police officers have been given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons.
This approach to traffic stops (what I would call “blank check policing,” in which the police get to call all of the shots) has resulted in drivers being stopped for windows that are too heavily tinted, for driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, and leaving a parked car door open for too long.
Motorists can also be stopped by police for driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, troll transponders or rosaries), and displaying pro-police bumper stickers.
Incredibly, a federal appeals court actually ruled unanimously in 2014 that acne scars and driving with a stiff upright posture are reasonable grounds for being pulled over. More recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that driving a vehicle that has a couple air fresheners, rosaries and pro-police bumper stickers at 2 MPH over the speed limit is suspicious, meriting a traffic stop.
Unfortunately for drivers, not only have traffic stops become potentially deadly encounters, they have also turned into a profitable form of highway robbery for the police departments involved.
As The Washington Post reports, “traffic stops for minor infractions such as speeding or equipment violations are increasingly used as a pretext for officers to seize cash from drivers.” Relying on federal and state asset forfeiture laws, police set up “stings” on public roads that enable them to stop drivers for a variety of so-called “suspicious” behavior, search their vehicles and seize anything of value that could be suspected of being connected to criminal activity. Since 2001, police have seized $2.5 billion from people who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued.
“In case after case,” notes The Washington Post, “highway interdictors appeared to follow a similar script. Police set up what amounted to rolling checkpoints on busy highways and pulled over motorists for minor violations, such as following too closely or improper signaling. They quickly issued warnings or tickets. They studied drivers for signs of nervousness, including pulsing carotid arteries, clenched jaws and perspiration. They also looked for supposed ‘indicators’ of criminal activity, which can include such things as trash on the floor of a vehicle, abundant energy drinks or air fresheners hanging from rearview mirrors.”
If you’re starting to feel somewhat overwhelmed, intimidated and fearful for your life and your property, you should be. Never before have “we the people” been so seemingly defenseless in the face of police misconduct, lacking advocates in the courts and in the legislatures.
So how do you survive a police encounter with your life and wallet intact?
The courts have already given police the green light to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons. In an 8-1 ruling in Heien v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that police officers can pull someone over based on a “reasonable” but mistaken belief about the law.
Of course, what’s reasonable to agents of the police state may be completely unreasonable to the populace. Nevertheless, the moment those lights start flashing and that siren goes off, we’re all in the same boat: we must pull over.
However, it’s what happens after you’ve been pulled over that’s critical. Survival is the key.
Technically, you have the right to remain silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put away your phone or stop recording them.
However, as Bland learned the hard way, there is a price for asserting one’s rights. “Faced with an authority figure unwilling to de-escalate the situation, Bland refused to be bullied or intimidated,” writes Boston Globe contributor Renee Graham. “She understood her rights, but for African-Americans in encounters with police, the appalling price for asserting even the most basic rights can be their lives.”
So if you don’t want to get probed, poked, pinched, tasered, tackled, searched, seized, stripped, manhandled, arrested, shot, or killed, don’t say, do or even suggest anything that even hints of noncompliance when it comes to interactions with police.
One police officer advised that if you feel as if you’re being treated unfairly, comply anyhow and contest it in court later. Similarly, black parents, advising their kids on how to deal with police, tell them to just obey the officer’s orders. “The goal,” as one parent pointed out, “is to stay alive.”
It seems that “comply or die” has become the new maxim for the American police state.
Then again, not even compliance is a guarantee of safety anymore. “Police are specialists in violence,” warns Kristian Williams, who has written extensively on the phenomenon of police militarization and brutality. “They are armed, trained, and authorized to use force. With varying degrees of subtlety, this colors their every action. Like the possibility of arrest, the threat of violence is implicit in every police encounter. Violence, as well as the law, is what they represent.”
In other words, in the American police state, “we the people” are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”
As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be “neutralized” is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets the police beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, when police officers are allowed to operate under the assumption that their word is law and that there is no room for any form of disagreement or even question, that serves to chill the First Amendment’s assurances of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a casual “show your ID” request on a boardwalk, a stop-and-frisk search on a city street, or a traffic stop for speeding or just to check your insurance. If you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re under arrest from the moment a cop stops you.
Sad, isn’t it, how quickly we have gone from a nation of laws—where the least among us had just as much right to be treated with dignity and respect as the next person (in principle, at least)—to a nation of law enforcers (revenue collectors with weapons) who treat us all like suspects and criminals?
Clearly, the language of freedom is no longer the common tongue spoken by the citizenry and their government. With the government having shifted into a language of force, “we the people” have been reduced to suspects in a surveillance state, criminals in a police state, and enemy combatants in a military empire.++++


the Fascist American Globalist Surveillance State (FAG-SS) is complete and the Police Departments are inevitably 100% privatised... that the omnipresent surveillance cameras and weaponized drones can be easily manned by Chinese or Indian citizens 8,000 miles away for under $2 an hour. Let's not even talk about the new cars that will drive themselves to wherever the authorites will allow you to go that can never need to be pulled over for a traffic violation.
So, the message is, if you live around F.A.G.S., stay away from anyone with P.D.

THE MESSAGE IS SIMPLY, BE A GOOD LITTLE BITCH, COMPLY, LET THEM ROB YOU OF YOUR POSSESSIONS, AND YOU MIGHT BE ALLOWED TO GO HOME.

 



 

“Encryption Doesn’t Matter In a World Where Anyone Can Plant Software On Your Phone and See What You’re Seeing”

John McAfee invented commercial antivirus software. He may be a controversial and eccentric figure … but the man knows his technology.
Earlier this month, McAfee told security expert Paul Asadoorian that encryption is dead.  Specifically, he said:

• Every city in the country has 1 to 3 Stingray spy devices … Bigger cities like New York probably have 200 or 300

• When you buy a Stingray, Harris Corporation makes you sign a contract keeping your Stingray secret (background here and here)

• Stingray pushes automatic “updates” – really malicious software – onto your phone as soon as you come into range

• The software – written by the largest software company in the world – allows people to turn on your phone, microphone and camera, and read everything you do and see everything on your screen

• Encryption doesn’t matter in a world where anyone can plant software on your phone and see what you’re seeing.  Protecting transmission of information from one device to the other doesn’t matter anymore … they can see what you see on your device

• There are many intrusions other than Stingray.   For example, everyone has a mobile phone or mobile device which has at least 10 apps which have permission to access camera and microphone

• Bank of America’s online banking app requires you to accept microphones and cameras. McAfee called Bank of America and asked why they require microphones and cameras. They replied that – if you emptied all of the money in your account and said “it wasn’t me”, they could check, and then say:

Well, it certainly looks like you. And it certainly sounds like you.

• In order to do that, B of A’s app keeps your microphone and camera on for a half hour after you’ve finished your banking

• In addition, people can call you – and have you call them back – and plant software on your phone when you call them back

9-11 Ripple Effect - FULL

Creepy Tracking Tech Gone Too Far: "Police Surveillance Now Fully Automated and Integrated Into Wireless Networks"

Creepy Tracking Tech Gone Too Far: "Police Surveillance Now Fully Automated and Integrated Into Wireless Networks"

How to opt out of Obamacare through medical sharing

http://thefederalist.com/2013/12/04/opt-obamacare/

https://mychristiancare.org/Medi-Share/Public_Content/Common_Questions%281%29.aspx

Land Of The Free? 1 In 3 Americans Are On File With The FBI In The US Police State

Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The sickening transformation of these United States into an authoritarian police state with an incarceration rate that would make Joseph Stalin blush, has been a key theme of my writing since well before the launch of Liberty Blitzkrieg. One of the posts that shocked and disturbed readers most, was published a little over a year ago titled: American Police Make an Arrest Every 2 Seconds in 2012. In the event you never read it, I suggest taking a look before tackling the rest of this piece.
Fast forward to fall 2014, and the Wall Street Journal has a powerful article about how children in schools systems across the U.S. are being arrested or turned over to police custody for doing things that children have always done since the beginning of time. Things such as wearing too much perfume, sharing a classmates’ chicken nuggets, throwing an eraser or chewing gum.
As a result of our insane societal obsession with authority and disproportionate punishment, the WSJ reports that “nearly one out of every three American adults are on file in the FBI’s master criminal database.” 
USA! USA!
From the Wall Street Journal:

A generation ago, schoolchildren caught fighting in the corridors, sassing a teacher or skipping class might have ended up in detention. Today, there’s a good chance they will end up in police custody.

In Texas, a student got a misdemeanor ticket for wearing too much perfume. In Wisconsin, a teen was charged with theft after sharing the chicken nuggets from a classmate’s meal—the classmate was on lunch assistance and sharing it meant the teen had violated the law, authorities said. In Florida, a student conducted a science experiment before the authorization of her teacher; when it went awry she received a felony weapons charge.

Over the past 20 years, prompted by changing police tactics and a zero-tolerance attitude toward small crimes, authorities have made more than a quarter of a billion arrests, the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates. Nearly one out of every three American adults are on file in the FBI’s master criminal database.

Did you catch that too? “Zero-tolerance attitude toward small crimes.” Indeed, the big criminals go to Wall Street, crash the economy and then receive trillions in taxpayer bailouts. Or they get a top job in the Obama Administration, such as Jedi-master of cronyism, Tim Geithner, being chosen as Treasury Secretary.
Back to the WSJ…

At school, talking back or disrupting class can be called disorderly conduct, and a fight can lead to assault and battery charges, said Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of the Advancement Project, a national civil-rights group examining discipline procedures around the country. 

If these rules were in place in my day, I would have been arrested about 150 times.

“We’re not talking about criminal behavior,” said Texas State Sen. John Whitmire, the Democratic chair of the senate’s Criminal Justice Committee, who helped pass a new law last year that limits how police officers can ticket students. “I’m talking about school disciplinary issues, throwing an eraser, chewing gum, too much perfume, unbelievable violations” that were resulting in misdemeanor charges.

According to the U.S. Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights, 260,000 students were reported, or “referred” in the official language, to law enforcement by schools in 2012, the most-recent available data.

The number of school police officers rose 55% to about 19,000 in the 10 years to 2007, the last year for which numbers were available, according to a 2013 study from the Congressional Research Service.

The schools crackdown has had its intended effect. Victims’ surveys compiled by the Education Department show that there is a lower rate of violent crime committed in schools, falling to 52 incidents per 100,000 students in 2012 from 181 incidents per 100,000 in 1992.Supporters say that alone proves the worth of aggressive policing.

Well yeah, and pigs in a pen are easily controlled too, but are these the types of children we want to raise?
And what about the downside, such as:

Brushes with the criminal justice system go hand in hand with other negative factors. A study last year of Chicago public schools by a University of Texas and a Harvard researcher found the high-school graduation rate for children with arrest records was 26%, compared with 64% for those without. The study estimated about one-quarter of the juveniles arrested in Chicago annually were arrested in school.

A science experiment that went awry turned into a 17-month battle for Kiera Wilmot and her mother as they tried to clear the honor student’s arrest record. According to the police report, she was on school grounds outside the classroom trying out an experiment that hadn’t been authorized by her teacher. Ms. Wilmot, now 18, said she put a piece of aluminum inside a bottle with two ounces of toilet cleaner to see what would happen. The teen’s mother said she was trying to simulate a volcanic eruption.

“It popped,” blowing the top off the bottle, she said. She was handcuffed by the school-resource office, escorted out of the Bartow, Fla., school and taken to a juvenile facility where she was charged with possessing or discharging firearms or weapons at school and making, throwing, possessing, projecting, placing or discharging a destructive device.

Think about what sorts of lessons we are teaching talented students about experimenting and being creative. A modern Benjamin Franklin would most likely be rotting away in solitary right now.
So as we militarize the police, we police the schools. See the direction this is all headed in?
Keep chanting muppets.

Welcome to America the beautiful, land of the...free?

Heavy-handed Fascism in Ferguson, Mo.

FERGUSON • St. Louis Alderman Antonio French emerged Thursday morning from a night in jail after his arrest at the Ferguson protests to say that the police officers' "heavy-handed" approach on the streets is making the situation worse.
French said police dragged him from his car Wednesday night but gave him no documentation that says why he was arrested. He was released about 7 a.m. today without having to post any bail.
No police spokesman was available to explain why French was arrested.
French said he should never have been locked up, nor should the dozen or so others at the jail overnight.
"Inside that jail is nothing but peacekeepers," he said. "They rounded up the wrong people ... reverends, young people organizing the peace effort."
Police arrested about a dozen people Wednesday night, including French and Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery and Huffington Post reporter Ryan Reilly.
Police used tear gas and sonic cannons to disperse the crowds. Today, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is scheduled to visit Ferguson in the wake of the growing protests.
As he walked out of the Ferguson Jail this morning, French wore his signature oxford button-down shirt -- slightly wrinkled from sleeping in it on a jail cot, and with a burnt orange color on the shoulder from where a fellow inmate had wiped his eyes from the burning tear gas.
French talked with reporters about his experience. He said he was near the burned-out QuikTrip at about 9 p.m. Wednesday when police in riot gear ordered protesters to disperse. Several hundred people were there.
"Police had just given a final warning to disperse and released smoke bombs, people scattered and ran," French said. "Police started to move forward with riot gear and tear gas started to come."
"I moved away when it looked like they were throwing what I thought was tear gas ... it turned out to be smoke bombs," French added. "I realized the best place (to be was in my) car with the windows rolled up. That's where I was."
He said he was recording what was happening.
When a reporter asked French today how he went from being in his car to being arrested, he said: "They open your door and drag you out."
"They just rounded up anybody they could see," he said.
He had no complaints about the way the officer treated him, other than how securely the officer wrapped his wrist with the plastic handcuffs.
"I don't think I was mistreated," he said. "The roughest things were those zip ties ... pretty tight."
He said he was treated well inside the jail and offered a honey bun at 6 a.m. for breakfast, which he declined. He was told he'd be held 24 hours on a charge of unlawful assembly, but then he was inexplicably released without bail or any paperwork at 7 a.m.
French is in his first term as alderman of the 21st Ward in St. Louis. His ward includes the Mark Twain, Penrose and O'Fallon neighborhoods. After the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson on Saturday afternoon, French has been attending protests and rallies, posting updates on social media.
French said he will continue to document the protests and police response as long as the protesters are on the streets. He wasn't able to post anything for the nine hours he was in jail because they took his phone from him. At 8 a.m., French said he was ready to log back in. "I've gotta find a charger somewhere," he joked.
He said he was also heading to an ATM to get cash to bail out two of his staffers who were arrested after being pulled from their cars. Police told his staffers, two women, that they were arrested for a noise violation, French said.
"In an American city, people are being tear-gassed and snipers are pointing rifles at them," he said. "Everybody should be upset ... heavy-handed police approach is actually making the situation worse.
"Before they arrived heavy-handedly, it was a peaceful situation."
French said the city is wrong to try to limit protests to daylight-only.
"We have a right to protest 24 hours a day," French said. "Our constitutional rights don't expire at 9 p.m." - Kim Bell, 7:25 a.m. Thursday
OUR EARLIER STORY
Law enforcement officials on Wednesday asked for patience to allow the investigation into the shooting of Michael Brown to take its course as tension over the teenager’s death continued for a fifth straight day.
St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch said his office will take as much time as necessary to review circumstances that led a Ferguson police officer to fatally shoot the 18-year-old Brown on a street Saturday afternoon.
“The timeline on this is there is no timeline,” McCulloch told an afternoon news conference. “We will do this as expeditiously as possible. But we won’t rush.”
Resisting pressure from street demonstrators and public officials for answers that show why the unnamed officer confronted Brown and a companion shortly after noon on Saturday, McCulloch said the details may not emerge until the process of collecting evidence and presenting it to the grand jury is complete.
“I know that’s not the answer anybody wants to hear at this point,” he said. “Everybody wants to know what happened.”
McCulloch called the problem twofold. First, he said, ethical rules prevent prosecutors from disseminating the physical evidence. He also said he won’t do anything to corrupt the integrity of the investigation.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/unrest-simmers-after-crowds-clear-from-west-florissant-avenue/article_0806541b-ed48-5d06-9267-323531ad6cf1.html

SCARY NEW WORLD ORDER PLANS FOR 2014

THIS IS WHAT A POLICE STATE LOOKS LIKE!

How algorithms rule the world

How algorithms rule the world - The Hindu

On August 4, 2005, the police department of Memphis, Tennessee, made so many arrests over a three-hour period that it ran out of vehicles to transport the detainees to jail. Three days later, 1,200 people had been arrested across the city — a new police department record. Operation Blue Crush was hailed a huge success.


Larry Godwin, the city’s new police director, quickly rolled out the scheme and by 2011 crime across the city had fallen by 24 per cent. When it was revealed Blue Crush faced budget cuts earlier this year, there was public outcry. “Crush” policing is now perceived to be so successful that it has reportedly been mimicked across the globe, including in countries such as Poland and Israel. In 2010, it was reported that two police forces in the U.K. were using it, but their identities were not revealed.

Crush stands for “Criminal Reduction Utilising Statistical History”. Translated, it means predictive policing. Or, more accurately, police officers guided by algorithms. A team of criminologists and data scientists at the University of Memphis first developed the technique using IBM predictive analytics software. Put simply, they compiled crime statistics from across the city over time and overlaid it with other datasets - social housing maps, outside temperatures etc — then instructed algorithms to search for correlations in the data to identify crime “hot spots”. The police then flooded those areas with highly targeted patrols.

“It’s putting the right people in the right places on the right day at the right time,” said Dr. Richard Janikowski, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Memphis, when the scheme launched. But not everyone is comfortable with the idea. Some critics have dubbed it “Minority Report” policing, in reference to the sci-fi film in which psychics are used to guide a “PreCrime” police unit.

The use of algorithms in policing is one example of their increasing influence on our lives. And, as their ubiquity spreads, so too does the debate around whether we should allow ourselves to become so reliant on them — and who, if anyone, is policing their use. Such concerns were sharpened further by the continuing revelations about how the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has been using algorithms to help it interpret the colossal amounts of data it has collected from its covert dragnet of international telecommunications.

“For datasets the size of those the NSA collect, using algorithms is the only way to operate for certain tasks,” says James Ball, the Guardian’s data editor and part of the paper’s NSA Files reporting team. “The problem is how the rules are set: it’s impossible to do this perfectly. If you’re, say, looking for terrorists, you’re looking for something very rare. Set your rules too tight and you’ll miss lots of, probably most, potential terror suspects. But set them more broadly and you’ll drag lots of entirely blameless people into your dragnet, who will then face further intrusion or even formal investigation. We don’t know exactly how the NSA or GCHQ use algorithms — or how extensively they’re applied. But we do know they use them, including on the huge data trawls revealed in the Guardian.”

From dating websites and City trading floors, through to online retailing and internet searches (Google’s search algorithm is now a more closely guarded commercial secret than the recipe for Coca-Cola), algorithms are increasingly determining our collective futures. “Bank approvals, store cards, job matches and more all run on similar principles,” says Mr. Ball. “The algorithm is the god from the machine powering them all, for good or ill.”

But what is an algorithm? Dr. Panos Parpas, a lecturer in the quantitative analysis and decision science (“quads”) section of the department of computing at Imperial College London, says that wherever we use computers, we rely on algorithms: “There are lots of types, but algorithms, explained simply, follow a series of instructions to solve a problem. It’s a bit like how a recipe helps you to bake a cake. Instead of having generic flour or a generic oven temperature, the algorithm will try a range of variations to produce the best cake possible from the options and permutations available.”

Dr. Parpas stresses that algorithms are not a new phenomenon: “They’ve been used for decades — back to Alan Turing and the codebreakers, and beyond - but the current interest in them is due to the vast amounts of data now being generated and the need to process and understand it. They are now integrated into our lives. On the one hand, they are good because they free up our time and do mundane processes on our behalf. The questions being raised about algorithms at the moment are not about algorithms per se, but about the way society is structured with regard to data use and data privacy. It’s also about how models are being used to predict the future. There is currently an awkward marriage between data and algorithms. As technology evolves, there will be mistakes, but it is important to remember they are just a tool. We shouldn’t blame our tools.”

The “mistakes” Dr. Parpas refers to are events such as the “flash crash” of May 6, 2010, when the Dow Jones industrial average fell 1,000 points in just a few minutes, only to see the market regain itself 20 minutes later. The reasons for the sudden plummet has never been fully explained, but most financial observers blame a “race to the bottom” by the competing quantitative trading (quants) algorithms widely used to perform high-frequency trading. Scott Patterson, a Wall Street Journal reporter and author of The Quants, likens the use of algorithms on trading floors to flying a plane on autopilot. The vast majority of trades these days are performed by algorithms, but when things go wrong, as happened during the flash crash, humans can intervene.

“By far the most complicated algorithms are to be found in science, where they are used to design new drugs or model the climate,” says Dr. Parpas. “But they are done within a controlled environment with clean data. It is easy to see if there is a bug in the algorithm. The difficulties come when they are used in the social sciences and financial trading, where there is less understanding of what the model and output should be, and where they are operating in a more dynamic environment. Scientists will take years to validate their algorithm, whereas a trader has just days to do so in a volatile environment.”

Most investment banks now have a team of computer science PhDs coding algorithms, says Dr. Parpas, who used to work on such a team. “With City trading, everyone is running very similar algorithms,” he says. “They all follow each other, meaning you get results such as the flash crash. They use them to speed up the process and to break up big trades to disguise them from competitors when a big investment is being made. They will run new algorithms for a few days to test them before letting them loose with real money. In currency trading, an algorithm lasts for about two weeks before it is surpassed by a new one. In equities, which is a less complicated market, they will run for a few months before a new one replaces them. It takes a day or two to write a currency algorithm. It’s hard to find out information about them because, for understandable reasons, they don’t like to advertise when they are successful. Goldman Sachs, though, has a strong reputation for having a brilliant team of algorithm scientists. PhD students in this field will usually be employed within a few months by an investment bank.”

How algorithms interpret “our” data?

The idea that the world’s financial markets — and, hence, the wellbeing of our pensions, shareholdings, savings etc — are now largely determined by algorithmic vagaries is unsettling enough for some. But, as the NSA revelations exposed, the bigger questions surrounding algorithms centre on governance and privacy. How are they being used to access and interpret “our” data? And by whom? Dr. Ian Brown, the associate director of Oxford University’s Cyber Security Centre, says we all urgently need to consider the implications of allowing commercial interests and governments to use algorithms to analyse our habits: “Most of us assume that ‘big data’ is munificent. The laws in the U.S. and U.K. say that much of this [the NSA revelations] is allowed, it’s just that most people don’t realise yet. But there is a big question about oversight. We now spend so much of our time online that we are creating huge data-mining opportunities.” Dr. Brown says that algorithms are now programmed to look for “indirect, non-obvious” correlations in data.

“For example, in the U.S., healthcare companies can now make assessments about a good or bad insurance risk based, in part, on the distance you commute to work,” he says. “They will identity the low-risk people and market their policies at them. Over time, this creates or exacerbates societal divides. Professor Oscar Gandy, at the University of Pennsylvania, has done research into ‘secondary racial discrimination’, whereby credit and health insurance, which relies greatly on postcodes, can discriminate against racial groups because they happen to live very close to other racial groups that score badly.”

Dr. Brown harbours similar concerns over the use of algorithms to aid policing, as seen in Memphis where Crush’s algorithms have reportedly linked some racial groups to particular crimes: “If you have a group that is disproportionately stopped by the police, such tactics could just magnify the perception they have of being targeted.”

Viktor Mayer-Schonberger, professor of internet governance and regulation at the Oxford Internet Institute, also warns against humans seeing causation when an algorithm identifies a correlation in vast swaths of data. “This transformation presents an entirely new menace: penalties based on propensities,” he writes in his new book, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think, which is co-authored by Kenneth Cukier, the Economist’s data editor. “That is the possibility of using big-data predictions about people to judge and punish them even before they’ve acted. Doing this negates ideas of fairness, justice and free will. In addition to privacy and propensity, there is a third danger. We risk falling victim to a dictatorship of data, whereby we fetishise the information, the output of our analyses, and end up misusing it. Handled responsibly, big data is a useful tool of rational decision-making. Wielded unwisely, it can become an instrument of the powerful, who may turn it into a source of repression, either by simply frustrating customers and employees or, worse, by harming citizens.”

Two real-life scenarios

Prof. Mayer-Schonberger presents two very different real-life scenarios to illustrate how algorithms are being used. First, he explains how the analytics team working for U.S. retailer Target can now calculate whether a woman is pregnant and, if so, when she is due to give birth: “They noticed that these women bought lots of unscented lotion at around the third month of pregnancy, and that a few weeks later they tended to purchase supplements such as magnesium, calcium and zinc. The team ultimately uncovered around two dozen products that, used as proxies, enabled the company to calculate a ‘pregnancy prediction’ score for every customer who paid with a credit card or used a loyalty card or mailed coupons. The correlations even let the retailer estimate the due date within a narrow range, so it could send relevant coupons for each stage of the pregnancy.”

Harmless targeting, some might argue. But what happens, as has already reportedly occurred, when a father is mistakenly sent nappy discount vouchers instead of his teenage daughter whom a retailer has identified is pregnant before her own father knows? Prof. Mayer-Schonberger’s second example throws up even more potential dilemmas and pitfalls: “Parole boards in more than half of all US states use predictions founded on data analysis as a factor in deciding whether to release somebody from prison or to keep him incarcerated.”

Christopher Steiner, author of Automate This: How Algorithms Came to Rule Our World, has identified a wide range of instances where algorithms are being used to provide predictive insights — often within the creative industries. In his book, he tells the story of a website developer called Mike McCready, who has developed an algorithm to analyse and rate hit records. Using a technique called advanced spectral de-convolution, the algorithm breaks up each hit song into its component parts — melody, tempo, chord progression and so on — and then uses that to determine common characteristics across a range of No 1 records. Mr. McCready’s algorithm correctly predicted — before they were even released - that the debut albums by both Norah Jones and Maroon 5 contained a disproportionately high number of hit records.

The next logical step — for profit-seeking record companies, perhaps — is to use algorithms to replace the human songwriter. But is that really an attractive proposition? “Algorithms are not yet writing pop music,” says Steiner. He pauses, then laughs. “Not that we know of, anyway. If I were a record company executive or pop artist, I wouldn’t tell anyone if I’d had a number one written by an algorithm.” Mr. Steiner argues that we should not automatically see algorithms as a malign influence on our lives, but we should debate their ubiquity and their wide range of uses. “We’re already halfway towards a world where algorithms run nearly everything. As their power intensifies, wealth will concentrate towards them. They will ensure the 1 per cent-99 per cent divide gets larger. If you’re not part of the class attached to algorithms, then you will struggle. The reason why there is no popular outrage about Wall Street being run by algorithms is because most people don’t yet know or understand it.”

But Mr. Steiner says we should welcome their use when they are used appropriately to aid and speed our lives. “Retail algorithms don’t scare me,” he says. “I find it useful when Amazon tells me what I might like. In the U.S., we know we will not have enough GP doctors in 15 years, as not enough are being trained. But algorithms can replace many of their tasks. Pharmacists are already seeing some of their prescribing tasks replaced by algorithms. Algorithms might actually start to create new, mundane jobs for humans. For example, algorithms will still need a human to collect blood and urine samples for them to analyse.” There can be a fine line, though, between “good” and “bad” algorithms, he adds: “I don’t find the NSA revelations particularly scary.

At the moment, they just hold the data. Even the best data scientists would struggle to know what to do with all that data. But it’s the next step that we need to keep an eye on. They could really screw up someone’s life with a false prediction about what they might be up to.” — © Guardian News & Media 2013

Remember...we're watching ALL OF YOU!

The "Pain Compliance" Device

The use of tasers has been on the news repeatedly over the last year, with videos involving police brutality, and the cover-ups for the electrocution deaths of taser victims. The first taser death acknowledged by governmental officials occurred in June of 2005. Contrary to popular belief, tasers are not non-lethal weapons. As the U.S. Department of Justice correctly contended, tasers should be recategorized as "less-lethal weapons" instead of non-lethal weapons. Most accurately; tasers should be categorized as torture devices, for this is their most common use. Indeed, in law enforcement communities, tasers are sometimes referred to as "pain compliance" devices.




Tasers cause pain and mental confusion by overloading a victim's central nervous system, and therefore, they cause even passive victims to become aggressive, and thereby the target of even more tasing until the damage becomes crippling. The internal burns, damage to the nervous system, and subsequent heart injuries are all invisible. It is this invisibility of injuries which allows for the plausible deniability that the departments who issue these devices desire. This is the real reason why tasers are still being issued to officers. The people making and marketing these terrible devices have always known the truth, and they really are that evil, as further reading shall prove.

for use on small children, FCC approved

The most common use of tasers in law-enforcement now is as a pain submission device. Originally, tasers were not intended to be weapons for use when individuals did not comply with orders from officers, but rather as a less-lethal alternative to firearms in life-threatening situations only.



Richmond County's Special Police



On May 28th, 2008, sixteen-year-old Quayshaun Leak from North Carolina (USA) was tasered in his school merely for refusing to yield identification. The subsequent electrocution attack upon him by a law-enforcement official not only risked his life, but it was also a spine-tingling message about obedience for all of us, and it is a warning about what the future holds of a land where the law does not apply to them any more than it protects us.



Remarkably, utilizing tasers on students in Richmond County, North Carolina, is actually an official policy of the Richmond County School System, and this policy is listed in its official documents as: Special Police Policy #4201. You see, the police whose job is to harass, intimidate, taser, and illegally search students are called the Special Police. The aforementioned policy states that tasing students is a "reasonable use of force". This speaks volumes about the system if it must use weapons and so-called "reasonable force" against children, and such child abuse is an official policy.



Leak was criminally charged with Disorderly Conduct by the Special Police involved. After all, he was screaming loudly whilst being electrocuted, which qualified him as the one disturbing the students' peace. They also charged him with assaulting an officer, and resisting arrest (since his arms were flailing during the electrocution). (Wink) Most of his assaulting and resisting took place during his spastic convulsions on the ground.



"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



U.S. Bill of Rights - Amendment IV



In lieu of the ensuing cover-up, the Richmond County Daily Journal reported:



"Patti Almanza, Leak's [the victim's] cousin, filed two discrimination complaints Monday with the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights on behalf of Leak. The first complaint alleges Leak was 'brutally attacked' and that his mother was not allowed to view the video tape of the incident. The second claims Leak was denied the right to file charges against the arresting officer because the magistrate 'did not believe the child's version'."





Roger Holyfield

disobedient terrorist and non "compliant" child in need of correction

Meet young Roger Holyfield. Roger is dead, and never saw his eighteenth birthday. Phillip Burch, a medical examiner in Jerseyville, Illinois, officially reported that Roger's death in 2007 (at age 17) was the result of "excited delirium". This condition is not listed in any medical literature, and was apparently created specifically to explain Roger's death to the public. Dr. Burch was willing to claim as a doctor, and as a representative of the state, that Roger Holyfield had died of being too emotionally excited, which then led to his fatal heart-attack. The fact that Roger had been electrocuted with 50,000 volts was conveniently presented as being merely coincidental by the doctor, and incredibly, he furthermore claimed that he found no indications of trauma. His no trauma diagnosis is especially damning when considering that taser guns emit 50,000 volts of electricity into the body by internal "probes" (meat hooks) that bury themselves deep into flesh, and that electric chairs used for executions use only 2,000 volts, which is applied externally. The depths of corruption in Jerseyville are beyond belief, but it is not only Jerseyville with these problems.



Roger's crime was that he was carrying a Bible and talking about Jesus. He was to be baptized on the following day. To Jerseyville police officer Todd Witt, Roger's behavior proved that he was delusional, and needed immediate intervention by law-enforcement, including electrocution torture until his heart was destroyed.







"Witnesses say officers then tasered the teen at least twice and repeatedly punched him... Jerseyville Police admit that a teenager had already been handcuffed when he was tasered twice by two police officers... Police say although he was handcuffed, teen who was tasered and died was still a threat."



-- Channel 4 - KMOV





Starvation and Electro-Shock For Disabled Children



ABC News reported the abuse at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Canton, Massachusetts:



"A special education school where two emotionally disturbed students were wrongly given dozens of shocks after a prank call, will be allowed to use electric shock treatments on students for another year.



"But the state's Office of Health and Human Services said the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center must prove it uses shock treatments only for the most dangerous and self-destructive behaviors, and also show that the treatments reduce those behaviors.



"On Aug. 26, someone posing as a supervisor called in shock treatments on two students, aged 16 and 19. The teens were awakened in the middle of the night and given the shock treatments, at times while their legs and arms were bound. One teen received 77 shocks and the other received 29. One was treated for two first-degree burns."



The San Diego Union-Tribune wrote about the same center in lieu of the San Diego School District's offloading of one of its special needs children to it.



"The center has 220 students, most of them from New York and Massachusetts public schools. With parent permission and court supervision [for orphans], some students wear remotely activated shock devices that send painful sensations through the skin. When they misbehave, students get shocked with varying levels of intensity for up to two seconds. The Rotenberg Center, which is licensed by Massachusetts agencies, also withholds food....



"Last year, investigators from the New York State Department of Education who visited the school issued a scathing report alleging excessive and improper use of shock treatment at the Rotenberg Center. According to the report, shock devices were used for 'behaviors that are not aggressive, health dangerous or destructive, such as nagging, swearing or failing to maintain a neat appearance'. Students also were required to wear the devices during showers and baths, raising concerns of electrocution, according to the report."



Gordon Randall Jones



"In July 2002, an Orange County [Florida] deputy shocked Gordon Randall Jones with a Taser 14 times in four minutes on the day the 37-year-old Orlando man died. Jones had taken cocaine that day and was acting strangely when deputies came to remove him from a hotel where he was a paid guest. But Jones had not been violent and was not being arrested for a crime when the Taser darts hit him in the back, crumbling him to the floor.



"A lobby surveillance tape shows Jones lying, sometimes still, sometimes writhing, while a circle of deputies stands near him, some with arms folded, waiting for him to follow orders to put his hands behind his back.



"Eventually, deputies discussed another plan to gain control over Jones, who had bloody drool frothing from his mouth. By then, observers in the lobby had begged deputies to stop shocking him. One woman had fled from the smell of burning flesh.



"According to depositions, deputies didn't tell paramedics about the repeated taser shocks as they loaded Jones face-down into an ambulance. He died on the way to a hospital.



"The Orange County deputy chief medical examiner found Jones suffocated, with taser shocks and cocaine intoxication contributing.



"The taser shocks, Dr. William Anderson said, interfered with the muscles Jones needed to breathe, making him already short of breath when he was eventually handcuffed lying on his chest."



-- Antigone Barton of the Palm Beach Post





Does anyone believe the part about cocaine, or that the paramedics saw no need to monitor the victim's breathing and pulse before he died in their emergency care?



The Clear Message



There is a clear message being sent to students. It is the message that any disobedience to governmental authorities could leave them in a horrific, and even life-threatening situation. The government, and the police, were chartered to serve the people; but many of them nowadays have begun attempting to force the public into servitude. There is no mystery as to why today's teenagers foster such a deep sense of rebellion and resentment. Nobody appears to have the guts to stand up for them anymore, and all of their authority figures try to herd them like cattle. Young people are being treated like animals, and raised like animals, so it is no surprise that many of them are devolving into animals. It is to be expected.



"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."



-- George Orwell



The orchestrators of the current state are traitors to both God and country, and ultimately, we will all pay a high price for what they have unleashed upon us. Instead of addressing these issues, agents of the public school systems attempt to impose consistently expanding draconian regulations to control their rowdy students, and boldly advise parents to send their children to school-chosen doctors to receive chemical straight-jackets for Attention Deficit Disorder. This is a disorder that many of those who have been diagnosed do not actually have. It is no coincidence that the establishment claims that the kids suffering from A.D.D. are the rebellious (independent and free-thinking) ones, because these are the same kids they wish most to silence using the chemical tools at their disposal. This also explains the statistically high correlation between children who are intellectually gifted with those who have A.D.D.. It all explains why all the smart kids with leadership suddenly began being diagnosed as mentally ill in the middle 1980's, and why they now seem to have no scruples in adulthood. The school policies are no more about education than they are about health, but are instead they are completely about population control.



"You can't make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent."



-- John Dewey, Father of Modern Education



It is apparent that rebellion is not only justified, but it is actually a desirable thing: for what state would the kids be in now if they did obey everything that the state commanded? Just how mindless would they really be? Otherwise, when they reached full adulthood, would they stand up to fight for their freedoms? Would they instead just lose their rights because the state told them to shut-up, sit-down, and have their papers ready for inspection? Perhaps this is the problem with the state of affairs now. Perhaps they were taught too well their lessons in blind obedience.



The Real Monsters



I hope people wake up and realize what this is doing to the youth before it is too late. When I read about the Richmond County taser incident, what appalled me was not just what actually happened; but the comments made in response to it. Although, it is possible that many of the comments were from the police officers, who were attempting to temper public opinion, and perform damage control. They included:



Harvey Potter wrote on Jun 2, 2008 11:01 PM:



"I say tase a few more of them, that will keep them unruly kids in check."



eric wrote on Jun 3, 2008 5:25 AM:



"I think the trouble maker got off easy. He should have been tased fully and then he might behave himself. Evidently he didn't get the instructions correct from his parents to behave at school and in public. What we have here is a failure to communicate"



In earlier times, (and better times) complaints about rowdy young people were as common as they are now, but never before was there the response that their rambunctiousness should be disciplined through electrocution torture devices. Electrocution devices were saved for only the worst murders, and they were eventually considered too cruel and inhumane to be used in most states. If this had been the response in previous times, then I can only imagine how ruthless society would be now, and I can foresee how ruthless it will become.



The people who were quoted above (and many more) who believe that the tasings were justified, and who praised the actions of the officers, are the very reasons why a police state is inevitable. How will these people feel when they finally get exactly the type of society that they are asking for? How will they react when they are on the receiving end of this type of justice? Perhaps they will consider it as they are being kicking in the face.



Those who believe that 50,000 volts of electricity from a police officer should replace good parenting and mentoring should never have children. In fact, there really should be no place in society for them.



Words From The Taser Makers



The use of tasers as a torture-till-compliance devices is repeatedly emphasized in the taser user manuals, which are provided to each law-enforcement officer who carries one. When the cartridge (where the probes are armed) is removed, the taser is still usable by pressing it against a victim's body. One of the the user manuals that I read phrases it rather interestingly:



"The drive-stun mode will not cause NMI and generally becomes primarily a pain compliance option. The drive-stun works more effectively when aggressively applied to pressure points on nerve bundles. This includes the brachial area, common peronial, mastoid, and pelvic triangle. The TASER X26C must be actively depressed or aggressively driven into the nerve bundles in a 'drive-stun' manner to be effective in the drive-stun mode.



"If the probes are deployed, even at very close range, the user may be able to use drive-stun to another portion of the body that is farther away from the probes, thereby resulting in enhanced NMI effect."



The taser manual furthermore includes a message encouraging application of tasers to areas which would inflict the most severe and long-term injuries, as cited below (emphasis mine):



"WARNING: Use care when applying a drive-stun to the neck or pelvic triangle. These areas are sensitive to mechanical injury (such as crushing to the trachea or testicles if applied forcefully). However, these areas have proven highly effective targets."



The Consequences



Tasers are not non-lethal weapons, but they are not as lethal as firearms. They were initially made and marketed as devices to replace guns in life-threatening situations. This is why society accepted them as a law-enforcement tool. Tasers were never condoned by society as a pain compliance weapon for police to easily enforce their will upon us; at least not until very recently. There are tremendous differences between the word tool, the word weapon, and the phrase "pain compliance device". Those differences are very important. Unfortunately, legislators who condone the use of tasers do not agree. It amazes me that a weapon which sends 50,000 volts of electricity through a person's body has not been through rigorous testing. It is still unknown which types of people are the most vulnerable, and who tasers are likely to kill. The damage from tasers can be both permanent and invisible. Tasers cook their victims internally in a similar fashion to microwaving them. The painful consequences can last life-times. Surgery is commonly required to remove their meat hooks (which the manufacturers politically refer to as "probes") because the "probes" have a tendency to burrow deep into muscle tissues, and even bones. The invisibility of taser injuries shields law-enforcement from accountability, and this is one of the main reasons why tasers have become so popular. As I write this, tasers are being used to torture the elderly, pregnant women, and six-year-old children. How many people will die from these weapons, and how many more will have it used on them as a pain compliance device before the public puts an end to it?



http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/104-how-long-will-you-obey.html