"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven,
saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Police State: Navy Seals Told To Treat Public As Enemies Amid January “Training Exercise”?

Police State: Navy Seals Told To Treat Public As Enemies Amid January “Training Exercise”?
This blog is LOADED with the latest from the NWO Orwellian Police State developing worldwide...

To those out there who followed “Operation Jade Helm” from start to finish this past year, then I don’t need to remind you how troubling all the United States military’s new rules of engagement are for while operating on U.S. soil. First of all, the United States military should NOT be acting on our soil at all, and for the last 137 years “pre-Obama,” they haven’t been permitted to. The Posse Comitatus Act is:
A United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States
BUT… like most laws Obama doesn’t agree with, he ignores them. Why would the Posse Comitatus Act be any different right? Funny you should ask, because while Obama’s policy of ignoring laws he doesn’t agree with hasn’t changed, revising them in a way SO hostile to American citizens is certainly something new. Keep in mind, we are talking about the same Barack Obama Who Warned ISIS By Dropping Leaflets Before Bombing Them So None of the Drivers Transporting ISIS Oil Would Get Hurt.

That SAME Obama, seems to feel quite different about even unarmed American citizens here on U.S. soil. He’s revised the Pentagon’s New “Law of War” Manual To the Degree it“Reduces Us to the Level of Nazis.” How could I say such a thing? How would you describe Obama’s revising the statute so that the Army can be ordered to fire on unarmed citizens for protesting against the government? That’s not “conspiracy theory” either. That’s conspiracy FACT already coded into law which you can read below or verify at Cornell.Law.Edu here. 
Sadly the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385), which stood for 137 years “pre-Obama” has been shredded like so many others. The federal act that prohibited the U.S. military from policing it’s own citizens was removed by Obama. Now, the Army claims exemption from Posse Comitatus in the four following areas:
10 USC 331. When a state is unable to control domestic violence and they have requested federal assistance, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
10 USC 332. When ordinary enforcement means are unworkable due to unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
10 USC 333. When a state cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens, due to domestic violence or conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
House Joint Resolution 1292. This resolution directs all departments of the U.S. government, upon request of the Secret Service, to assist in carrying out its statutory duties to protect government officials and major political candidates from physical harm.
With regard to 10 USC 331, if the local authorities have lost control in the midst of a profound display of domestic violence (e.g. LA Riots), most Americans support the use of National Guard or the military.  However, in 10 USC 332, 333 and House Joint Resolution 1292 are ripe with exceptions which open the door to federal authorities abusing the public for exercising their Constitutional right to protest.
In 10 USC 332, the phrase “unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized,” permits the federal government from being demonstrated against. An act of demonstration, or the most benign demonstrations of civil disobedience gives the government the authority to take “deadly action” against the public  because there are no clear distinctions on when the use of lethal and nonlethal force is appropriate.
In 10 USC 333, any disruption of federal law can be decisively dealt with by the federal government. The phrase …conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized” is a telling passage of this Army document.
My personal favorite is the party about peaceful protesters protesting the government can be ventilated: 
“An act of demonstration, or the most benign demonstrations of civil disobedience gives the government the authority to take “deadly action” against the public because there are no clear distinctions on when the use of lethal and nonlethal force is appropriate.”
Yell “Conspiracy Theorist” all you want. The actual law can be read with your own two eyes. Unites States Code 332 (10 U.S. Code § 332)
There have also been changes at the Pentagon that give the Army the authority to Classify Journalists as ‘Belligerents’ Who Can Be Shot on Sight If Need Be. When might that be necessary? Oh, I don’t know… maybe when people are spreading truth via alternative forms of media, because the mainstream media is so in bed with the government… As a classic example, right now the FBI Is Attempting to Shut Down Alternative Forms of Media With Regard to the Oregon Standoff (Listen to a Recorded Call). So, it goes without saying, that it’s a bit alarming when we hear things like:
The war games will be conducted in residential areas, state parks, and national parks without public consent. The war games are to treat U.S. citizens as pawns due to orders to the SEALS to treat citizens as “potential terrorists”.

GOSZTOLA: Let’s get into it. Basically what you describe are these clandestine military exercises that the Navy SEALs are going to run in the Puget Sound and coastal areas of Washington state. So, get into what you uncovered here.
JAMAIL: Basically, what I found through a source—actually within the Navy—I came across a couple of the Navy’s own documents, and these were documents that they’re not classified but the Navy had effectively hidden them from public accessibility by calling them something else. They basically made up their own designation for these documents in such a way as to make it to where they would not be available. If someone wanted to file a Freedom of Information Act request to try to get this kind of information, they basically made it so these documents would not come up in those searches but that they would not be breaking the law by hiding them in the way that they did.
And so, the source that I had was able to provide these documents to me, which essentially outlined an ongoing Navy SEALs training regime that was slated to start right now literally—yesterday to be specific, January 14—and be ongoing for the next two years, where they would essentially have access to basically the entirety coastline of Washington state, including most of the Puget Sound area, the coast going out the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the west coast that is right there on the Pacific Ocean.
They would have access to coastlines, state parks, private areas, to where Navy SEALs would be launched onto the beach areas carrying “simulated weapons” in areas that include 68 beach and state park areas in everywhere that I just mentioned, and they would be able to access the beach areas, residential areas, private lands, state parks, and go anytime, day or night, for exercises starting yesterday for the next two years without any public notification whatsoever. They hadn’t any of the relevant state, federal, or local government officials—So, things like police departments, things like U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, etc. Nobody had been notified. Even the governor’s office in Washington state had not been notified.
Needless to say, when we published these documents on Monday, it has basically created outrage across the better part of Washington state. And it has fortunately forced most of the local media outlets, including a lot of the bigger TV and newspaper outlets in Seattle and the surrounding area, to start covering the story. So, people are really, really upset about this and rightly so.
KHALEK:So many aspects of this story are really stunning, but one thing in particular was the fact that this wasn’t even cleared with the federal government agencies, the federal government land that would be used for this. It violated all kinds of federal laws and state laws. It’s like nobody has any control over what Navy SEALs can train and do. The federal government doesn’t have control. That’s so bizarre to me.

JAMAIL: That’s exactly right. One example is the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer. This person on the state level wasn’t even consulted. The Navy used a really slimy method of excluding contact with these people that by law, by federal law, they were supposed to be in contact with to consult with, to do environmental impact statements, and then have public notifications and public comment periods, etc. The Navy bypassed doing any of this, and one of the ways, one of the chief means they used of doing it was they used an exemption process called a categorical exclusion. CATEX is their acronym.

They used it as a way to sidestep federal regulations that could have actually been preventative of them doing these type of Navy SEAL war gaming along the coast of Washington. And so, by using these categorical exclusions, they basically use this as a way to not have to do an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, which would be required on these types of exercises. I have emails that documented this, where the Navy literally not just tried to not do these environmental impact statements and the things they are regulated by federal law to do but literally actively sought this way to bypass regulations by using CATEXes and other things like this.
It’s really, really troubling. Not only are they just disregarding the federal law. They basically are actively finding ways to completely subvert it, and then that would allow them to do what they were poised to do, which is conduct what they call realistic military trainings where—And this is why I say in the title of the piece the Navy uses U.S. citizens as pawns in domestic war games.
I mean that quite literally because by the Navy’s own documents that we published—and they’re online right now for folks to check out—they talk about using U.S. citizens as a way of training their soldiers to say, hey, these could be terrorists. We don’t know the people you might run into during these war game exercises. So, they’re literally using U.S. citizens as pawns to train their soldiers how to react in certain ways.
They’re not carrying weapons with live ammunition in them, but nevertheless, this is a very, very disconcerting step, where they are actively using U.S. citizens in their war games without our consent, without even our knowledge, and certainly without any advanced notification of what they are going to be doing. And then this sets up a situation, where literally you will have Navy SEALs swimming in teams through marinas where people are living on boats. They’re not going to know what’s happening. They’re not going to know who these people are.
You’re going to have Navy SEALs going through residential neighborhoods potentially in the middle of the night with simulated weapons, going through state park and hiking trails at night during the day with simulated weapons, some time even carrying out active war gaming exercises. Needless to say, you don’t have to use a lot of imagination to see the potential for disaster, for someone being shot, for someone else getting afraid and pulling a gun on these people, since we live in such a heavily weaponized country that the potential for accidents is very high—not even to speak of just basic civil rights and civil liberties that are going to be infringed upon by these exercises.
KHALEK: There’s two point theres. First, when we say war games, war games sounds almost like something fun. But these are Navy SEALs that typically operate in kill teams basically. That’s what they do when they go abroad so I imagine that’s the kind of training being conducted as well. Then, you mentioned they are using the U.S. population as pawns. At some point, could these kinds of exercises being used against U.S. citizens, like domestically on U.S. soil if that’s where they are practicing it? These parts of the west coast do not exactly look like and operate like parts of the world where the U.S. military is conducting operations like this.
JAMAIL: Yeah, those are both two really good points. Let me just start by using the Navy’s own exact language for their plans because that’s why, I think, one reason why this story is so explosive is it’s extremely alarming and disconcerting information. And it’s not being made up. I am quoting directly from the Navy itself, and the Navy was, of course, forced to confirm that, yes, these indeed are our documents.
Their plans include what they call special reconnaissance teams conducting patrols, which are then authorized to go on simulated “direct action missions.” Their definition of a “direct action mission” is “short duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions conducted as a special operation in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments and which employ specialized military capabilities to seize, destroy, capture, exploit, recover, or damage designated targets.”
That’s their own lingo. Then, I include a lot of different links that discuss, you know, hey, this is the domestic military expansionism going on across the entire country. Operation Jade Helm from last year was one example of this. This is basically a mini version of Operation Jade Helm. I say mini. It involves the entire coastline of Washington state but compared to Jade Helm that is still small. And this is happening all over, and it does come on the back of several instances of extremely abusive unlawful behavior by naval SEALs overseas—detainee killings and abuse—documented in even mainstream sources, like the New York Times. So, it is very disconcerting.
To the second question you pose, why is this training happening and what are the future implications? Again, I like to cite the military’s own documents because if I just say this, someone might say, well, he’s sounding a bit like a conspiracy theorist. According to the Quadrennial Defense Review report from the Pentagon, these types of trainings are for two purposes. One, it is to prepare for future wars against countries that would have coastlines like this. I think it’s, again, quoting that document, we talk about China. We talk about Russia. We look at future resource wars.
Secondly, again, according to the quadrennial defense review report, we look at the military preparing for two potentialities: one, domestic unrest caused by climate change exacerbated situations—so, unrest due to lack of food and water in big urban environments or even on the outskirts of those environments. Two, economic unrest—I think they’re tied together, but the quadrennial defense review report addresses them as two separate things.
You know, domestic unrest caused by upheaval from lack of food and water availability climate change-related or another giant economic crash, like say post-2008 economic crash but even worse, where again you would have riots happening in urban centers or sometimes in outlying areas if there’s not enough money and the economy basically hits a point of criticality, where people literally can’t find enough food and water. The military is actively preparing for both of those two potentialities, and that’s fact. That’s according to the Pentagon’s own words.
GOSZTOLA: I want to emphasize that some of these operations would be happening in peace parks in Washington, and maybe you could spend some time talking about how these places have been designated as such by citizens in Washington.
JAMAIL: That’s right. It’s actually nearby the town where I live in Port Townsend, Washington. It’s on the northeast tip of the Olympic peninsula. There is a park there that is well known around the area as a peace park because it’s essentially an old military base that was there when there were gun emplacements there. Back in the turn of the century, there was actually a fort there, where the military was prepared in case there was some sort of a naval invasion coming in the strait. But there’s a place, it’s now called Fort Worden State Park. And it’s essentially been turned away.

It’s not even thought of by locals as a military base or a former military base. It’s essentially been turned into an area for art, where there’s artist residencies there. There’s a big art entity, Centrum, that hosts regular artist workshops, music fests, all through the summer. Also, on top of the area nearby the area that overlooks the strait—it’s a very beautiful area—there’s a place called Memory’s Vault, which is a place where people can go and sit in and contemplate. That area, particularly, is called a peace park. If you look at the Navy’s own documents, they have that whole area mapped out. You can pull up a specific slide and look. It shows exactly where they intend to land on the beaches and then the areas they would go up in to Fort Worden State Park and conduct paintball war gaming exercises against each other.
GOSZTOLA: In isolation, it’s alarming. To what extent is this an expansion? You said this is expansionism, but how would you contextualize this? Because they’ve done military exercises in parts of the country. It’s probably been happening for decades now at this point. Is what’s alarming that they’re specifically singling out people as pawns and part of the exercise?
JAMAIL: That is a very good point because that is a very recent shift, and to my eyes, probably the most disconcerting thing. The military’s always carried out large exercises around the country off the coast, even on land. They have millions and millions of acres of federal land that is designated specifically and only for military exercise training. In all fifty states, you can find land like this. That is not new.
What is new is this encroachment onto state parks, national parks, and now, more recently, as we saw in Jade Helm and as we’re seeing now in Pacific Northwest, their intentional use of going into private residential areas and literally having training exercises specifically setup to go do that with the expectations that they will run into citizens and then train their soldiers how to prepare for that; to treat these citizens as potential enemy combatants, as potential terrorists, as potential troublemakers, etc.
And so, it’s not necessarily they’re going to go out and start detaining people and drag them into their war games. But literally they are starting to train their soldiers to prepare for that as a possibility in the future. You might go into a residential neighborhood on the outskirts of this tiny little town in the Pacific Northwest called Port Townsend, which is basically known as an art town, and run into someone on their urban organic farm. You might say, hey, this could be a potential terrorist so how are we going to behave? So, bringing people into their exercises as pawns.
That is a new thing. I’ve not run across this so far except in the last year. And Jade Helm is really the first most egregious example, and then now this one, where literally it is in their own documentation that we want to bring citizens into these war games so we can start mentally preparing our soldiers for this eventuality in the future.

Social Worker Investigates Homeschool Family Amid Claims Children Are ‘Unsocialized’

The parents of 10 children are being investigated by a social worker amid claims that they’re raising “unsocialized homeschoolers.” “The specific allegation of ‘unsocialized homeschoolers’ is uncommon,” said Michael Donnelly, staff attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association, to The Christian Post Thursday. “The specific allegation of ‘unsocialized homeschoolers’ is uncommon,” said Michael Donnelly, staff attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association, to The Christian Post Thursday.
“However, it is not that uncommon for social services investigators and public school officials to express concerns about socialization in connection with children being homeschooled.” In a column on the HSLDA website, Donnelly wrote Monday that the homeschooling mother of 10 named Amy called him about the social worker’s visit to investigate the accusations that her children aren’t socializing enough with other people. “I advised Amy to contact the social worker and tell her that, under state law, lack of socialization is not a legitimate cause for allegations of abuse or neglect,” wrote Donnelly. “Amy told me that if it hadn’t been for our rapid response in returning her call, she would have been very nervous about the situation.” FULL REPORT 

EPA, FDA raising their own private armies with body armor and military weapons

Both the EPA and FDA are arming up with military-style equipment such as body armor, spending tens of millions of dollars on such gear over the last few years.
OpenTheBooks.com has been tracking this government spending on military-style equipment, revealing a frightening pattern of regulatory agencies – which should be pushing paper – now building their own PRIVATE ARMIES to be used as weapons of intimidation and coercion against the People.
The regulatory police state has arrived! When an “environmental” protection agency is building its own private army with military weapons, body armor and assault gear, you know something has gone horribly wrong with the federal government.
Now, farmers can be subjected to military-style EPA raids and intimidation tactics, almost as if the government itself is engaging in state-sponsored terror against American citizens.
As reported by alternative media outlets, the FDA, too, is building its own military-style “government militia” of armed assault teams. Is this part of the FDA’s continued mission to destroy natural products that compete with the profits of Big Pharma?

Make sure to check out HealthRangerReport.com to learn more

You may be powerless to stop a drone from hovering over your own yard

William Merideth had just finished grilling dinner for his family when he saw a drone hovering over his land. So he did what he said any Kentuckian would do — he grabbed his Benelli M1 Super 90 shotgun, took aim and unleashed three rounds of birdshot. “The only people I’ve heard anything negative from are liberals that don’t want us having guns and people who own drones,” said the truck company owner, now a self-described “drone slayer.” Downing the quadcopter, which had a camera, was a way to assert his right to privacy and property, he said.
The drone was owned by John Boggs, a hobbyist, who told authorities he was trying to take pictures of the scenery. He argues in a lawsuit filed this month in U.S. District Court in Louisville that Merideth did not have the right to shoot the craft down because the government controls every inch of airspace in America. For decades, the issue of who controls the nation’s air didn’t matter much to everyday Americans. Planes, after all, typically must stay hundreds of feet above ground while in the air. FULL REPORT


HTTP Error 451 now adopted as global standard for web pages that are censored by governments

 Authoritarian governments all over the world – including some that are supposed to be democracies – are increasing their control over content exchanged on the Internet, because the only way they can continue controlling the various issue-oriented narratives is by silencing critics and those with competing ideas.

As noted by Motherboard, there is a new official Internet status code – HTTP 451 – developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the independent group that is responsible for the creation of many of the Internet's operating standards. So now, when a website has been blocked for so-called "legal reasons" (in other words, the page has been censored by a government), web surfers will be presented with the 451 "error" rather than the more generic 403 "forbidden" error.

The tech site says this is actually a victory of sorts, however – for transparency. Now, surfers will know precisely why a site is being blocked and what content a government tends to censor.

The code has been under development for about two years. It was first introduced by software engineer Tim Bray in 2013 after he was inspired by a 2012 blog post written by security analyst Terence Eden, whose call then for a censorship error code was plain:

My ISP have recently been ordered to censor The Pirate Bay. They have done so unwillingly and, it would seem, have complied only with the letter of the ruling. Their block is, for now, trivial to circumvent. I am concerned that this censorship will become more prevalent. As network neutrality dies, we will see more sites ordered to be blocked by governments who fear what they cannot understand.

'Initially, I pushed back'

As such, Eden proposed a new code and then Bray took up the cause. He selected "451" in reference to author Ray Bradbury's dystopian novel about censorship, Fahrenheit 451. But of course, web standards take some time to be approved and implemented.

In a recent post, Mark Nottingham, chair of the IETF HTTP Working Group, offered a broader explanation for the new censorship code.

"Initially, I and some others pushed back," he wrote, as cited by Motherboard. "HTTP status codes are a constrained name space; once we use everything from 400 to 499, for example, we're out of luck. Furthermore, while 451 met many of the guidelines for new status codes (such as being potentially applicable to any resource), there wasn't any obvious way for machines to use it -- i.e., this was something you could do in a header or the message body of a 403, so it didn't seem to justify expending a status code."

Nevertheless some websites began using the code anyway, unsanctioned but on an experimental basis, to see how it would work out. At that, Nottingham, et. al., got more and more positive feedback from site administrations regarding the code. And importantly, web advocacy organizations like Article19 and Lumen also became interested in a computer-readable alert that could spider the Web hunting for, and documenting, censored content. And the new HTTP status code could do that, Motherboard reported.

Will this 'out' some governments and make them more reluctant to censor after being exposed?

In addition, what took the project to the finish line was that the tech support was also available. And while some technical issues still need worked out, the code is immediately ready for use – so, what will it actually do?

"By its nature, you can't guarantee that all attempts to censor content will be conveniently labeled by the censor," Nottingham explains. "Although 451 can be used both by network-based intermediaries (e.g., in a firewall) as well as on the origin Web server, I suspect it's going to be used far more in the latter case, as Web sites like Github, Twitter, Facebook and Google are forced to censor content against their will in certain jurisdictions."

Some advocates of true net neutrality hope that the code may embarrass some jurisdictions, forcing them to be less prone to censor some content. We'll see how that works out.

Most Americans Approve of Warantless Online Surveillance

(Breitbart) A majority of Americans say they support warrantless government surveillance of the Internet communications of U.S. citizens, according to a new poll by The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. It’s at least somewhat important for the government to sacrifice freedoms to ensure safety, most say in the survey. Here are some things to know about public opinion on civil liberties from the AP-NORC poll:
MOST SUPPORT WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE – According to the new poll, 56 percent of Americans favor and 28 percent oppose the ability of the government to conduct surveillance on Internet communications without needing to get a warrant. That includes such surveillance on U.S. citizens. FULL REPORT

Five Things To Know About Obama’s Executive Action On Guns

The President announced the details of the executive action he is taking on guns. The press, wholly in the tank for massive gun control, are pitching this as a major change. The picture is that of a defiant President standing up to the evil NRA and saving America from the scourge of loopholes and absence of background checks which are ultimately responsible for all terrorism and murder in the world.

It is, to put it briefly, a ridiculously overblown picture.
But even so, people across America are wondering a few things. Every day I see people ask what the “gun show loophole” is, why we don’t have “universal” background checks, and many other questions. Those questions are amplified in light of the President’s executive action. So we are going to break it down for you here at RedState. This way you know exactly what is happening and why.
To that end, I’ve borrowed a format often used by the left to put information into bite-sized bits that are easy to remember and share. You will not only understand, but be able to explain. Let’s begin, shall we?
1. The Gun Show Loophole
Obama: “Anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks or be subject to criminal prosecutions.”
Truth: There is no gun show loophole. What people mean is that you have to sell a certain amount of guns before you cross over from private citizen to a dealer requiring a license. A private sale is when a person who owns a gun sells that gun to another person. Some private sales take place at gun shows. But people who are dealers that go to gun shows and sell lots of guns have to be licensed. The sales are legal, and there is a background check on the buyer. This is already the law. There’s no loophole.
2. The Online Loophole
Obama: “A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the internet with no background check, no questions asked.”
Truth: There is no online loophole. Exactly as with the gun show, what happens is that a person might privately sell something. Let’s say you own a gun. You have a friend on Facebook who wants to buy a gun. You sell your friend the gun. Because you are not a retailer, you do not have to be licensed as a dealer, and are not required to conduct a background check. That’s it. Otherwise, online sales are alreaddy covered. Retailers that sell guns and have an online presence where you can buy them are licensed and therefore, the sales are legal and there is a background check on the buyer. You simply can’t sell a gun over the internet and ship it somewhere without restriction or check. There’s no loophole.
3. Universal Background Checks
Obama: “We know that background checks make a difference.”
Truth: There are already background checks. So this statement is a straw man. What the controllers are pitching is who is required to conduct them and under what circumstances. This idea is sold in the press as simple common sense. The idea is that every time a person becomes the owner of a gun, they are vetted by the government. This would even mean temporary transfers of ownership, like say you give your gun to your mother while you are on deployment. Some states, like recently-in-the-news Oregon, have passed laws that are versions of this. That is, a criminal and mental health background check for all gun sales. (In Oregon’s case, even the new law still allows transfers of ownership among family members without a check.) But the requirement for a background check on all private sales of guns is one of the objectives of the gun control lobby and their media allies. So now you know what they mean by this. They mean that you can’t sell your rifle to your Facebook hunting buddy unless a criminal and mental health background check is conducted.
4. Obama’s Executive Action
Despite the wishes of the gun-grabbers, Obama’s executive action does not address points one through three above. Instead, it simply “requires” that the ATF should enforce the existing laws about licensing people who sell weapons. To that end they are giving more money to the ATF for people who conduct the background checks that already are conducted and are already required by law. There will also be more federal oversight and enforcement on reporting of lost or stolen guns. As a result of Obama’s action, it is possible that more people will be defined as sellers based on volume as a result of there being more ATF agents, but in reality private sales won’t be changed in any meaningful way, and gun shows and online sales will continue as they do, with only a very few exceptions.
5. Precedent
Although the practical effect of the President’s action is relatively minor, it is a message nevertheless. The President is establishing his authority to simply take action curtailing the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans to own guns, without the legislature, based on his own decisions about what that action should consist of. As a precedent for gun-grabbing, it may not be strong, but it is absolutely applicable. If you value your freedom to purchase and possess guns, this action is an affront.

Government Software Calculates Your ‘Threat Score’

Do you know what your "threat score" is? Today, more than 90 percent of all local police departments and nearly all government agencies employ some sort of technological surveillance. 

One of the most common applications is called "Beware", and it scans billions of "arrest reports, property records, commercial databases, deep Web searches" and social media postings to give authorities an idea of who they are dealing with. 
So the next time that police pull up in front of your home, it is likely that what you have posted on Facebook will be searched. 

If you have said things that could be construed as "anti-government" or "anti-police", there is a very good chance that you will have a very high "threat score" and you will be on the red list".

I understand that this sounds like something that comes directly out of a science fiction movie, but I assure you that it is very real. In fact, the Washington Post reported on this just the other day...

While officers raced to a recent 911 call about a man threatening his ex-girlfriend, a police operator in headquarters consulted software that scored the suspect s potential for violence the way a bank might run a credit report.

The program scoured billions of data points, including arrest reports, property records, commercial databases, deep Web searches and the man s social media postings. It calculated his threat level as the highest of three color-coded scores: a bright red warning.

"Beware" was created by a corporation known as "Intrado", and police departments around the nation began using it back in 2012. When police officers using this software roll up to your home, they will instantly know which residents are on the "green list", which are on the "yellow list", and which are on the "red list". Here is more from the Washington Post...

As officers respond to calls, Beware automatically runs the address. The searches return the names of residents and scans them against a range of publicly available data to generate a color-coded threat level for each person or address: green, yellow or red.

Exactly how Beware calculates threat scores is something that its maker, Intrado, considers a trade secret, so it is unclear how much weight is given to a misdemeanor, felony or threatening comment on Facebook. However, the program flags issues and provides a report to the user.
In promotional materials, Intrado writes that Beware could reveal that the resident of a particular address was a war veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, had criminal convictions for assault and had posted worrisome messages about his battle experiences on social media.

Everything that you have ever done on the Internet could potentially be used to calculate your "threat score". So if you made some ill-advised comments on Facebook or in an Internet forum five years ago, there is still probably a record of that somewhere, and "Beware" will probably find it.

The next time you get pulled over or a police officer comes to your home, things that you may have completely forgotten that you ever said may come back to haunt you. With that in mind, I would like you to read the following excerpt from an article by Matt Agorist...

Imagine the following scenario: You are on your way home from work, driving down the road when you notice police lights in your rearview mirror. You are being pulled over.

As you sit there, on the shoulder, adrenaline rushing, simultaneously angry and nervous, the police officer, in his patrol car behind you, is sizing you up based on an algorithm that determines your "threat rating."

The officer enters your license plate into a mobile application on his laptop. In a matter of seconds, this application crawls over billions of records in commercial and public databases, including all available social media engagement, recent purchases and "any comments that could be construed as offensive." The application then determines if your "threat rating" is green, yellow, or red.

Imagine that you are one of our informed and frequent readers and understand the importance of police accountability and are unafraid to voice your entirely peaceful, yet strong opinion about police misconduct. Imagine that you left a comment on Facebook this morning about a particular officer s misconduct; imagine that it is this particular officer who just pulled you over.

We live in a society that has become absolutely obsessed with surveillance.

A "Big Brother police state control grid" is being systematically constructed all around us, and we are being watched, tracked, monitored and controlled in hundreds of different ways.

Will we ever be able to get our privacy back, or has government surveillance become too entrenched?

Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=54#bWg54CtVHZrEhTT8.99


Celente: War Is The Endgame