Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - administrator

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 510
46

      

By Catherine J. Frompovich


Folks the information below is no techno bull malarkey!


Seriously, auto makers probably will be installing “smart meters” in all new cars so as to prevent accidents but, realistically, it’s surreptitiously a way to pave the way for – you got it – “self-driving cars”!


The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to mandate radar (called V2V technology) in all new cars and light trucks. [1]


The system is the V2V, which is like a smart meter in the car!


Smart meters on your utility services pump radiofrequencies (RFs) into your homes and, if being proposed for autos, somewhere operating close to your body while in your new high-tech automobile!


         



      

Isn’t microwave technology going crazy?


How much in the way of RFs do you think your body, especially your central nervous system, i.e., the brain, can be subjected to before you go bonkers?


What do you think will happen when 5G pumps out millimeter waves, which will activate your body’s sweat glands?  Don’t believe that?  Check out this research.


Will everyone now enjoy “hot sweats,” not just menopausal women?



5G is ultra-high frequency and ultra-high intensity. 5G uses between 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency.


Source: Radiation Health Risks



Consider the constant exposures to and from:



Wi-Fi everywhere you go
Cell towers, cell phones, iPhones
Stingray towers
GWEN towers
4G, 5G and possibly 6G broadband
5G cell towers probably every 300 or so feet

Even in front of your home or bedroom window



‘Smart’ home appliances, which spy on you inside your home
Utility [electric, natural gas, water] company AMI Smart Meters

According to EMF Safety Network,





Declare Your Independence!
Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!
Counter Markets Newsletter - Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom




   #mc_embed_signup {clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; text-align: center; padding-bottom: 15px; }
         .cmhead{color: rgb(255,199,27); text-shadow: 1px 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.5); text-align: center; font-size: 250%; font-family: sans-serif; font-weight: 700;}
         .cmsubhead{color: rgb(255,255,255); text-align: center; font-size: 150%; font-family: sans-serif;}
         .cmformhead{color: rgb(30, 29, 29); font-size: 160%; font-family: sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px;}
         #mc_embed_signup form { display: inline-block; background-color: #FFF; background-color: #FFF; margin-top: 20px; border-color: rgb(31, 31, 31);
    outline: none;
    background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
    opacity: 1;
    border-width: 3px;
    border-style: solid;
    border-radius: 5px;
    width:70%;
}
#mc_embed_signup input.email  {width: 90%; }
#mc_embed_signup input.button { width: 93%; background-color: rgb(246, 137, 34); border-bottom: 3px solid rgba(0,0,0,0.2); font-size: 160%;}
#mc_embed_signup .button:hover {background-color: #e67409;}
   /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.
      We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */



   
         
Claim Your FREE Issue Today!
   
   
   





The [V2V] antenna is omni-directional, allowed to transmit up to approximately 2 watts of power output at 10 Mhz and 5.9 Ghz with a range of 300 meters, or three football fields in length, every 100 milliseconds, or 10 pulses a second. The proximity of the transmitter to the driver and passengers is unknown, but could be inches to a few feet away from people in the car.



Do you want your children walking down a street being RF-irradiated by everyone’s car on the road? 


Seriously, consider checking out the V2V’s OUTPUT: 10 Mhz and 5.9 Ghz!


Remember, one Ghz is one billion [1,000,000,000 Hz (2)] cycles of man-made microwave energy per second, while you, the driver, and your passengers, probably will be sitting on top of it.  What a thrill?


However, we apparently missed our chance to offer our input into a bad idea [microwave technology/radar in cars] apparently going from bad to worse – even off the rails?


The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had a Proposed Rule:Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: V2V CommunicationsThe comment period ended April 12, 2017.


Question: What are your evolving thoughts about technology, especially microwaves, being forced upon our bodies from every possible concept?


References:




American Natural Superfood - Free Sample



[1] http://emfsafetynetwork.org/stop-radar-in-cars/
[2] https://www.computer-hardware-explained.com/gigahertz.html


Resource:


Transduction of the Geomagnetic Field as Evidenced from Alpha-band Activity in the Human Brainhttp://www.eneuro.org/content/early/2019/03/18/ENEURO.0483-18.2019   [March 18, 2019]


Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.


Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.


Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.


Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)


Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich is now available


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
+1
Pin



Previous post


Next post


      
   

47

      

By WeAreChange


Another trial has showed that Monsanto and Bayer are finally beginning to pay for their crimes.



         



      

Visit our MAIN SITE for more breaking news http://wearechange.org/https://teespring.com/stores/wearechange
SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/wearech…
STEEMIT: https://steemit.com/@lukewearechange
MINDS: https://www.minds.com/wearechange
OH YEAH since we are not corporate or government owned help us out http://wearechange.org/donate


   

48

      

By B.N. Frank


Proponents of the controversial “Green New Deal” demand that the U.S. install technology to create “Smart Cities,” which include utility “Smart” Meters.  This makes climate change worse because “Smart” Meter technology has been proven to require more energy use which then increases the emissions of harmful Electrosmog pollution.  Not only that, the need for frequent replacement of these meters adds to electronic waste in landfills as well as mining for more polluting conflict minerals.


Even scarier — hundreds of thousands of these meters have been replaced and/or recalled due to fires and explosions.  In fact, some California residents filed lawsuits against PG&E after their meters caught fire.  This was even BEFORE the devastating California wildfires.


Most would agree that fires and explosions aren’t “green,” right?   Unfortunately, neither is most – if not all – wireless technology.  Recently New Jersey environmental groups wised up about “Smart” Meters, whereas the Sierra Club’s San Fransisco chapter formally opposed their installation years ago.


         



      

Over the years, many articles have been written about how utility “Smart” Meters are NOT “green.” Some examples include:




WHO KNEW? The Wireless Smart Meter Meltdown


Who knew that you could save more energy by unplugging a few appliances? 




Green Electricity or Green Money?

In failing to understand, or ignoring the grassroots public pushback against smart meters, Krupp, Marston, and their EDF, as well as the NRDC, have again lost touch with their public and its concerns. The rebellion against smart meters,6 having spread to many states as well as to Canada, Australia, Europe, and the UK, may be really only one symptom of a broadly dysfunctional, entrenched, institutionalized, and polluting electricity and energy economy that EDF and NRDC are abetting. The shortcomings and failures of state and federal electricity policy exemplified by the preoccupation with smart meter has been extensively documented (Schoechle, 2012).




Environmentalists Not Buying Smart Meter Greenwash


So are ‘smart’ meters really green?  It seems like the only people who think so are those making large profits from tax and ratepayer funds flowing to the smart grid industry.  We’re talking about groups like EDF, whose board member Ann Doerr stands to make millions if ‘smart’ meters become ubiquitous.


PG&E and other utilities have spent millions on public relations firms to convince the public that ‘smart’ meters will stop climate change and reduce energy consumption.  Nothing could be further from the truth


No one ever said it was easy being “green.”  Environmentalists who continue to ignore the enormous and harsh environmental impact of “Smart” Meters are choosing to make a bad problem worse.





For more information, visit the following websites:



Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
EMF Safety Network
InPowerMovement
SmartMeterHarm
StopSmartMeters.org
Smart Grid Awareness
Smart Meter Education Network
Take Back Your Power
Wireless Information Network

   

49

      

By Peter Kirby


A great warrior for truth is in trouble and needs our help.


Patrick Roddie has been doing effective boots-on-the-ground, grassroots activism exposing chemtrails and geoengineering for many years now. He got the interview with Princess Basmah Bint Saud who was not afraid to tell us about the ongoing geoengineering catastrophe. He testified before the Environmental Protection Agency about the megatons of toxic waste raining down upon us. He even got top geoengineer Ken Caldiera to tell him to, “Shut the f_<% up!” These are but a few of his many accomplishments. In short, Patrick has been a tireless crusader against chemtrails and geoengineering for a long time now.


In recent years, Patrick has been working on his greatest endeavor yet. Patrick has been going about collecting evidence for an epidemiological study linking spray-days to localized mortalities. Although our loving government has thrown many roadblocks in his path, Patrick says that he has recently obtained the official death records needed to prove his case.


         



      

Isn’t it funny how, just when he gets what he needs to do some serious damage to the geoengineering agenda, his life is suddenly turned upside-down.


Patrick says that his landlord has been practicing strong-arm eviction tactics against him. He says that he was wrongly taken to the local psych ward against his will and on false pretenses. He says that he has been burgled of his money, bank cards, and the like. He says that what was not stolen from him, he has been forced to sell. He says that the documentary evidence pertaining to his epidemiological studies is in danger of being lost.


It’s even worse than that, folks. Patrick says that, as a result of his persecution he has suffered a series of strokes that have left him permanently disabled and that he continues to undergo serious health issues as a result of all this. For the whole story, please watch the following video Patrick published yesterday.



As one can learn from watching the video, Patrick believes that he can come back to prevail in this situation, but he needs our help. Patrick is requesting donations to help him get himself back on his feet so that he can beat these people.


Please consider donating what you can to help Patrick in his hour of need. You can donate money to Patrick at his PayPal account.


https://www.paypal.me/patrickroddie


Thank you.


Peter Kirby is a San Rafael, CA researcher, writer, and activist. Please subscribe to his email list at his website peterakirby.com. His book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project is available HERE at Amazon.com.


   

50

      

By Michael Maharrey


Last Thursday, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill into law that formalizes and expands the state’s medical marijuana program, further nullifying federal cannabis prohibition in effect.


Last summer, Oklahoma voters approved a measure legalizing medical marijuana in the state. A coalition of three Republicans introduced House Bill 2612 (HB2612) on Feb. 4 to create a regulatory structure and establish important patient protections for the state medicinal cannabis program.


The Oklahoma House passed HB2612 by a 93-5 vote. The Senate approved the measure 43-5. With Gov. Stitt’s signature, the bill will take effect 90 days after the legislature adjourns.


         



      

The new law creates the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority and establishes a registry for qualified patients and their caregivers. It also creates a revolving fund to handle fees, taxes and fines related to the medical marijuana program.


The expanded patient protections written into HB2612 are significant. Under the law, “a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee shall not be denied the right to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories based solely on his or her status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee.”


It also prohibits the state from denying a medical marijuana patient access to public assistance programs, including Medicaid, SNAP and WIC.


As Suzanne Sherman noted, the federal government has long claimed the power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms of medical marijuana patients:



If you purchase a firearm from an FFL, you will be presented with the Firearms Transaction Record form 4473, which you must, under penalty of perjury, answer fully and truthfully. You may see it for yourself HERE.


Question 11(c) asks prospective gun purchasers if they are unlawfully using any controlled substances. You think, “Hey, I can answer ‘no,’ as marijuana is now legal in my state. Immediately following the inquiry is the following admonition (in bold letters):


Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law, regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.


Not surprisingly, in 2016, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of appeals ruled that this restriction does not violate the Second Amendment.







Most states have adopted this federal ban on owning firearms for medical marijuana users, or simply help in its enforcement. For instance, police in Hawaii sent letters to medical marijuana patients who owned guns telling them they had 30 days to surrender their weapons.


While passage of HB2612 does not overturn the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, it does remove the state and local enforcement arm of that unconstitutional act as it applies to medical marijuana users in Oklahoma.


FEDERAL PROHIBITION


While medical marijuana has become widely accepted across the U.S., the federal government still claims it is illegal. As we’ve seen with immigration sanctuary cities, when state and local enforcement ends, the federal government has an extremely difficult time enforcing their acts.


Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.


Oklahoma’s medical marijuana program removes a layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, and passage of HB2612 expand that, but federal prohibition remains in place.




American Natural Superfood - Free Sample



FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By curtailing state prohibition, Kentucky could sweep part of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.


Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly annual budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution either. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.


A GROWING MOVEMENT


The Sooner State joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice.


Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization passed in November 2016. In 2018, Michigan voters approved recreational marijuana and Vermont became the first state to fully legalize marijuana through a legislative act.


With 33 states and the District of Columbia allowing cannabis for medical use, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition anymore.


“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.


This article was sourced from The Tenth Amendment Center.


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
+1
Pin



Previous post


      
   

51

      

By Aaron Kesel


According to Reddit /r/cannabis, two neighboring states this week in the U.S — New Jersey and PA — have had cannabis legislation action in favor of legalizing marijuana.


“Colorado has been a success. The tax revenue it putting money into the schools, the healthcare system,” Greg Cox of Lancaster, Pensylvania told WNEP ABC 16. “If the budget is tight these days, why not make it legal to get the tax revenue?”


New Jersey’s Assembly and Senate committees voted in favor of companion bills that would legalize marijuana and provide for the expungement of prior cannabis convictions, Marijuana Moment reported.


The Assembly Appropriations Committee voted 6-1, with two abstentions, to advance the bill.


         



      

The Senate Judiciary Committee also approved its own version of the legalization legislation which resulted in a 6-4 vote, with one abstention.


Assembly and Senate committees also approved separate companion bills to amend requirements to qualify for medical cannabis in the state.  Another piece of legislation was also passed by both committees that would change the procedure for expunging criminal records.


Now the bill goes off for one final vote on the NJ Senate floor where the full Senate and Assembly must approve the measure before NJ Gov. Phil Murphy (who is pro-legalization) can sign it, NJ.com reported.


“This legislation is critically important as we move toward legalization of adult-use cannabis in New Jersey,” Assembly member Jamel Holley (D), who sponsored the expungement bill, said in a press release. “Without this bill, many residents would continue to be affected by the criminalization of small amounts marijuana as a result of prior convictions long after the laws change.”


If passed, the law would allow adults 21 and older to possess, consume and purchase a certain amount of cannabis as restricted by the bill.


Going forward, a five-member commission would be formed and held responsible for studying the effects of legalization as well as assuring social equity in the marijuana industry. The regulatory commission would also be put in charge of approving licenses for the local cannabis industry including cultivators, processors, wholesalers and retailers.


Marijuana deliveries and social consumption sites would be approved; however, home cultivation would be prohibited if the law passes.


“Today’s votes are an important step toward legalizing adult-use marijuana in New Jersey. Although this bill is not perfect, we greatly appreciate the changes that the sponsors of the legislation have made based on the recommendations of advocates,” Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, said in a press release. “While we are encouraged by the inclusion of provisions that our coalition has advocated for – such as expanded expungement – to better address fairness and equity, we are disappointed that there is no provision that allocates tax revenue generated by marijuana sales back to the communities most harmed by marijuana prohibition.”


Further, If the bill passes, it gives regulators about six months to set up the full rules and regulations on the industry. It then gives another six months for the commission to start allowing sales of marijuana throughout the state.


Lawmakers have also expressed there will be a $42 tax on each ounce of marijuana grown in the state. The tax would be imposed on the growers, not the buyers, but would be passed down to consumers in the form of how much each ounce would cost.






Municipalities would then be able to claim some of the revenue, according to the statement from lawmakers. Towns that have marijuana stores would be able to impose up to a 3 percent tax on all items sold, while towns that have growers could charge up to a 2 percent tax and towns with wholesalers could charge at least 1 percent of tax.


It’s worth noting that towns banning marijuana businesses would not get any tax revenue that is accumulated from the marijuana industry.


Meanwhile, in New Jersey’s neighboring state of Pennsylvania, lawmakers have proposed a marijuana recreational bill. Unlike NJ’s bill, it would allow people to grow up to six of their own plants, something that NJ opted to vote against.


However, similar New Jersey, it would also enable expunging or erasing marijuana-related convictions from citizens’ records.


Marijuana is now legal for medical purposes in 33 states and as a recreational drug in 10 out of the 50 states. Meanwhile, marijuana remains illegal federally; however, the 2018 Farm bill slightly legalized the other industry hemp when President Donald Trump signed what’s being deemed “the Farm Bill of 2018” into law right before Christmas of last year on December 20th, 2018.


The Farm Bill was introduced by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who announced that he would propose the legislation alongside Senator Rand Paul to legalize hemp by removing it from the list of controlled substances, where cannabis sits alongside psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA, and heroin. The bill would also offer “full protection for individual farmers as well as the interstate commerce of U.S. grown and manufactured hemp products; normalize finance, banking, insurance, and other business proceedings for the hemp industry; advance research opportunities; ensure access to public water rights for hemp farmers; and protect the increasing and perhaps unlimited variety of hemp-derived products by promulgating a ‘whole plant’ definition of Hemp.”


It’s “an $867 billion, five-year spending bill that funds agricultural, nutrition and other federal programs — also loosened some federal restrictions on cannabis. It legalized hemp by removing it from the Controlled Substances Act while preserving the FDA’s authority to regulate the products,” CNBC reported.




American Natural Superfood - Free Sample



The FDA currently prohibits companies from adding CBD and THC to food, drinks, and supplements. The agency also forbids manufacturers and retailers from making any therapeutic claims about their products. It also restrains the sale of food, supplements and other products containing CBD across state lines at its current state of laws.


However, recently resigned FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb even stated that the agency is looking for “pathways” to legalize the sale of CBD oil and other cannabis-derived compounds in food, beverages, and supplements.


Gottlieb also said that the FDA plans to maintain a website specifically dedicated to cannabis and CBD called “FDA and Marijuana: Questions and Answers.”


“We recognize the potential opportunities that cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds could offer and acknowledge the significant interest in these possibilities,” Gottlieb said in a statement. “We’re committed to pursuing an efficient regulatory framework for allowing product developers that meet the requirements under our authorities to lawfully market these types of products.”


Activist Post previously wrote that several restaurants are suddenly offering cannabidiol (CBD) infused snacks and drinks; however, according to several state regulators, selling them is illegal.


CBD oil is derived as a powerful ingredient reaped from the hemp plant. Many may find it shocking to learn that CBD is similar to a compound that our bodies produce naturally, and from birth, called endocannabinoids. Cannabinoids aren’t just found in the cannabis plant, they’re also naturally occurring in other plants in nature, they are just found at a higher potency in cannabis.


CBD and marijuana has shown promise as a treatment for conditions like epilepsy and anxiety in early research. Although more research is needed into CBD oil and marijuana and its effects, much of the studies have been positive. So much so that there are now colleges adding cannabis to their curriculum, teaching on both the hemp and cannabis industries as Activist Post reported last week.


Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Minds, Steemit, SoMee, BitChute, Facebook and Twitter. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
+1
Pin



Previous post


Next post


      
   

52

      

Op-Ed by B.N. Frank


In a perfect world, 5G technology would simply be banned.  For starters,



The Telecom Industry can’t prove that 5G is safe.



Since September 2017, over 200 doctors and scientists have demanded a moratorium on 5G installation due to biological and environmental risks.
There is no safe level of wireless radiation exposure that has been scientifically determined for children or pregnant women.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is being investigated for collusion for promoting and pushing through federal 5G legislation which eliminated local control over its installation.

         



      



Unfortunately, it’s not remotely close to being a perfect world.  Regardless HR 530 – with now 25 cosponsors who are all Democrats – at least returns control over harmful 5G installation back to local governments, some of which have already stopped its installation in their communities. 


Saying no to 5G seems to be a wise decision considering that the first 5G court case was already won last year in Gateshead, England.  Of course, it didn’t happen until after 5G was installed in street lamps, people became sick, and some women delivered stillborn babies.  On this side of the pond, New Yorkers have also already reported about newly installed 5G affecting their health as well as their pets’ health. Residents even started putting their homes up for sale.


Representative Anna Eshoo, who introduced this bill, was wrong to say that 5G is “essential for our country’s communications network and economy.”  Security experts can’t say enough bad things about 5G and all its associated applications.  (See also 1, 2).  Insurance companies don’t cover telecom companies anymore because it’s too risky.



If you don’t know where harmful 4G and 5G small cell infrastructure is being installed in your community, you might want to find out sooner rather than later.


For more information, visit the following websites:



Wireless Information Network
Americans for Responsible Technology
5GExposed
5G Information
Center For Electrosmog Prevention
EMF Safety Network
Environmental Health Trust
In Power Movement
My Street, My Choice
Our Town Our Choice
Physicians for Safe Technology
Scientists for Wired Tech
TelecomPowerGrab.org
We Are The Evidence
Whatis5G.Info

   

53

      

By Afef Abrougui


Human rights groups and activists are urging the Iraqi parliament to withdraw a controversial cybercrime bill that would greatly restrict freedom of expression online, if adopted.


The bill imposes long prison sentences for speech-related offences that are only vaguely defined in the text of the bill. Article 3 prescribes a lifetime prison sentence and steep fines for those convicted of using “computers and the internet” to “undermine the independence, the integrity and safety of the country, or its supreme economic, political, military, or security interests” or to “provoke sectarian strife, disturbing the security and public order, or harming the reputation of the country.”


Articles 4 and 6 impose the same punishments for those convicted of promoting ”terrorist acts and ideas” (Art. 4) or “publish[ing] or broadcast[ing] false or misleading facts with the intention of weakening confidence in the electronic financial system” (Art. 6.)


Earlier this year, the Gulf Centre for Human Rights warned:


Without a clear and explicit definition of terrorism, it would be easy to use the law to liquidate the resources of political opponents and other activists.


         



      

Internet-related rights are already on shaky ground in Iraq. Last summer, authorities responded to protests denouncing corruption and dire living conditions in Basra and other cities by shutting down the Internet.


If adopted, the bill will only make it harder for Iraqis to exercise their rights to communicate, speak freely and access information online.


Earlier this month, nine human rights groups including AccessNow, Amnesty International and the the Iraqi Observatory for Human Rights published a statement urging the Iraqi parliament to withdraw the bill:


…the law will result in Internet users becoming fearful of exercising their fundamental rights and freedoms online, and will empty the right to freedom of expression of its substance. The law would also have far-reaching effects on the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of information as well as the right to participation in public affairs in Iraq.


The parliament was scheduled to debate the bill on March 14, but it was later removed from the day’s schedule.


On Twitter, the official account for the Iraqi Council of Representatives thanked those who contacted it to “criticise some laws,” but did not specify which laws. Rights groups and activists welcomed this response, but they remain wary.



54

      

By Lee Friday



In most countries, numerous government welfare programs provide benefits (often means-tested) to eligible recipients. Whether these payments arise from unemployment compensation, child tax credits, old age pensions, or a myriad of other programs, the outcome is the same: recipients receive guaranteed payments. The ultimate goal of many poverty warriors is a  Universal Basic Income  (UBI), often promoted as a supposedly cheaper alternative to the numerous welfare programs it is intended to replace. The UBI is a guaranteed income from the government which varies with age, but is otherwise unconditional. It is not means tested, which means everyone receives the same Basic Income, regardless of their employment status or employment income.


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,  Kamala Harris,  Bernie Sanders,  Andrew Yang. These are just a few of the many proponents of UBI or a  negative income tax  , or some version thereof. The political justification for implementing UBI is to reduce, or even eradicate, poverty, though  poverty is a relative term  . The problem is that many advocates of the welfare state  mistakenly believe that inequality causes poverty. Moreover, they do not understand that poverty reduction comes through the operation of  free markets, not  through government welfare programs  which tend to  benefit the bureaucracy by encouraging dependency.


         



      

Therefore, if UBI proponents are genuinely concerned about those on the lower rungs of the income ladder, they should abandon their minimum income crusade and instead pressure the government to do two things. First, immediately abolish all  regulations  which prohibit people from earning income. Second, announce that all welfare programs will be abolished in six months. In this environment, special interest groups (the 1%) lose the regulatory benefits they lobbied for, while the level of prosperity rises considerably for the former welfare recipients and other members of the 99%.


What are these regulations? And if they are abolished, how much higher can the level of prosperity be for the 99%?


Regulations


This  is a good definition of regulation: the imposition of rules by a government, backed by the use of penalties, that are intended specifically to modify the economic behavior of individuals and firms in the private sector. That is an accurate definition, and it should concern anyone who recognizes and supports the wealth enhancing effects of free enterprise.


When a special interest group (e.g. a corporation or group of corporations) lobbies the government to enact a new regulation, they are the intended beneficiaries, and they often write the regulation themselves. Politicians promoting a new regulation also act out of self interest, collecting rewards from the regulatory beneficiaries, such as political campaign contributions, corporate jobs after departure from political office etc. The propaganda used to justify regulations is that the  government must protect consumers  . This conveniently ignores the fact that in an environment of unfettered competition, profit-seeking firms who fail to satisfy consumers will lose those customers to competitors producing superior products. In other words, consumers benefit the most when they, not the government, pick the winners and losers.


Regulations have the effect of lowering the level of competition for the corporations that lobbied for the regulations, exactly as the lobbyists intended. This situation arises because regulations impose significant regulatory compliance costs on many companies.  Kel Kelly explains the enormity of the regulatory environment:



There are hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations dictating what can and cannot be produced, how things should be produced, what prices can or cannot be charged, what workers should be hired and at what prices, and what requirements, approvals, licensing, and reporting must be undertaken or performed for each type of business, product line, or transaction. Further, government directly manipulates prices and production.


All firms may pass their regulatory compliance costs onto consumers and workers through higher prices and/or lower wages, but small firms operate at a disadvantage. Smaller firms have fewer employees and a smaller customer base, compared to larger firms. Therefore, the dispersal of compliance costs within small firms can produce larger price increases and/or larger wage reductions, as compared to larger firms. Thus, many small businesses are unable to compete, not because the entrepreneurs, managers, and workers are not good enough, but because they are compelled to obey authoritarian laws favouring large firms with more political influence. Consequently, many entrepreneurs are forced out of business, while many others are dissuaded from starting a business.







(Note: the regulatory ‘compliance cost’ which is ultimately paid by consumers and workers, is estimated to be almost $15,000 annually for each U.S. household.)


As per our definition, we see that regulations, by coercively “modifying economic behavior,” interfere with the voluntary interactions of individuals on the free market. Economic production falls considerably when the regulatory state is used to eliminate competitors. Less competition = less wealth creation, which is reflected in fewer jobs and lower incomes for the 99%. This does not concern the 1%, whose objective is to grab a larger slice of the smaller economic pie. This is not capitalism. This is  crony capitalism.


Prohibited Income


In 2013, John Dawson (Appalachian State University) and John Seater (North Carolina State University) published a long-term study (see  here  or  here  ) of the effects of U.S. Federal Regulations on economic growth. They estimate that “annual output by 2005 is about 28 percent of what it would have been had regulation remained at its 1949 level.” Their sample period ends in 2005, but under the assumption that the ratio of 28 percent carries forward to 2011, they say that nominal GDP in 2011 would have been $53.9 trillion instead of $15.1 trillion, and “an annual loss of $38.8 trillion converts to about $277,100 per household and $129,300 per person.”


Remember, they are estimating the amount of economic output which has been prohibited by all U.S. Federal Regulations implemented since 1949. So, in 2011, each U.S. household was legally denied the opportunity to increase their income by an average of $277,100. Imagine this happening each year, because that is the reality. For those who would disbelieve, Dawson and Seater simply point out that “Our estimates are consistent with previous estimates obtained from both aggregate and disaggregate data. In fact, our estimates are on the low side compared to many previous results.”




Avoiding The Eye - Ships Free Today!



Their calculation captures data only at the federal level. The figure of $277,100 would be higher in consideration of the lower economic output due to prevailing regulations at the state/city/county level.


If all regulations were abolished, individuals’ creative juices could flow freely because innovation would no longer be suppressed. Unfettered competition would produce new products, higher quality, and lower prices. The demand for labor would explode, and incomes, as we have seen, would rise considerably.


Conclusion


As Senator Elizabeth Warren  officially launched her 2020 presidential campaign, she expressed concern about “a rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else.” She is correct, but this is nothing more than a sound bite designed to resonate with the general public. As with most political speeches, Warren’s comments are vague, providing no details about how the system is rigged with thousands of regulations. Instead of accurately describing the problem,  we get hypocrisy: “She wants large companies to be more tightly regulated.” Beware of people like Elizabeth Warren. There are many like her. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing.


Welfare programs and  wealth taxes: the government’s pretense of transferring a little bit of wealth from the rich to the poor is a smokescreen for the massive amount of wealth surreptitiously flowing in the opposite direction. So, when Ocasio-Cortez, Harris, Sanders, or anyone else proposes any type of guaranteed minimum income scheme, tell them “No, my preference is to liberate all prohibited income.”



Following a 23-year career in the Canadian financial industry, Lee Friday has spent many years studying economics, politics, and social issues. He operates a news site at www.LondonNews1.com


This article was sourced from Mises.org



   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
+1
Pin



Previous post


Next post


      
   

55

      

By Brandon Turbeville


For six years and ever since the alleged “chemical weapons attack” in Ghouta, Syria in 2013, the Western corporate press has stuck with the easily disproven claim that the Syrian government “gassed” its own people. That lie has been repeatedly debunked by researchers in the alternative media but that hasn’t altered the onslaught of propaganda coming from mainstream “journalists.”


Now, however, one of their own, a mainstream Belgian reporter who was captured by the West’s Free Syrian Army terrorists, has begun blowing the lid off the lies that the Syrian government committed the “chemical attack.”


The reporter, Pierre Piccinin da Prata, recently gave an interview with Belgian RTL, where he told of a conversation he heard between rebels that exonerated President Bashar al-Assad and stated clearly that “It wasn’t the government of Bashar al-Assad that used Sarin gas or any other gas in Ghouta.” As a result, the majority of his scheduled interviews with mainstream outlets were cancelled.


         



      

Piccinin was a war reporter and Editor-In-Chief of The Maghreb and Orient Courier and was held hostage by the Syrian “rebels” alongside Italian war reporter Domenico Quirico for five long months. He is now exposing the propaganda peddled by his colleagues and calling on them to correct what they have got so wrong about Syria since 2011.


The text of a recent  interview between Piccinin and Syria Times is included below:


ST: Why and how were you taken hostage by the Farouk Brigade as you had been a fierce supporter of the so-called ‘Syrian Arab Army’?


Piccinin: I was kidnapped by al-Farouk Islamists in April 2013, in al-Qouseir, in the governorate of Homs.


I was doing an ’embedded’ report at the time, with the ‘rebels’ of the Free Syrian Army (FSA – when they still existed, before disappearing when the rebellion was completely Islamized).


At that time already (April 2013), the ‘non-Islamist’ rebels realized that they had lost the game. Many were returning home or fleeing to Lebanon or Turkey. Some joined the different Islamist groups. Jabhet al-Nusra, especially (al-Qaeda in Syria). But some groups of the FSA continued to occupy the land they still controlled. But they no longer fought the Syrian army: they behaved like bandits; they ransacked the population, under the pretext of taking money for the war effort. And some FSA chiefs started to kidnap people, to enrich themselves personally. That’s what happened to me: the commander of the katiba of the FSA I was with sold me at al-Farouk for a few hundred dollars.


ST: What is the lesson you have learned from the five months in captivity?


Piccinin: As a war reporter and specialist of Syria, and Islamist circles, this experience (although it was very painful nervously and physically) taught me a lot about the evolution of the conflict and also about the realities and internal functioning of these Islamist groups. On their behavior, their convictions, their vision of the world…


I have not been locked up for five months. I was moved very regularly as the conflict evolved. At this time, the fighting followed one another: the front lines moved a lot. In particular, I experienced the siege and the fall of al-Qouseir. The city was taken over by the Syrian government in early June 2013.


So I was able to observe what was happening, constantly moved between Damascus and Aleppo. And I was not attached, nor blinded. I could even talk to the fighters who held me, regularly and also to the people I met. I was very guarded, sometimes locked up, but very often free to communicate, with the Islamists and with the people who gravitated around them. I took my meals with them. We often slept in the same room. I was even present when they prayed or during their military meetings.


I hoped that someone (among the people I meet) would react and help me to free myself. But the Islamists terrorized the population. People were very afraid of Ammar al-Buqai, the al-Farouk chief, who held me. And nobody dared to defend me. One day (it was in Yabroud, near the Lebanese border), a man told me: “They (the Islamists) are a real problem for us. It’s dangerous to contradict them. They are very dangerous. We must pretend to obey them.”


It was a very hard and painful human experience (for my family, my parents in particular, they are old). But, professionally, I dare to say that it was a great enrichment.


On the human side, moral, I also learned a lot. I have seen what level of cruelty, violence, malice and cynicism the human being can reach…


ST: You have stated that it is not the Syrian government that used Sarin gas or any other gas in Ghouta. Have you tried to give your testimony to international investigation committee about the use of chemical weapons in Syria? And Why?


Piccinin : At the end of this period of detention (it was at the end of August 2013), the jihadists who held me spoke only about this: the events of Ghouta.


And, at that moment, I was transferred to a large building (it was in Bab al-Hawa, near the Turkish border). This building served as a common headquarters for al-Farouk and the Free Syrian Army. It was in this place that we caught a conversation that allowed us to know that, most likely, the gases were used in Ghouta by an Islamist group, to provoke a reaction from the United States of America (I say “we”, because I was kidnapped with an Italian journalist, who sometimes accompanied me to Syria, and we were detained together).


Obama had promised that he would attack Syria if the government used gas. And it was a time when the rebels were losing the war. Everywhere! So… I guess if the rebels did that, it was to try to drag the United States into the conflict, hoping to reverse the military situation.


The Syrian government had no interest in using the gas. Strategically, it was useless; and that could only ruin his image on the international level, with the risk of an American attack.


My testimony was published by some media and I developed this question in several conferences.


But, no … Never the UN institutions have asked me to testify.


It must also be said that very few European media have published this testimony…


To tell you the truth, when I came back to Europe, I was contacted by dozens of media outlets, who wanted to interview me, and a lot of Belgian and French media of course. But when I gave the first interviews on Belgian radio in the morning, the day of my come back … I obviously talked about this issue of gas in Ghouta … Just after, the phone immediately began to ring: the media that had programmed my intervention in their broadcasts (radio and television) called me to tell me that the interview was no longer possible … For various absurd pretexts … The interviews were cancelled! Indeed, all Western media had accused the government of Bashar al-Assad of using the gas and had claimed that he was guilty. And a reporter who has been on the ground for five months was coming to testify to the contrary … That did not suit them …






Even my Italian colleague has preferred to keep quiet … I never asked him directly why, because I would not like to embarrass him … But I’m sure it was his editor-in-chief who told him not to talk about that …


Anyway. I should have shut up too. It is certain that my professional career has suffered a lot because of this revelation.


But, honestly, I ask myself the question: what is the point of being a war reporter if it is not to tell the truth?


ST: Have you visited Syria after your release? Would you like to visit Ghouta after its liberation from terrorist groups?


Piccinin: I have been to Syria many times since 2013. For example, I covered the battle of Raqqa, against the Islamic State …


But mainly with the Kurdish rebels. Never again with the Free Syrian Army (it does not exist anymore besides… apart some groups, manipulated by Erdogan’s Turkey, in the north of Aleppo). And not with the Syrian regular army.


Of course, I would very much appreciate being allowed to go back to Syria, with the government’s agreement to see Damascus again … and Aleppo.


I had an ambitious project… To ask President Al-Assad for a series of long interviews, for a book.


ST: As you have been in Syria during the war, why President Bashar al-Assad is standing strong after 8 years of terror war on the country?


Piccinin: Already in July 2011 (including in the Belgian newspaper La Libre Belgique), I analyzed the situation in Syria and announced that the Baathist government would remain at the head of the country…


I explained the reasons, complex, for which the president Assad was strong enough to break the ‘rebels’.


Of course, we must mention the complexity of the conflict that President al -Assad had to face. I mean: the complexity of alliances and actors. Syria had to count on faithful and solid allies: Hezbollah party, Iran and, of course, Russia.


But, more than all that, certainly, it is the cohesion of the Syrian army which allowed the victory and the incredible sacrifices of the Syrian soldiers. It is a fact. The Western media have never talked about those boys who gave their lives to defeat the Islamists.




American Natural Superfood - Free Sample



I met them in Syria. They were citizens, young men doing their military service. No monsters, as the media in the West have presented.


More, President Al-Assad had the support of communities, ethnic and faith-based minorities, who have always been protected in Syria and have been able to live in peace in the country (this is not the case in other Arab countries); moreover, President Al-Assad also had a lot of support of the Sunni majority, and particularly in the middle class, who appreciated his policy of economic development and openness.


But, above all, it is obvious that the majority of Syrians have been scared by Islamist fanatics: Syria is a secular country, where the level of education is high, and where there is also a form of social security which ensures the inhabitants of rather good living conditions (in comparison with other countries of the Middle East).


When it became clear that the “revolution” had turned into a fanatic, jihadist, Islamist insurgency, only the regular army could protect the people from the creation of an “Islamic state”. And the vast majority of Syrians supported the government and the army in their efforts to save the country.


ST: Would you like to add anything?


Piccinin: Only one word, for Western media…


It is time for all those who were wrong about Syria, about what has really happened since 2011 … All those who have not understood anything about this conflict … Time to let themselves question… To recognize their errors and restore truth for their readers and listeners.


Unfortunately, the Western press is not as free as it claims … And I doubt that such a questioning will ever take place.


Especially when I read the analyzes produced today: Western journalists have not remembered anything, learned nothing from the mistakes they made.


The consequence is that Western public opinion is very badly informed (or even “misinformed”) about Syria. And on this issue, citizens, especially in Europe, have the impression of “knowing”, but it is a “virtual” knowledge, and they live in a “virtual” reality, far removed from the truth.


Read more about the Ghouta incident here:



Syria Chemical Weapons Victims Were Staged Using Kidnapped Hostages: Report
Civilians Of Liberated East Ghouta Praise Syrian Army, Curse Terrorists, Contradict MSM Reports
Total Fabrication Laid Bare in March to War With Syria
Seymour Hersh Confirms Obama Lied About Syria Chemical Weapons Attacks
5 Ways ‘Incontrovertible Evidence’ on Syria is Controvertible
Propaganda Overdrive Suggests Syria War Coming Soon
New Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria Another False Flag?

Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 1500 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, civil liberties and, most notably, geopolitics and the Syrian crisis. His most recent release is a book of poetry, Dance, Amputee. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.


This article may be freely shared in part or in full with author attribution and source link.


Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Minds, Steemit, SoMee, BitChute, Facebook and Twitter. Ready for solutions? Subscribe to our premium newsletter Counter Markets.


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
+1
Pin



Previous post


Next post


      
   

56
Huffington Post General Discussion / National Emergency? Which One?
« on: March 19, 2019, 06:50:49 PM »

      

By Michael Maharrey


So, is there a national emergency or no? The president says yes. Congress says no. Here’s the dirty little secret – no matter how things turn out with the “border emergency,” there are still plenty more where that came from.


It’s important to note here that the president doesn’t have the power to declare a national emergency. And no, the National Emergencies Act didn’t give him that power – not under the Constitution. The power wasn’t Congress’s to give. And even if Congress had the authority to broadly declare a national emergency, it wouldn’t have the authority to transfer that power to the executive branch. More on that HERE.


At any rate, if you’re concerned about the possibility of not having an emergency due to congressional stonewalling don’t you worry. There are still plenty of emergencies for the government to attend to.


Thirty-one to be precise.


         



      

I kid you not. There are 31 national emergencies in effect, right at this very moment. That’s not including the 2019 build the wall crisis.


For instance, Jimmy Carter declared a national emergency in response to the Iran hostage crisis. That went into effect on Nov. 14, 1979. Forty years later, it’s still in effect. In case you’ve forgotten, the hostages were released in 1981.






Now, you might think some absent-minded bureaucrat forgot to end the national emergency when the hostages came home. Nope. These things have to be renewed every year. So, why is this one still in effect? I’m sure the government could give you a good reason. And by good, I mean dumb. But I’m going to guess that it has something to do with giving some government entity (like the executive branch) some kind of unconstitutional power it shouldn’t have ever had in the first place. You can call me cynical, but you know I’m not wrong.


Here’s my favorite ongoing national emergency courtesy of George W. Bush. He declared a national emergency “With Respect to Export Control Regulations.” This renewed presidential power to control exports during a national emergency after the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed. So, in essence, Bush declared an emergency so that he could control exports in the event of an emergency.


The bottom line is that it shouldn’t escape you that there is ALWAYS some kind of emergency. (Or 31. Or 32, depending on how you count Trump’s emergency.)




Avoiding The Eye - Ships Free Today!



Here’s the truth. All of this is a power grab. When the president declares an emergency, it “streamlines government.” In other words. it strips away the embedded checks on power. It should also not escape your attention that emergencies don’t ever seem to go away. So, the resulting shift in power stays in place.


I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest this is not a good thing if you really value liberty.



Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE.


Image credit: Corbett Report


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
+1
Pin



Previous post


      
   

57

      

By MassPrivateI


I hope you enjoyed America’s favorite pastime, because by the end of this year nearly every Major League Baseball (MLB) team will be using facial recognition.


Last year, there were only nine MLB teams using CLEAR’s facial recognition to spy on fans. But all of that is about to change.


This year, the MLB has decided to go full-blown TSA and put facial recognition cameras in 23 stadiums, which is just seven shy of the entire league.


According to a Business Wire article, the MLB plans to scan the faces of millions of baseball fans.


The partnership will develop a first-of-its-kind collaboration of emerging technologies from CLEAR and Tickets.com, ultimately allowing millions of fans to use biometrics to enter ballparks, eliminating the need to present a paper or mobile ticket. With CLEAR, you are your ticket.


         



      

The article also warned that CLEAR’s “broader roll-out” plan, means they will be in every stadium by the end of this season.


With CLEAR becoming the “official biometric identity partner” of the MLB, the future of spying on sports fans and their families will only get worse.


CLEAR to spy on kids for free during the MLB All-Star weekend


Just how much worse will things get?


A Cleveland.com article revealed that CLEAR biometrics will be scanning fans faces during this year’s MLB All-Star Weekend in Cleveland, Ohio.



In July, the company is offering its technology at Progressive Field during the 2019 All Star Week through its partnership with Major League Baseball.


Big Brother’s appetite for tracking kids is out of control.




Clear membership is $15 per month with the option to add an additional family member for $50 per year. Members can also bring their children under 18 with them through the CLEAR lane for free.


CLEAR’s horrifying marketing idea, no doubt dreamed up by DHS is to scan kids faces for free!







It is apparent that CLEAR’s goal is to turn every sporting event into a mirror image of the TSA’s facial recognition airport program.


How do fans know if CLEAR is secretly using facial recognition to spy on you? The answer is you don’t.


Last year, the N.Y. Times revealed that Madison Square Garden was secretly using CLEAR facial recognition to spy on fans.


It is unclear when the face-scanning system was installed. The people familiar with the Garden’s use of the technology, who were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about it, said they did not know how many events at the Garden in recent months have used it or how the data has been handled.


For years, I have been warning sports fans that the MLB, NFL and NHL have been using facial recognition. So it was not too hard to guess that the N.Y. Times was talking about CLEAR.


As a recent Madison Square Garden announcement confirmed.


“We are pleased to welcome CLEAR into the Madison Square Garden family,” said Ron Skotarczak, executive vice president, marketing partnerships, The Madison Square Garden Company.




Survival Solar Battery Charger - Free Today!



CLEAR is so confident that every sports stadium will be turned into a TSA-style venue, that they opened a hub in Austin, Texas to help them do just that.


CLEAR’s Austin hub is its first corporate development office outside of New York and will develop new technologies for airport and stadiums.


Because who does not want to be searched and groped by TSA-style security guards at sporting events?


If you think that I am exaggerating and that this is just another fear-mongering story, I leave you with this gem of a quote taken from the N.Y. Times article.


“The days of having 40,000 to 60,000 people in the stadium and not knowing who they are, I think those days are going to disappear,” said Charles Carroll, a senior vice president at IDEMIA.


You can read more at the MassPrivateI blog, where this article first appeared.


Image credit


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
+1
Pin



Previous post


Next post


      
   

58

      

By Tyler Durden


(ZH) – As New Zealand reels from Friday’s Christchurch mosque attack that left 50 dead and 50 wounded, Kiwis have started voluntarily surrendering their legally-owned semiautomatic firearms for destruction ahead of reforms promised over the next several days, according to New Zealand news outlet Stuff.


The reports of citizens disarming themselves come amid a Monday announcement by Prime minister Jacinda Ardern that several “in principle decisions” on gun control have been made by Cabinet ministers, and has praised residents who have surrendered their guns to police.


“Within 10 days of this horrific act of terrorism we will have announced reforms that I think will make New Zealanders safer,” said Ardern, who donned a headscarf this weekend while visiting stricken Muslim communities.


John Hart, who has been a sheep and beef farmer for 15 years, said he took his semi-automatic weapon into Masterton police station on Monday as he “couldn’t in all conscience” keep the rifle after seeing the loss of life in Christchurch. –Stuff


         



      

Until today I was one of the New Zealanders who owned a semi-automatic rifle. On the farm they are a useful tool in some circumstances, but my convenience doesn’t outweigh the risk of misuse,” tweeted Hart.




“Since the events on Friday I had been thinking a lot about the firearms we have here on the farm… They [semi-automatic weapons] are not critical, not if the trade off is loss of life,” said Hart – who said he used his rifle for occasional pest control, but that he doesn’t need semi-automatic weapons on his farm.


While it can be useful “to have a second or third shot”, that is “a minor inconvenience” compared to using a safer bolt-action rifle for the same jobs, he added.






Official police figures show that nearly 7,000 New Zealanders are legally allowed to own semi-automatic weapons. Police have advised those who wish to turn theirs in first call their local police station or arms officer for advice on safely transporting them for destruction.


“Walking up the long courtyard to the Masterton police station, towards a stone-faced policewoman guarding the door holding an AR15 at the ready, while I’m carrying a rifle (in its case) was, let’s say, a puckering experience,” said Hart.






59

      

By John W. Whitehead


“In too much of policing today, officer safety has become the highest priority. It trumps the rights and safety of suspects. It trumps the rights and safety of bystanders. It’s so important, in fact, that an officer’s subjective fear of a minor wound from a dog bite is enough to justify using potentially lethal force, in this case at the expense of a 4-year-old girl. And this isn’t the first time. In January, an Iowa cop shot and killed a woman by mistake while trying to kill her dog. Other cops have shot other kids, other bystanders, their partners, their supervisors and even themselves while firing their guns at a dog. That mind-set is then, of course, all the more problematic when it comes to using force against people.”—Journalist Radley Balko


The absurd cruelties of the American police state keep reaching newer heights.


Consider that if you kill a police dog, you could face a longer prison sentence than if you’d murdered someone or abused a child.


If a cop kills your dog, however, there will be little to no consequences for that officer.


Not even a slap on the wrist.


         



      

In this, as in so many instances of official misconduct by government officials, the courts have ruled that the cops have qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that incentivizes government officials to engage in lawless behavior without fear of repercussions.


This is the heartless, heartbreaking, hypocritical injustice that passes for law and order in America today.


It is estimated that a dog is shot by a police officer “every 98 minutes.”


The Department of Justice estimates that at least 25 dogs are killed by police every day.


The Puppycide Database Project estimates the number of dogs being killed by police to be closer to 500 dogs a day (which translates to 182,000 dogs a year).


In 1 out of 5 cases involving police shooting a family pet, a child was either in the police line of fire or in the immediate area of a shooting. For instance, a 4-year-old girl was accidentally shot in the leg after a police officer opened fire on a dog running towards him, missed and hit the little girl instead.


At a time when police are increasingly inclined to shoot first and ask questions later, it doesn’t take much to provoke a cop into opening fire on an unarmed person guilty of doing nothing more than standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a weapon.


All a cop has to do is cite an alleged “fear” for his safety.


According to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, all it takes for dogs to pose a sufficient threat to police to justify them opening fire is for the dog to move or bark.


Even in the absence of an actual threat, the perception of a threat is enough for qualified immunity to kick in and for the cop to be let off the hook for behavior that would get the rest of us jailed for life.


As journalist Radley Balko points out, “In too much of policing today, officer safety has become the highest priority. It trumps the rights and safety of suspects. It trumps the rights and safety of bystanders. It’s so important, in fact, that an officer’s subjective fear of a minor wound from a dog bite is enough to justify using potentially lethal force.”


The epidemic of cops shooting dogs takes this shameful behavior to a whole new level, though.


It doesn’t take much for a cop to shoot a dog.


Dogs shot and killed by police have been “guilty” of nothing more menacing than wagging their tails, barking in greeting, or merely being in their own yard.


For instance, Spike, a 70-pound pit bull, was shot by NYPD police when they encountered him in the hallway of an apartment building in the Bronx. Surveillance footage shows the dog, tail wagging, right before an officer shot him in the head at pointblank range.


Arzy, a 14-month-old Newfoundland, Labrador and golden retriever mix, was shot between the eyes by a Louisiana police officer. The dog had been secured on a four-foot leash at the time he was shot. An independent witness testified that the dog never gave the officer any provocation to shoot him.


Seven, a St. Bernard, was shot repeatedly by Connecticut police in the presence of the dog’s 12-year-old owner. Police, investigating an erroneous tip, had entered the property—without a warrant—where the dog and her owner had been playing in the backyard, causing the dog to give chase.


Dutchess, a 2-year-old rescue dog, was shot three times in the head by Florida police as she ran out her front door. The officer had been approaching the house to inform the residents that their car door was open when the dog bounded out to greet him.


Yanna, a 10-year-old boxer, was shot three times by Georgia police after they mistakenly entered the wrong home and opened fire, killing the dog, shooting the homeowner in the leg and wounding an investigating officer.


Payton, a 7-year-old black Labrador retriever, and 4-year-old Chase, also a black Lab, were shot and killed after a SWAT team mistakenly raided the mayor’s home while searching for drugs. Police shot Payton four times. Chase was shot twice, once from behind as he ran away. “My government blew through my doors and killed my dogs. They thought we were drug dealers, and we were treated as such. I don’t think they really ever considered that we weren’t,” recalls Mayor Cheye Calvo, who described being handcuffed and interrogated for hours—wearing only underwear and socks—surrounded by the dogs’ carcasses and pools of the dogs’ blood.


In another instance, a Missouri SWAT team raided a family home, killing a 4-year-old pit bull Kiya. Believe it or not, this time the SWAT raid wasn’t in pursuit of drugs, mistaken or otherwise, but was intended “to check if [the] home had electricity and natural gas service.”






A dog doesn’t even have to be an aggressive breed to be shot by a cop.


Balko has documented countless “dog shootings in which a police officer said he felt ‘threatened’ and had no choice but to use lethal force, including the killing of a Dalmatian (more than once), a yellow Lab , a springer spaniel, a chocolate Lab, a boxer, an Australian cattle dog, a Wheaten terrier, an Akita… a Jack Russell terrier… a 12-pound miniature dachshund… [and] a five-pound chihuahua.”


Chihuahuas, among the smallest breed of dog (known as “purse” dogs), seem to really push cops over the edge.


In Arkansas, for example, a sheriff’s deputy shot an “aggressive” chihuahua for barking repeatedly. The dog, Reese’s, required surgery for a shattered jaw and a feeding tube to eat.


Same thing happened in Texas, except Trixie—who was on the other side of a fence from the officer—didn’t survive the shooting.


Let’s put this in perspective, shall we?


We’re being asked to believe that a police officer, fully armed, trained in combat and equipped to deal with the worst case scenario when it comes to violence, is so threatened by a yipping purse dog weighing less than 10 pounds that the only recourse is to shoot the dog?


If this is the temperament of police officers bred by the police state, we should all be worried.


Clearly, our four-legged friends are suffering at the hands of an inhumane police state in which the police have all the rights, the citizenry have very few rights, and our pets—viewed by the courts as personal property like a car or a house, but far less valuable—have no rights at all.


So what’s to be done?


Essentially, it comes down to training and accountability.


It’s the difference between police officers who rank their personal safety above everyone else’s and police officers who understand that their jobs are to serve and protect.


It’s the difference between police who are trained to shoot to kill and police trained to resolve situations peacefully.


Most of all, it’s the difference between police who believe the law is on their side and police who know that they will be held to account for their actions under the same law as everyone else.




Survival Solar Battery Charger - Free Today!



Unfortunately, more and more police are being trained to view themselves as distinct from the citizenry, to view their authority as superior to the citizenry, and to view their lives as more precious than those of their citizen counterparts. Instead of being taught to see themselves as mediators and peacemakers whose lethal weapons are to be used as a last resort, they are being drilled into acting like gunmen with killer instincts who shoot to kill rather than merely incapacitate.


These dog killings are, as Balko recognizes, “a side effect of the new SWAT, paramilitary focus in many police departments, which has supplanted the idea of being an ‘officer of the peace.’”


Thus, whether you’re talking about police shooting dogs or citizens, the mindset is the same: a rush to violence, abuse of power, fear for officer safety, poor training in how to de-escalate a situation, and general carelessness.


It’s time to rein in this abuse of power.


A good place to start is by requiring police to undergo classes annually on how to peacefully resolve and de-escalate situations with the citizenry. While they’re at it, they should be forced to de-militarize. No one outside the battlefield—and barring a foreign invasion, the U.S. should never be considered a domestic battlefield—should be equipped with the kinds of weapons and gear being worn and used by local police forces today. If the politicians are serious about instituting far-reaching gun control measures, let them start by taking the guns and SWAT teams away from the countless civilian agencies that have nothing to do with military defense that are packing lethal heat.


Ultimately, this comes down to better—and constant—training in nonviolent tactics, serious consequences for those who engage in excessive force, and a seismic shift in how law enforcement agencies and the courts deal with those who transgress.


In terms of our four-legged friends, many states are adopting laws to make canine training mandatory for police officers. As dog behavior counselor Brian Kilcommons noted, officers’ inclination to “take command and take control” can cause them to antagonize dogs unnecessarily. Officers “need to realize they’re there to neutralize, not control… If they have enough money to militarize the police with Humvees, they have enough money to train them not to kill family members. And pets are considered family.”


After all, as the Washington Post points out, while “postal workers regularly encounter both vicious and gregarious dogs on their daily rounds… letter carriers don’t kill dogs, even though they are bitten by the thousands every year. Instead, the Postal Service offers its employees training on how to avoid bites.” Journalist Dale Chappell adds, “Using live dogs, handlers and trainers put postal workers through scenarios to teach them how to read a dog’s behavior and calm a dog, or fend it off, if necessary. Meter readers also have benefited from the same training, drastically reducing incidents of dog bites.”


The Rutherford Institute is working on a program aimed at training police to deescalate their interactions with dogs rather than resorting to lethal force, while providing pet owners with legal resources to better protect the four-legged members of their household.


Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, there will be no end to the bloodshed—of unarmed Americans or their family pets—until police stop viewing themselves as superior to those whom they are supposed to serve and start acting like the peace officers they’re supposed to be.



ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].


Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission


John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact [email protected] to obtain reprint permission.


   
            


Free ebook How To Survive the Job Automation Apocalypse


Free ebook How To Get Started with Bitcoin: Quick and Easy Beginner’s Guide




      






Activist Post Daily Newsletter

         




   Email address:
   



     Yes - I consent to receive emails
   



   

Leave this field empty if you're human:


Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

      

Share
Tweet
+1
Pin



Previous post


      
   

60

      

By corbettreport


Need to push through a propaganda campaign to utterly transform society?


Want people to not only accept but actively embrace their own impoverishment?


Well just get yourself some youthful true believers to do your propagandizing for you!


#PropagandaWatch


         



      


SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=30481


   

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 510