Police State: Feds Push New Plan For Home Visits to "Check on" Parents
This Blog is LOADED with the latest news and videos as it related to the emerging Police State!
THE NANNY STATE COMING FOR THE FAMILY
The federal government is
seeking to create a new bureaucracy that would intervene in family life
and could even see state-appointed monitors conduct routine home visits
to assess a child’s well-being.
The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published a draft document which
outlines a plan that will treat families as “equal partners” in the
raising of children, opening the door for government intrusion at all
levels.
The paper describes how
government employees will intervene to provide, “monitoring goals for
the children at home and the classroom,” and that if parents are failing
to meet the standards set, “evidence-based parenting interventions”
will be made to, “ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral
needs are met.”
The document
reveals how the state will help oversee, “constant monitoring and
communication regarding children’s social-emotional and behavioral
health.”
The program bears the hallmarks of a controversial scheme in Scotland,
set to take effect later this year, under which a “shadow parent”
appointed by the government would monitor the upbringing of every child
until the age of 18.
“The document
argues that Big Brother needs to know about essentially everything, for
the supposed benefit of the child it wants to “partner” in caring for,” writes Alex Newman.
“Citing “research,” the policy statement claims that “the institutions
where children learn cannot ignore family wellness if they want to …
fulfill their mission to prepare children for school and academic
success.” In other words, every aspect of family life is now fair game
under the pretext of checking “family wellness.”
The
document also extends the understanding of the word “family,” to
include, “all the people who play a role in the child’s life,” a
definition that could include not only teachers but government monitors.
In a related development,
the federal government is pushing for a task force to oversee a program
under which pediatricians and doctors would, “screen all students over
12 years old regularly for depression and issue prescriptions or
treatment as necessary.”
The program would increase the likelihood of teenagers being given dangerous antidepressant drugs such as Prozac and Lexapro.
The
idea of children belonging not just to their parents but to a
“community” that involves the state is a common theme of collectivist
thinking.
That notion was promoted
in the video below from 2013 featuring MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry,
in which she asserted, “We have to break through our private idea that
kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families.”
Google, Yahoo and other tech companies provided 'full assistance' to NSA spying on Americans, says agency lawyer
A senior lawyer for the National Security Agency(NSA) recently admitted
that his employer essentially gets help from some top media and
technology companies to violate the Fourth Amendment protections of
millions of Americans.
The lawyer, Rajesh De, who is the general
counsel for the NSA, said recently that U.S. tech firms were completely
aware of the agency's surveillance and widespread data collection, as
reported by Britain's The Guardian newspaper.
Tech companies had full knowledge of NSA Internet data collection program
De said that all communications content and associated metadata scooped up by the agency under a 2008 law governing (and permitting) such surveillance took place with the full knowledge of the tech companies. He said that is true both for "Prism," an Internet-based data collection program, and the "upstream" collection of all communications moving online.As The Guardian further reported:
Asked during a [recent] hearing of the U.S. government's institutional privacy watchdog if collection under the law, known as Section 702 or the FISA Amendments Act, occurred with the "full knowledge and assistance of any company from which information is obtained," De replied: "Yes."
The story regarding the Prism program was broken in June by The Guardian and The Washington Post, based on documents leaked to them by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. At the time nearly all of the tech companies who were listed as taking part in the program - Yahoo, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and AOL - cried foul and claimed they had no knowledge about the NSA's massive surveillance or giving the agency access to customers' data. Indeed some of the companies, including Apple, claimed they had never even heard of the term Prism, The Guardian reported.
'Government is damaging our future'
But, as De explained, "Prism was an internal government term that as the result of leaks became the public term. Collection under this program was a compulsory legal process, that any recipient company would receive."Following the hearing De said that Internet service providers are also aware of the surveillance and even receive legal directives regarding the spy agency's collection of communications data - not directly from the companies themselves but rather across the Internet, under the authority of Section 702 of the Act.
Following the initial disclosure in the press about the existence of Prism, there was an outcry in technology circles as companies launched in-depth public relations efforts aimed at calming their customers and reassure them of their privacy and data security. In addition, the companies were able to lobby the Obama administration successfully to give them more leeway in disclosing both the volume and type of data requests issued them by the federal government.
In recent days the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, said he phoned Obama to voice his concerns about "the damage the government is creating for all our future." The Guardian reported that tech companies did not respond to De's revelations.
The paper further reported:
It is unclear what sort of legal process the government serves on a company to compel communications content and metadata access under Prism or through upstream collection. Documents leaked from Snowden indicate that the NSA possesses unmediated access to the company data.
Pyrrhic victory against the Obama regime
The ultrasecret FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court ostensibly oversees spy agency and federal law enforcement agency surveillance requests, but critics of the process say the court is essentially a rubber stamp.Still, under concessions won from the Obama administration, tech companies can now discloses the range of FISA-related court orders they receive, in bands of one thousand, and that would presumably include any court orders issued under the authority of Section 702.
"Passed in 2008, Section 702 retroactively gave cover of law to a post-9/11 effort permitting the NSA to collect phone, email, internet and other communications content when one party to the communication is reasonably believed to be a non-American outside the United States," The Guardian reported.
NSA reportedly stores all data received via Prism for five years and communications that are scooped directly from the Internet for two.
New World Order Plans to turn Walmarts into Concentration Camps 2016-2018!
Senate Ready to Give Obama Authority to Declare “International Martial Law”
New AUMF allows an autocratic president to wage war anywhere in the world without congressional approval
A week after Obama’s State of the Union address Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took a procedural step known as Rule 14 and put a measure on the floor and introduced a refashioned AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) written by the Republican neocon Sen. Lindsey Graham.
In November Graham spelled out the details of his AUMF:
I’m going to introduce an authorization to use military force against ISIL that is not limited by time, geography or means. We only have two choices regarding ISIL—fight them in their backyard or fight them in ours. I choose to fight them in their backyard.
At
the time it was said Graham’s AUMF had little chance of making it to
the Senate floor, but that changed last week when McConnell used Rule 14
which bypasses the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Graham’s authorization would not rule out the use of ground troops and would not have time or geographic limitations.
Sarah Mimms and Alex Rogers wrote for the National Journal:
The AUMF put forward by McConnell would not restrict the president’s use of ground troops, nor have any limits related to time or geography. Nor would it touch on the issue of what to do with the 2001 AUMF, which the Obama administration has used to attack ISIS despite that authorization’s instructions to use force against those who planned the 9/11 terrorist attacks. By contrast, the legal authority put forward by the administration last February wouldn’t authorize “enduring offensive ground combat operations” and would have ended three years after enactment, unless reauthorized.
“Considering what
Bush and Obama did with the 2001 AUMF—invading and occupying countries
in ‘pre-emptive’ war, CIA black sites, extrajudicial killings, inventing
the term ‘enemy combatants’ to bypass international law, new forms of
torture, drone bombing women and children, and assassinating U.S.
citizens—the specter of a new and expanded AUMF is truly frightening,”
writes Justin Gardner.
Connecticut
Democrat Sen. Chris said Graham’s “resolution is a total rewrite of the
War Powers Clause in the U.S. Constitution. It is essentially a
declaration of international martial law, a sweeping transfer of
military power to the president that will allow him or her to send U.S.
troops almost anywhere in the world, for almost any reason, with
absolutely no limitations.”
In addition to violating Article 1, Section 8 of the
Constitution, which states only the Congress has the authority to
declare war, Graham’s AUMF undermines the War Powers Resolution enacted
in 1973 during the Vietnam War.
The
Resolution was adopted in the form of a congressional joint resolution
and provided that the President can send the military into action abroad
only by declaration of war by Congress, “statutory authorization,” or
in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United
States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
'Dirtboxed’ Disneyland: Anaheim police admit using spy devices for years
Police in Anaheim, California have said that they used special
surveillance devices mounted on aircraft to track mobile phone activity.
The acknowledgement came after ACLU documents revealed that the
department requested funds for the equipment.
The device, called a
DRTBox (pronounced “dirtbox”), tricks cellphones into thinking that it
is a cell phone tower, allowing it to intercept information from
thousands of phones at once, all without a warrant. Some versions can
even decrypt communications, allowing police to spy on emails, text
messages and even voice conversations.
Dirtboxes are commonly mounted on board airplanes that sweep
over large areas. Anaheim police also admitted they had made use of
similar devices, called Stingrays, mounted inside police cruisers to
monitor LTE data networks from the ground.
“This cell phone spying program – which potentially affects the privacy of everyone from Orange County's 3 million residents to the 16 million people who visit Disneyland every year – shows the dangers of allowing law enforcement to secretly acquire surveillance technology,” American Civil Liberties Union attorney Matt Cagle wrote in a Wednesday blog post announcing the discovery.
The 464 pages of documents obtained by the ACLU revealed the Anaheim Police Department’s surveillance devices were used in other parts of Orange County, too. The ACLU said that “court approvals" were obtained before deploying them, but that this does not mean that a court order was issued for their use.
The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice issued a directive last year requiring the use of a warrant for cell-site simulators. A California law that went into effect on January 1, 2016 also requires the use of a warrant for Stingrays and similar devices.
READ MORE: FBI admits using Stingrays, hacking computers and software
Along with Anaheim, police in Chicago and Los Angeles have revealed their previous use of dirtboxes. Cell-site simulation technology has also been used by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the FBI, and was originally meant to aid in major national security investigations.
Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
Both football and politics encourage zealous devotion among their followers, both create manufactured divisions that alienate one group of devotees from another, and both result in a strange sort of tunnel vision that leaves the viewer oblivious to anything else going on around them apart from the “big game.”
Both football and politics are televised, big-money, advertising-driven exercises in how to cultivate a nation of armchair enthusiasts who are content to sit, watch and be entertained, all the while convincing themselves that they are active contributors to the outcome. Even the season schedules are similar in football and politics: the weekly playoffs, the blow-by-blow recaps, the betting pools and speculation, the conferences, and then the final big championship game.
In the same way, both championship events are costly entertainment extravaganzas that feed the nation’s appetite for competition, consumerism and carnivalesque stunts. In both scenarios, cities bid for the privilege of hosting key athletic and political events. For example, San Francisco had to raise close to $50 million just to host the 50th Super Bowl, with its deluxe stadium, Super Bowl City, free fan village, interactive theme park, and free Alicia Keys concert, not including the additional $5 million cost to taxpayers for additional security. Likewise, it costs cities more than $60 million to host the national presidential nominating conventions for the Republicans and Democrats.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that there is anything wrong with enjoying the entertainment that is football or politics.
However, where we go wrong as a society is when we become armchair quarterbacks, so completely immersed in the Big Game or the Big Campaign that we are easily controlled by the powers-that-be—the megacorporations who run both shows—and oblivious to what is really going on around us.
For instance, while mainstream America has been fixated on the contenders for the Vince Lombardi Trophy and the White House, the militarized, warring surveillance state has been moving steadily forward. Armed drones, increased government surveillance and spying, SWAT team raids, police shootings of unarmed citizens, and the like continue to plague the country. None of these dangers have dissipated. They have merely disappeared from our televised news streams.
In this way, television is a “dream come true” for an authoritarian society.
Television isolates people so they are not joining together to govern themselves. As clinical psychologist Bruce Levine notes, viewing television puts one in a brain state that makes it difficult to think critically, and it quiets and subdues a population. And spending one’s free time isolated and watching TV interferes with our ability to translate our outrage over governmental injustice into activism, and thus makes it easier to accept an authority’s version of society and life.
Supposedly the reason why television—and increasingly movies—are so effective in subduing and pacifying us is that viewers are mesmerized by what TV-insiders call “technical events.” These, according to Levine, are “quick cuts, zoom-ins, zoom-outs, rolls, pans, animation, music, graphics, and voice-overs, all of which lure viewers to continue watching even though they have no interest in the content.” Such technical events, which many action films now incorporate, spellbind people to continue watching.
Televised entertainment, no matter what is being broadcast, has become the nation’s new drug high. Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the TV, subjects reported feeling more relaxed, and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a lack of tension.”
Not surprisingly, the United States is one of the highest TV-viewing nations in the world.
Indeed, a Nielsen study reports that American screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the average American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month. That does not include the larger demographic of screen-watchers who watch their entertainment via their laptops, personal computers, cell phones, tablets and so on.
Historically, television has been used by those in authority to quiet citizen unrest and pacify disruptive people. In fact, television-viewing has also been a proven tactic for ensuring compliance in prisons. “Faced with severe overcrowding and limited budgets for rehabilitation and counseling, more and more prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet,” according to Newsweek. Joe Corpier, a convicted murderer, when interviewed said, “If there’s a good movie, it’s usually pretty quiet through the whole institution.”
In other words, television and other screen viewing not only helps to subdue people but, as Levine concludes, it also zombifies and pacifies us and subverts democracy.
Television viewing, no matter what we’re collectively watching—whether it’s American Idol, the presidential debates or the Super Bowl—is a group activity that immobilizes us and mesmerizes us with collective programming. In fact, research also shows that regardless of the programming, viewers’ brain waves slow down, thus transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.
As such, television watching today results in passive group compliance in much the same way that marching was used by past regimes to create group indoctrination. Political advisor Bertram Gross documents how Adolf Hitler employed marching as a technique to mobilize people in groups by immobilizing them. Hitler and his regime leaders discovered that when people gather in groups and do the same thing—such as marching or cheering at an entertainment or sporting event—they became passive, non-thinking non-individuals.
By replacing “marching” with electronic screen devices, we have the equivalent of Hitler’s method of population control. Gross writes:
So what does this have to do with the Super Bowl and the upcoming presidential election?
If fear-based TV programming—or programming that encourages rivalries and factions—makes people more afraid and distrustful of one another, then our current television lineup is exactly what is needed by an authoritarian society that depends on a “divide and conquer” strategy.
Moreover, according to Levine, authoritarian-based programming is more technically interesting to viewers than democracy-based programming. War and violence, for example, may be rather unpleasant in real life. However, peace and cooperation make for “boring television.”
What this means is that Super Bowl matches and presidential contests are merely more palatable, less bloody, manifestations of war suitable for television viewing audiences.
This also explains why television has become the medium of choice for charismatic politicians with a strong screen presence. They are essentially television performers—actors, if you will. Indeed, any successful candidate for political office—especially the President—must come off well on TV. Television has the lure of involvement. A politically adept president can actually make you believe you are involved in the office of the presidency.
The effective president, then, is essentially a television performer. As the renowned media analyst Marshall McLuhan recognized concerning television: “Potentially, it can transform the presidency into a monarchist dynasty.”
If what we see and what we are told through the entertainment industrial complex—which includes so-called “news” shows—is what those in power deem to be in their best interests, then endless screen viewing is not a great thing for a citizenry who believe they possess choice and freedom. Mind you, the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided through channels controlled by a corporate elite of six megacorporations with the ability to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers on a large scale.
Unfortunately for us, the direction of the future, then, may be towards a Brave New World scenario where the populace is constantly distracted by entertainment, hooked on prescription drugs and controlled by a technological elite.
Freedom, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, is an action word. It means turning off your screen devices—or at least greatly reducing your viewing time—and getting active to take to stave off the emerging authoritarian government.
Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, and the countless science fiction writers and commentators have warned that we are in a race between getting actively involved in the world around us or facing disaster.
If we’re watching, we’re not doing.
As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a 1958 speech:
Britain has been negotiating a plan with the United States which would allow the UK to directly serve wiretap warrants on American communications companies for national security and criminal proceedings.
Via USA Today:
It’s amazing how fast our borders have disappeared in the technological age.
Congressional approval will still be required, but since this is a “you pat my back, I’ll pat yours” kind of deal, it’s not likely they’ll say no.
“This cell phone spying program – which potentially affects the privacy of everyone from Orange County's 3 million residents to the 16 million people who visit Disneyland every year – shows the dangers of allowing law enforcement to secretly acquire surveillance technology,” American Civil Liberties Union attorney Matt Cagle wrote in a Wednesday blog post announcing the discovery.
The 464 pages of documents obtained by the ACLU revealed the Anaheim Police Department’s surveillance devices were used in other parts of Orange County, too. The ACLU said that “court approvals" were obtained before deploying them, but that this does not mean that a court order was issued for their use.
The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice issued a directive last year requiring the use of a warrant for cell-site simulators. A California law that went into effect on January 1, 2016 also requires the use of a warrant for Stingrays and similar devices.
READ MORE: FBI admits using Stingrays, hacking computers and software
Along with Anaheim, police in Chicago and Los Angeles have revealed their previous use of dirtboxes. Cell-site simulation technology has also been used by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the FBI, and was originally meant to aid in major national security investigations.
A Distracted Society Keeps The Police State In Power
Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours. There is no need for wardens or gates or Ministries of Truth. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility. — Professor Neil PostmanIf there are two spectacles that are almost guaranteed to render Americans passive viewers, incapable of doing little more than cheering on their respective teams, it’s football and politics - specifically, the Super Bowl and the quadrennial presidential election.
Both football and politics encourage zealous devotion among their followers, both create manufactured divisions that alienate one group of devotees from another, and both result in a strange sort of tunnel vision that leaves the viewer oblivious to anything else going on around them apart from the “big game.”
Both football and politics are televised, big-money, advertising-driven exercises in how to cultivate a nation of armchair enthusiasts who are content to sit, watch and be entertained, all the while convincing themselves that they are active contributors to the outcome. Even the season schedules are similar in football and politics: the weekly playoffs, the blow-by-blow recaps, the betting pools and speculation, the conferences, and then the final big championship game.
In the same way, both championship events are costly entertainment extravaganzas that feed the nation’s appetite for competition, consumerism and carnivalesque stunts. In both scenarios, cities bid for the privilege of hosting key athletic and political events. For example, San Francisco had to raise close to $50 million just to host the 50th Super Bowl, with its deluxe stadium, Super Bowl City, free fan village, interactive theme park, and free Alicia Keys concert, not including the additional $5 million cost to taxpayers for additional security. Likewise, it costs cities more than $60 million to host the national presidential nominating conventions for the Republicans and Democrats.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that there is anything wrong with enjoying the entertainment that is football or politics.
However, where we go wrong as a society is when we become armchair quarterbacks, so completely immersed in the Big Game or the Big Campaign that we are easily controlled by the powers-that-be—the megacorporations who run both shows—and oblivious to what is really going on around us.
For instance, while mainstream America has been fixated on the contenders for the Vince Lombardi Trophy and the White House, the militarized, warring surveillance state has been moving steadily forward. Armed drones, increased government surveillance and spying, SWAT team raids, police shootings of unarmed citizens, and the like continue to plague the country. None of these dangers have dissipated. They have merely disappeared from our televised news streams.
In this way, television is a “dream come true” for an authoritarian society.
Television isolates people so they are not joining together to govern themselves. As clinical psychologist Bruce Levine notes, viewing television puts one in a brain state that makes it difficult to think critically, and it quiets and subdues a population. And spending one’s free time isolated and watching TV interferes with our ability to translate our outrage over governmental injustice into activism, and thus makes it easier to accept an authority’s version of society and life.
Supposedly the reason why television—and increasingly movies—are so effective in subduing and pacifying us is that viewers are mesmerized by what TV-insiders call “technical events.” These, according to Levine, are “quick cuts, zoom-ins, zoom-outs, rolls, pans, animation, music, graphics, and voice-overs, all of which lure viewers to continue watching even though they have no interest in the content.” Such technical events, which many action films now incorporate, spellbind people to continue watching.
Televised entertainment, no matter what is being broadcast, has become the nation’s new drug high. Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the TV, subjects reported feeling more relaxed, and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a lack of tension.”
Not surprisingly, the United States is one of the highest TV-viewing nations in the world.
Indeed, a Nielsen study reports that American screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the average American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month. That does not include the larger demographic of screen-watchers who watch their entertainment via their laptops, personal computers, cell phones, tablets and so on.
Historically, television has been used by those in authority to quiet citizen unrest and pacify disruptive people. In fact, television-viewing has also been a proven tactic for ensuring compliance in prisons. “Faced with severe overcrowding and limited budgets for rehabilitation and counseling, more and more prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet,” according to Newsweek. Joe Corpier, a convicted murderer, when interviewed said, “If there’s a good movie, it’s usually pretty quiet through the whole institution.”
In other words, television and other screen viewing not only helps to subdue people but, as Levine concludes, it also zombifies and pacifies us and subverts democracy.
Television viewing, no matter what we’re collectively watching—whether it’s American Idol, the presidential debates or the Super Bowl—is a group activity that immobilizes us and mesmerizes us with collective programming. In fact, research also shows that regardless of the programming, viewers’ brain waves slow down, thus transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.
As such, television watching today results in passive group compliance in much the same way that marching was used by past regimes to create group indoctrination. Political advisor Bertram Gross documents how Adolf Hitler employed marching as a technique to mobilize people in groups by immobilizing them. Hitler and his regime leaders discovered that when people gather in groups and do the same thing—such as marching or cheering at an entertainment or sporting event—they became passive, non-thinking non-individuals.
By replacing “marching” with electronic screen devices, we have the equivalent of Hitler’s method of population control. Gross writes:
As a technique of immobilizing people, marching requires organization and, apart from the outlay costs involved, organized groups are a potential danger. They might march to a different drum or in the wrong direction….TV is more effective. It captures many more people than would ever fill the streets by marching—and without interfering with automobile traffic.Equally disturbing is a university study which indicates that we become less aware of our individual selves and moral identity in a group. The study’s findings strongly suggest that when we act in groups, we tend to consider our moral behavior less while moving in lockstep with the group. Thus, what the group believes or does, be it violence or inhumanity, does not seem to lessen the need to be a part of a group, whether it be a mob or political gathering.
So what does this have to do with the Super Bowl and the upcoming presidential election?
If fear-based TV programming—or programming that encourages rivalries and factions—makes people more afraid and distrustful of one another, then our current television lineup is exactly what is needed by an authoritarian society that depends on a “divide and conquer” strategy.
Moreover, according to Levine, authoritarian-based programming is more technically interesting to viewers than democracy-based programming. War and violence, for example, may be rather unpleasant in real life. However, peace and cooperation make for “boring television.”
What this means is that Super Bowl matches and presidential contests are merely more palatable, less bloody, manifestations of war suitable for television viewing audiences.
This also explains why television has become the medium of choice for charismatic politicians with a strong screen presence. They are essentially television performers—actors, if you will. Indeed, any successful candidate for political office—especially the President—must come off well on TV. Television has the lure of involvement. A politically adept president can actually make you believe you are involved in the office of the presidency.
The effective president, then, is essentially a television performer. As the renowned media analyst Marshall McLuhan recognized concerning television: “Potentially, it can transform the presidency into a monarchist dynasty.”
If what we see and what we are told through the entertainment industrial complex—which includes so-called “news” shows—is what those in power deem to be in their best interests, then endless screen viewing is not a great thing for a citizenry who believe they possess choice and freedom. Mind you, the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided through channels controlled by a corporate elite of six megacorporations with the ability to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers on a large scale.
Unfortunately for us, the direction of the future, then, may be towards a Brave New World scenario where the populace is constantly distracted by entertainment, hooked on prescription drugs and controlled by a technological elite.
Freedom, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, is an action word. It means turning off your screen devices—or at least greatly reducing your viewing time—and getting active to take to stave off the emerging authoritarian government.
Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, and the countless science fiction writers and commentators have warned that we are in a race between getting actively involved in the world around us or facing disaster.
If we’re watching, we’re not doing.
As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a 1958 speech:
We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.
Global Patriot Act? UK Seeks Authority to Serve Warrants in America
Britain has been negotiating a plan with the United States which would allow the UK to directly serve wiretap warrants on American communications companies for national security and criminal proceedings.
Via USA Today:
The talks are aimed at allowing British authorities access to a range of data, from interceptions of live communications to archived emails involving British suspects, according to the officials, who are not authorized to comment publicly.The claim is that everything has gone global and terror is no exception, so this is the only next logical step in combating it.
“Such an agreement would ensure U.S. access to data stored in the United Kingdom in support of law enforcement, terrorism, and other transnational threat investigations and support our partners’ ability to investigate serious crime, as well as terrorism and other transnational threats on a reciprocal basis,” that official said.Considering how many threats they’ve known about and been able to actually thwart, this surely isn’t about further chipping away at everyone’s privacy along with American Constitutional protections as well as national sovereignty at all.
It’s amazing how fast our borders have disappeared in the technological age.
Congressional approval will still be required, but since this is a “you pat my back, I’ll pat yours” kind of deal, it’s not likely they’ll say no.
California rapidly turning into medical police state: Mandatory vaccines and genetic discrimination now routinely harming children
California health authorities are increasingly applying police state measures by forcing vaccinations and practicing genetic discrimination – violating constitutional principles and privacy rights.
The state's schools are now being penalized financially for not enforcing mandatory vaccinations; meanwhile children are being expelled for having a genetic predisposition to certain diseases – even when they don't actually have the diseases in question.
Despite much controversy and outrage over California's vaccination laws, it seems that now health officials are emboldened to push even more authoritarian measures regarding the 'health' of the state's citizens.
California has some of the strictest mandatory vaccination laws in the country. Natural News founder Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has written extensively about the bullying and poisoning of the populace at the behest of Big Pharma – in California, particularly.
Adams wrote:
"These people -- the 'vaccine pushers' -- ignore real science and use wildly dishonest tactics of fear mongering, social shaming and blatant lying about scientific facts to demonize informed parents and attempt to criminalize those who pose intelligent, scientific questions about vaccine safety.
"In this way, U.S. doctors, vaccine patent holders (such as Paul Offit), legislators and health regulators are marching America right down the path of medical crimes against humanity -- the very same thing we once witnessed carried out by scientists operating under the Nazi regime in Germany."
From Southern California Public Radio:
"The state acted because its data analysis indicates that many schools are erroneously enrolling kindergartners who are overdue for one or more vaccinations and by law should be excluded from class until they're up to date with their shots. ...
"If children entered school with only one of two required measles shots and had not received their second shot within three months, as required by state law, the guidelines require auditors to verify the students were excluded from class."
If the students were not excluded from classes, auditors were instructed "disallow the [average daily attendance payment] for any days after three calendar months and ten days from the first dose until the date of the second dose."
So, either the kids whose parents don't want to take chances on unsafe vaccines get expelled, or the schools lose funding, creating a no-win situation for everyone involved – except for the state and Big Pharma, of course.
The recent case of sixth-grader Colman Chadam – who was kicked out of school because of his DNA profile – has raised grave concerns regarding privacy, medical ethics and the extent of the government's increasingly meddling role in regulating health.
As reported by Wired:
"The situation, odd as it may sound, played out like this. Colman has genetic markers for cystic fibrosis, and kids with the inherited lung disease can't be near each other because they're vulnerable to contagious infections. Two siblings with cystic fibrosis also attended Colman's middle school in Palo Alto, California in 2012. So Colman was out, even though he didn't actually have the disease, according to a lawsuit that his parents filed against the school district. The allegation? Genetic discrimination."
As unbelievable as that case may sound, the article warns that genetic discrimination is a term that we'll be hearing a lot more of in the future.
According to bioethics expert Michelle Lewis: "As we do more screening earlier and earlier in life, there's potential for misuse of information in ways that are harmful, that could potentially discourage parents from seeking genetic testing even if it's medically indicated."
The corporate-owned state seeks to control every aspect of our existence – what we eat, what we think and how we raise our children. It's aim is to keep us sick, uninformed and utterly dependent.
We do have the power to change the system, but we'd better act together now, while we still have enough brains and health left to accomplish something. Let's hope it's not already too late.
The state's schools are now being penalized financially for not enforcing mandatory vaccinations; meanwhile children are being expelled for having a genetic predisposition to certain diseases – even when they don't actually have the diseases in question.
Despite much controversy and outrage over California's vaccination laws, it seems that now health officials are emboldened to push even more authoritarian measures regarding the 'health' of the state's citizens.
California has some of the strictest mandatory vaccination laws in the country. Natural News founder Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has written extensively about the bullying and poisoning of the populace at the behest of Big Pharma – in California, particularly.
Adams wrote:
"These people -- the 'vaccine pushers' -- ignore real science and use wildly dishonest tactics of fear mongering, social shaming and blatant lying about scientific facts to demonize informed parents and attempt to criminalize those who pose intelligent, scientific questions about vaccine safety.
"In this way, U.S. doctors, vaccine patent holders (such as Paul Offit), legislators and health regulators are marching America right down the path of medical crimes against humanity -- the very same thing we once witnessed carried out by scientists operating under the Nazi regime in Germany."
Get vaccinated - or else!
Schools in California are now being threatened with financial penalties for admitting "kindergartners who were overdue for their second dose of the measles vaccine."From Southern California Public Radio:
"The state acted because its data analysis indicates that many schools are erroneously enrolling kindergartners who are overdue for one or more vaccinations and by law should be excluded from class until they're up to date with their shots. ...
"If children entered school with only one of two required measles shots and had not received their second shot within three months, as required by state law, the guidelines require auditors to verify the students were excluded from class."
If the students were not excluded from classes, auditors were instructed "disallow the [average daily attendance payment] for any days after three calendar months and ten days from the first dose until the date of the second dose."
So, either the kids whose parents don't want to take chances on unsafe vaccines get expelled, or the schools lose funding, creating a no-win situation for everyone involved – except for the state and Big Pharma, of course.
Genetic discrimination in California schools
Equally as disturbing as the mandatory vaccination agenda in California, is the growing trend towards 'genetic discrimination."The recent case of sixth-grader Colman Chadam – who was kicked out of school because of his DNA profile – has raised grave concerns regarding privacy, medical ethics and the extent of the government's increasingly meddling role in regulating health.
As reported by Wired:
"The situation, odd as it may sound, played out like this. Colman has genetic markers for cystic fibrosis, and kids with the inherited lung disease can't be near each other because they're vulnerable to contagious infections. Two siblings with cystic fibrosis also attended Colman's middle school in Palo Alto, California in 2012. So Colman was out, even though he didn't actually have the disease, according to a lawsuit that his parents filed against the school district. The allegation? Genetic discrimination."
As unbelievable as that case may sound, the article warns that genetic discrimination is a term that we'll be hearing a lot more of in the future.
According to bioethics expert Michelle Lewis: "As we do more screening earlier and earlier in life, there's potential for misuse of information in ways that are harmful, that could potentially discourage parents from seeking genetic testing even if it's medically indicated."
The corporate-owned state seeks to control every aspect of our existence – what we eat, what we think and how we raise our children. It's aim is to keep us sick, uninformed and utterly dependent.
We do have the power to change the system, but we'd better act together now, while we still have enough brains and health left to accomplish something. Let's hope it's not already too late.
Hagmanns Interview Dave Hodges regarding FEMA Camp Detentions Under UWEX 16
Big Brother Corporation? BBC to use facial coding cameras to study viewers’ emotions
Facial coding technology will be used by the BBC to examine
viewers’ subconscious reactions to their shows and discover any
“emotional attachment” they have to the broadcaster, after a series of
trials yielded positive results.
Using technology from
British company CrowdEmotion, cameras will be used to record facial
expressions. The movements are then divided up into six different
categories: sadness, puzzlement, happiness, fear, rejection and
surprise.The company will work with the insight division of BBC Worldwide, the broadcaster’s commercial arm, to establish and research how viewers respond to different types of program.
During pilot experiments which examined 5,000 people, individuals were examined on their reactions to marketing campaigns on the BBC website. BBC Worldwide said the pilot was a success and they would be extending the trials.
The BBC said the technology “enabled us to find out the emotional response of each person and how they truly felt about the content they were viewing, rather than just relying on traditional analytics such as dwell time [how long a user spends on a website] and page views.”
One experiment questioned whether audiences responded positively to content which was labelled as coming from a commercial brand.
They found there was a 77 percent increase in “explicit positivity” towards brands, and a 14 percent increase in “subconscious positivity” when content was marked as sponsored by a brand.
Other experiments involved installing webcams in 200 homes across Britain to examine viewer responses to popular shows. The trial faced concerns that the broadcaster might try to spy on audiences, but the BBC says its experiments are about determining the public’s taste in television.
The results would not be used to make more specific programs, but rather to guide viewers towards content they might enjoy more.
On its website, CrowdEmotion states it is “a technology company that unlocks human emotions using smart sensors and devices” and aims to be the biggest facial coding company across the globe.
Samsung warns customers not to discuss personal information in front of smart TVs
Samsung has confirmed that its “smart TV” sets are listening to customers’ every word, and the company is warning customers not to speak about personal information while near the TV sets. The company revealed that the voice activation feature on its smart TVs will capture all nearby conversations. The TV sets can share the information, including sensitive data, with Samsung as well as third-party services.
The news comes after Shane Harris at The Daily Beast pointed out a troubling line in Samsung’s privacy policy: “Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party.” Samsung has now issued a new statement clarifying how the voice activation feature works. “If a consumer consents and uses the voice recognition feature, voice data is provided to a third party during a requested voice command search,” Samsung said in a statement. “At that time, the voice data is sent to a server, which searches for the requested content then returns the desired content to the TV.” READ MORE