Showing posts with label tyranny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tyranny. Show all posts
December 16, 2013
October 14, 2013
YouTube Video Shows Ugly Side Of Police 'Stop And Frisk'
*Source: RT
As debate over the merits of “stop and frisk” policing continues, a new YouTube video has added fuel to the fire by revealing the disturbing tactics of two Philadelphia officers.
Titled “Police unlawful harassment and racial profiling,” the video is dated Sept. 27 and shows two pedestrians being stopped by police officers after saying “hi” to a third, unseen individual on the street.
"You don't say 'Hi' to strangers,"one officer, identified as Philip Nace by the Philadelphia Daily News, said as he confronts the two pedestrians and pushes one against the car. The other individual is recording the scene on his smartphone as it unfolds.
After Nace tells the man to put his phone away because he’s “under investigation,” the phone is set down but continues to record.
“Investigation of what? I was walking,” the man said, to which the officer replies,“That’s not what I saw … if you keep running your mouth I’ll split your wig open.”
The two go back and forth, with the man asking Nace why he’d been stopped, and Nace offering that he doesn’t know what information the police have on them.
“Are you accusing me of robbing somebody?” the pedestrian asks.
“I didn’t accuse you of anything,” Nace said.“I said we
could’ve got a call, that somebody wearing the clothes you’re
wearing just robbed somebody. That’s why we stopped you. Is that
wrong of us?”
When asked if he’s permitted to grab pedestrians in this manner, Nace replies,“I’ll grab you any way I got to… Why don’t you shut up? Everyone thinks they’re a [expletive] lawyer and they don’t know jack [expletive].”
At one point, the officers attempt to justify their actions by claiming the two pedestrians were jaywalking. Nace also accuses the two pedestrians of “weakening the country” by “freeloading.”
The race of the two pedestrians is not clear in the video, but
“stop and frisk” tactics are increasingly coming under fire as
demeaning, and for unfairly targeting minorities without
sufficient cause.
"This is exactly what the city of Philadelphia says its cops don't do," Mary Catherine Roper, senior staff attorney for the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Daily News.“The only way we stop it from happening is if the police department acknowledges that it does happen and takes steps to root it out."
In August, a federal judge ruled New York City’s “stop and frisk” policy unconstitutional on the grounds that it is a form of racial profiling.
Meanwhile, a new study released in September revealed that “stop and frisk” tactics are causing a large proportion of the public to mistrust the police. The lack of faith can become so severe that even those who are victimized become reluctant to report crimes.
As debate over the merits of “stop and frisk” policing continues, a new YouTube video has added fuel to the fire by revealing the disturbing tactics of two Philadelphia officers.
Titled “Police unlawful harassment and racial profiling,” the video is dated Sept. 27 and shows two pedestrians being stopped by police officers after saying “hi” to a third, unseen individual on the street.
"You don't say 'Hi' to strangers,"one officer, identified as Philip Nace by the Philadelphia Daily News, said as he confronts the two pedestrians and pushes one against the car. The other individual is recording the scene on his smartphone as it unfolds.
After Nace tells the man to put his phone away because he’s “under investigation,” the phone is set down but continues to record.
“Investigation of what? I was walking,” the man said, to which the officer replies,“That’s not what I saw … if you keep running your mouth I’ll split your wig open.”
The two go back and forth, with the man asking Nace why he’d been stopped, and Nace offering that he doesn’t know what information the police have on them.
“Are you accusing me of robbing somebody?” the pedestrian asks.
When asked if he’s permitted to grab pedestrians in this manner, Nace replies,“I’ll grab you any way I got to… Why don’t you shut up? Everyone thinks they’re a [expletive] lawyer and they don’t know jack [expletive].”
At one point, the officers attempt to justify their actions by claiming the two pedestrians were jaywalking. Nace also accuses the two pedestrians of “weakening the country” by “freeloading.”
"This is exactly what the city of Philadelphia says its cops don't do," Mary Catherine Roper, senior staff attorney for the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Daily News.“The only way we stop it from happening is if the police department acknowledges that it does happen and takes steps to root it out."
In August, a federal judge ruled New York City’s “stop and frisk” policy unconstitutional on the grounds that it is a form of racial profiling.
Meanwhile, a new study released in September revealed that “stop and frisk” tactics are causing a large proportion of the public to mistrust the police. The lack of faith can become so severe that even those who are victimized become reluctant to report crimes.
October 7, 2013
NY Paper Sues Putnam County for Pistol Permit Records
*Source: Breitbart
(AP) NY paper sues Putnam Co. for pistol permit records
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.
A suburban New York newspaper has sued Putnam County to compel it to release its pistol permit records.
The Journal News says it sued Thursday after the county denied two Freedom of Information requests and a subsequent appeal.
The newspaper first requested information from Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties following the Newtown, Conn., shooting massacre. It made another request after the state passed a gun control law allowing permit holders to apply to keep their names and addresses private.
Putnam County officials declined to comment on the lawsuit because they had not yet been served with the papers. But County Executive MaryEllen Odell told the newspaper she's confident the county will prevail.
Westchester and Rockland counties provided the information to the newspaper, which published a clickable map on its website identifying residents there with handgun permits.
(AP) NY paper sues Putnam Co. for pistol permit records
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.
A suburban New York newspaper has sued Putnam County to compel it to release its pistol permit records.
The Journal News says it sued Thursday after the county denied two Freedom of Information requests and a subsequent appeal.
The newspaper first requested information from Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties following the Newtown, Conn., shooting massacre. It made another request after the state passed a gun control law allowing permit holders to apply to keep their names and addresses private.
Putnam County officials declined to comment on the lawsuit because they had not yet been served with the papers. But County Executive MaryEllen Odell told the newspaper she's confident the county will prevail.
Westchester and Rockland counties provided the information to the newspaper, which published a clickable map on its website identifying residents there with handgun permits.
September 26, 2013
Report: Obamacare Provision Will Allow 'Forced' Home Inspections by Gov't Agents.
*Source: Examiner
Citing the Heath and Human Services website, a report posted Wednesday at the Freedom Outpost says that under Obamacare, government agents can engage in "home health visits" for those in certain “high-risk” categories.
Those categories include:
• Families where mom is not yet 21;
• Families where someone is a tobacco user;
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities, and
• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.
According to HHS, the visits fall under what is called the "Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program" allegedly designed to “help parents and children,” and could impact millions of Americans.
Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown said that despite what HHS says, the program is not “voluntary."
"The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks," he said. "A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to 'intervention' in 'school readiness' and 'social-emotional developmental indicators.' A farm family may be subject to 'intervention' in order to 'prevent child injuries.' The sky is the limit."
Joshua Cook said that while the administration would claim the program only applies to those on Medicaid, the new law, by its own definition, has no such limitation.
"Intervention," he added, quoting Brown, "may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”
According to Cook, the program will require collection of a massive amount of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.
One of the areas of emphasis mentioned by HHS is the "development of comprehensive early childhood systems that span the prenatal-through-age-eight continuum."
Last session, Cook added, South Carolina State Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a measure that would make the forced home visitations illegal in his state. The measure passed in the House but died in the Senate.
In 2011, he noted, HHS said $224 million would be allocated to support these home visiting programs.
Citing the Heath and Human Services website, a report posted Wednesday at the Freedom Outpost says that under Obamacare, government agents can engage in "home health visits" for those in certain “high-risk” categories.
Those categories include:
• Families where mom is not yet 21;
• Families where someone is a tobacco user;
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities, and
• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.
According to HHS, the visits fall under what is called the "Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program" allegedly designed to “help parents and children,” and could impact millions of Americans.
Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown said that despite what HHS says, the program is not “voluntary."
"The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks," he said. "A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to 'intervention' in 'school readiness' and 'social-emotional developmental indicators.' A farm family may be subject to 'intervention' in order to 'prevent child injuries.' The sky is the limit."
Joshua Cook said that while the administration would claim the program only applies to those on Medicaid, the new law, by its own definition, has no such limitation.
"Intervention," he added, quoting Brown, "may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”
According to Cook, the program will require collection of a massive amount of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.
One of the areas of emphasis mentioned by HHS is the "development of comprehensive early childhood systems that span the prenatal-through-age-eight continuum."
Last session, Cook added, South Carolina State Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a measure that would make the forced home visitations illegal in his state. The measure passed in the House but died in the Senate.
In 2011, he noted, HHS said $224 million would be allocated to support these home visiting programs.
July 31, 2013
Manning Not Guilty Of Aiding The Enemy, Faces 130+ yrs In Jail On Other Charges.
*Source: RT
A US military judge has found Army private Bradley Manning "not guilty" of aiding the enemy. However, he was found guilty of 20 remaining charges, meaning that he still faces the possibility of up to 136 years behind bars.
Sitting in the military courtroom at Fort Meade, Md., Colonel Denise Lind delivered her verdict shortly after 1 p.m. EDT on Tuesday. Manning had chosen to put all his faith in the judge, rather than a panel of his peers – a risky gamble that initially seemed to pay off for the 25-year-old Army intelligence analyst – the charge could have carried a life sentence without parole.
Follow RT's LIVE UPDATES on Manning verdict
However, Manning still faces the possibility of up to 136 years behind bars, having been found guilty of six charges of espionage, five counts of theft, and four counts of embezzlement of government property. In total, Judge Lind found him guilty of 20 of the 22 offenses he could have been charged with. Manning was found not guilty of espionage for the release of the infamous "Collateral Murder" video.
Manning's family issued a statement saying that while they are "obviously disappointed in today’s verdicts, we are happy that Judge Lind agreed with us that Brad never intended to help America’s enemies in any way." Wikileaks expressed a similar sentiment but still aired disappointment at Manning's future possibilities.
“Well, of course I’m pleased that the judge decided to throw out the most serious charges of aiding the enemy, which of course was ludicrous” Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks spokesman, told RT. “One isn’t filled with any optimism. Last week, the judge allowed the prosecution to change some of the charges on the last day of the trail.”
Sentencing begins on Wednesday at 9:30am. Some 40 witnesses will be called for this stage of the process, meaning it could potentially take the whole of August to finalize his penalty. The extent of the punishment he could still face has roused upset from human rights and justice organizations.
"The US government has refused to investigate credible allegations of torture and other crimes under international law despite overwhelming evidence...yet they decided to prosecute Manning who it seems was trying to do the right thing – reveal credible evidence of unlawful behavior by the government," said Amnesty International's Senior Director of International Law and Policy, Widney Brown, in a statement shortly after the verdict was read.
“The Espionage Act itself is a discredited relic of the WWI era, created as a tool to suppress political dissent and antiwar activism, and it is outrageous that the government chose to invoke it in the first place against Manning,” said the Center for Constitutional Rights in a statement.
“We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy, while those responsible for the war crimes remain free,” it admonished.
Index on Censorship also jumped to condemn the guilty verdicts, saying that Manning "leaked files in order to inform the world about what really happened during the Iraq War to no personal gain." Sean Gallagher, its editor, urged the court to "show leniency" when sentencing Manning tomorrow.
Protesters rallying in support of the whistleblower gathered outside the Military Recruiting Office on Tuesday, holding signs and posters that described Manning as a hero. Chanting “Free Bradley Manning” and “Three Years is Enough,” the activists stood outside the Fort Meade courtroom in the hours leading up to the verdict.
For more pictures visit RT gallery
In the days leading up to the verdict, celebrities, public thinkers and European Parliamentarians all voiced support for Manning and urged the president to free him. Over the weekend, protesters in 40 cities throughout the world took part in an “International Day of Action” to call for Manning’s liberation. “Exposing war crimes is not a crime,” and “Bradley Manning: hero not criminal,” were some of the bold statements displayed on the signs. Wearing “truth” t-shirts and waving signs, the group of loyal "truth-activists" proclaimed their respect for the young Army intelligence analyst, and celebrated Col. Lind’s decision.
During the eight-week trial, government prosecutors argued that Manning indirectly aided al-Qaeda by sharing thousands of classified documents with the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks in late 2009 and early 2010. The terrorist organization downloaded the information, and Maj. Ashden Fein told the judge that Manning expected the material would be seen by al-Qaeda. The prosecution depicted Manning as an ill-intentioned traitor who sought fame and notoriety.
The defense portrayed Manning as a naïve, but well-intentioned young man who simply wanted to generate a debate about the costs of warfare. Attorney David Combs called his client a humanist and a whistleblower, describing him as “somebody that wants to inform the American public.”
“I believe that if the general public… had access to the information… this could spark a domestic debate as to the role of the military and foreign policy in general,” Manning said in March, speaking from a 35-page prepared statement for the court.
In closing arguments, Coombs asked the judge to consider whether Manning was truly a traitor, or whether he was “a young, naïve, good-intentioned soldier who had human life, in his humanist believes, center to his decisions – whose sole focus was, ‘maybe I just can make a difference, maybe make a change?’”
Although Col. Lind found Manning not guilty of aiding the enemy,
the 25-year-old native of Crescent, Okla., faces 21 counts,
including espionage, computer fraud and theft charges. He could
still receive time in military jail. In March, Manning admitted
to sending classified material to WikiLeaks, including 470,000
Iraq and Afghanistan battlefield reports and 250,000 State
Department diplomatic cables and material. He pled guilty to 10
lesser charges, which could still lead to a maximum sentence of
20 years imprisonment.
The verdict was a landmark decision that could predict how US authorities handle individuals disclosing state secrets. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Friday expressed his fear that if Manning were convicted of aiding the enemy, it would be “the end of national security journalism in the United States.” The progression of the high-profile case may still instil fear into potential whistleblowers, especially in combination with the United States’ handling of former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden.
But for now, Col. Lind’s “not guilty” verdict of aiding the enemy has served as a cause for hope and celebration among truth-advocates and supporters of Bradley Manning’s efforts to expose the war crimes and wrongdoings of the US government.
A US military judge has found Army private Bradley Manning "not guilty" of aiding the enemy. However, he was found guilty of 20 remaining charges, meaning that he still faces the possibility of up to 136 years behind bars.
Sitting in the military courtroom at Fort Meade, Md., Colonel Denise Lind delivered her verdict shortly after 1 p.m. EDT on Tuesday. Manning had chosen to put all his faith in the judge, rather than a panel of his peers – a risky gamble that initially seemed to pay off for the 25-year-old Army intelligence analyst – the charge could have carried a life sentence without parole.
Follow RT's LIVE UPDATES on Manning verdict
Guilty of almost everything BUT aiding the enemy.
— Andrew Blake (@apblake) July 30, 2013
Manning's family issued a statement saying that while they are "obviously disappointed in today’s verdicts, we are happy that Judge Lind agreed with us that Brad never intended to help America’s enemies in any way." Wikileaks expressed a similar sentiment but still aired disappointment at Manning's future possibilities.
“Well, of course I’m pleased that the judge decided to throw out the most serious charges of aiding the enemy, which of course was ludicrous” Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks spokesman, told RT. “One isn’t filled with any optimism. Last week, the judge allowed the prosecution to change some of the charges on the last day of the trail.”
Sentencing begins on Wednesday at 9:30am. Some 40 witnesses will be called for this stage of the process, meaning it could potentially take the whole of August to finalize his penalty. The extent of the punishment he could still face has roused upset from human rights and justice organizations.
'Those responsible for the war crimes remain free'
"The US government has refused to investigate credible allegations of torture and other crimes under international law despite overwhelming evidence...yet they decided to prosecute Manning who it seems was trying to do the right thing – reveal credible evidence of unlawful behavior by the government," said Amnesty International's Senior Director of International Law and Policy, Widney Brown, in a statement shortly after the verdict was read.
“The Espionage Act itself is a discredited relic of the WWI era, created as a tool to suppress political dissent and antiwar activism, and it is outrageous that the government chose to invoke it in the first place against Manning,” said the Center for Constitutional Rights in a statement.
“We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy, while those responsible for the war crimes remain free,” it admonished.
Index on Censorship also jumped to condemn the guilty verdicts, saying that Manning "leaked files in order to inform the world about what really happened during the Iraq War to no personal gain." Sean Gallagher, its editor, urged the court to "show leniency" when sentencing Manning tomorrow.
Protesters rallying in support of the whistleblower gathered outside the Military Recruiting Office on Tuesday, holding signs and posters that described Manning as a hero. Chanting “Free Bradley Manning” and “Three Years is Enough,” the activists stood outside the Fort Meade courtroom in the hours leading up to the verdict.
In the days leading up to the verdict, celebrities, public thinkers and European Parliamentarians all voiced support for Manning and urged the president to free him. Over the weekend, protesters in 40 cities throughout the world took part in an “International Day of Action” to call for Manning’s liberation. “Exposing war crimes is not a crime,” and “Bradley Manning: hero not criminal,” were some of the bold statements displayed on the signs. Wearing “truth” t-shirts and waving signs, the group of loyal "truth-activists" proclaimed their respect for the young Army intelligence analyst, and celebrated Col. Lind’s decision.
During the eight-week trial, government prosecutors argued that Manning indirectly aided al-Qaeda by sharing thousands of classified documents with the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks in late 2009 and early 2010. The terrorist organization downloaded the information, and Maj. Ashden Fein told the judge that Manning expected the material would be seen by al-Qaeda. The prosecution depicted Manning as an ill-intentioned traitor who sought fame and notoriety.
The defense portrayed Manning as a naïve, but well-intentioned young man who simply wanted to generate a debate about the costs of warfare. Attorney David Combs called his client a humanist and a whistleblower, describing him as “somebody that wants to inform the American public.”
“I believe that if the general public… had access to the information… this could spark a domestic debate as to the role of the military and foreign policy in general,” Manning said in March, speaking from a 35-page prepared statement for the court.
In closing arguments, Coombs asked the judge to consider whether Manning was truly a traitor, or whether he was “a young, naïve, good-intentioned soldier who had human life, in his humanist believes, center to his decisions – whose sole focus was, ‘maybe I just can make a difference, maybe make a change?’”
The verdict was a landmark decision that could predict how US authorities handle individuals disclosing state secrets. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Friday expressed his fear that if Manning were convicted of aiding the enemy, it would be “the end of national security journalism in the United States.” The progression of the high-profile case may still instil fear into potential whistleblowers, especially in combination with the United States’ handling of former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden.
But for now, Col. Lind’s “not guilty” verdict of aiding the enemy has served as a cause for hope and celebration among truth-advocates and supporters of Bradley Manning’s efforts to expose the war crimes and wrongdoings of the US government.
June 7, 2013
The Untouchables: NY Senate Passes Bill Making 'Annoying' Police A Crime.
*Source: RT
The New York State Senate passed a controversial bill on Wednesday
that aims to classify ‘aggravated harassment of a police officer’ as a
crime, but will it give the authorities the green light for strong-arm
tactics if passed?
Sponsored by Senator Joe Griffo, Bill S.2402 would make it a felony to “harass, annoy, or threaten a police officer while on duty.”
“Our system of laws is established to protect the foundations of our society,” Senator Griffo said. “Police officers who risk their lives every day in our cities and on our highways deserve every possible protection, and those who treat them with disrespect, harass them and create situations that can lead to injuries deserve to pay a price for their actions.”
Griffo said that New York police require extra safeguards because “too many people in our society have lost the respect they need to have for a police officer…. We need to make it very clear that when a police officer is performing his duty, every citizen needs to comply and that refusal to comply carries a penalty.”
The bill, which will now move to the State Assembly, would make it a crime for a person to make any type of physical action aimed at intimidating a police officer. Harassment of a police officer would be recognized as a Class E Felony, punishable by up to four years in prison.
Not surprisingly, the bill has won accolades from police.
“Professionally, I am grateful to see this bill pass through the Senate,” said Utica Police Department Chief Mark Williams, as quoted by the House Majority Press. “Our police officers have a very dangerous job and need the support of our government leaders to help make them safe.”
Williams believes that all too often, individuals are “physically challenging police officers in the line of duty.” Currently, in instances where an officer is physically attacked but does not sustain a physical injury, the only possible charge is a violation, he explained.
These consequences are too lenient for offenders, and send the wrong message to the public, Williams continued.
However, questions may arise as to where the boundaries should be drawn concerning the right of individuals to report on incidents of excessive police force, for example.
In May 2011, New York homeowner Emily Good was arrested by Rochester police while standing in her yard and videotaping police officers who were performing a traffic stop in front of her house.
When one of the officers asked Good what she was doing, Good replied, “I’m just recording what you’re doing; it’s my right.” The officer then told Good that “we don’t feel safe with you standing right behind us while we’re doing a traffic stop,” and ordered her to go inside her house.
When Good insisted on her right to stand in her yard, she was arrested, handcuffed, and taken away in a police car. She was later charged with obstructing governmental administration.
The New York State Senate passed a controversial bill on Wednesday
that aims to classify ‘aggravated harassment of a police officer’ as a
crime, but will it give the authorities the green light for strong-arm
tactics if passed?Sponsored by Senator Joe Griffo, Bill S.2402 would make it a felony to “harass, annoy, or threaten a police officer while on duty.”
“Our system of laws is established to protect the foundations of our society,” Senator Griffo said. “Police officers who risk their lives every day in our cities and on our highways deserve every possible protection, and those who treat them with disrespect, harass them and create situations that can lead to injuries deserve to pay a price for their actions.”
Griffo said that New York police require extra safeguards because “too many people in our society have lost the respect they need to have for a police officer…. We need to make it very clear that when a police officer is performing his duty, every citizen needs to comply and that refusal to comply carries a penalty.”
The bill, which will now move to the State Assembly, would make it a crime for a person to make any type of physical action aimed at intimidating a police officer. Harassment of a police officer would be recognized as a Class E Felony, punishable by up to four years in prison.
“Professionally, I am grateful to see this bill pass through the Senate,” said Utica Police Department Chief Mark Williams, as quoted by the House Majority Press. “Our police officers have a very dangerous job and need the support of our government leaders to help make them safe.”
Williams believes that all too often, individuals are “physically challenging police officers in the line of duty.” Currently, in instances where an officer is physically attacked but does not sustain a physical injury, the only possible charge is a violation, he explained.
These consequences are too lenient for offenders, and send the wrong message to the public, Williams continued.
However, questions may arise as to where the boundaries should be drawn concerning the right of individuals to report on incidents of excessive police force, for example.
In May 2011, New York homeowner Emily Good was arrested by Rochester police while standing in her yard and videotaping police officers who were performing a traffic stop in front of her house.
When one of the officers asked Good what she was doing, Good replied, “I’m just recording what you’re doing; it’s my right.” The officer then told Good that “we don’t feel safe with you standing right behind us while we’re doing a traffic stop,” and ordered her to go inside her house.
When Good insisted on her right to stand in her yard, she was arrested, handcuffed, and taken away in a police car. She was later charged with obstructing governmental administration.
June 4, 2013
IRS Agents Carrying Shotguns Not A Big Deal?
*Source: WND
The IRS is also the chief enforcer of Obamacare requirements.
In 2010, the Federal Business Opportunities website posted an IRS request for a quote on the price of shotguns for the agency’s Criminal Investigation Division.
The site sought a quote for 60 Remington Model 870 Police 12-gauge pump-action shotguns, the only weapons authorized for IRS duty.
The IRS Criminal Division includes roughly 2,700 special agents who are required to carry a firearm.
According to the basic qualifications for a position as an IRS special agent for the criminal division, “applicants must carry and use a firearm.”
In October 2012, J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, released a report charging IRS agents need more thorough firearms training and must better report accidental firings of their guns.
“Special agents not properly trained in the use of firearms could endanger the public, as well as their fellow special agents, and expose the IRS to potential litigation over injuries or damages,” George said at the time.
George said IRS agents accidentally fired their weapons 11 times during fiscal years 2009 through fiscal 2011.
‘Right wing’ fear mongering?
When the IRS publicly sought the 60 shotguns in 2010, the progressive activist group Media Matters for America attacked what it labeled the “right-wing blogosphere” for “baselessly fear monger[ing]” over the IRS weapons issue.
Media Matters blasted the popular Drudge Report for its Feb. 3, 2010, headline “The IRS is buying shotguns!”
American Thinker blogger Ralph Alter said of the IRS weapons request: “It looks like the IRS under the Obama administration is getting serious about improving its ability to collect taxes and enforce the tax codes.”
Radio host Tammy Bruce was also spotlighted by Media Matters after she posted on her blog the IRS request for a quote on weapons and commented: “Nothing warms me up in the morning like the idea that the IRS is preparing a swat team equipped with pump-action shotguns. I guess [Obama] thinks they’re gonna have to start shooting at us to squeeze what we have left out of us?” She concluded: “Give us your money or we’ll shoot!”
Mark Levin gets a visit
Earlier this month, national radio host Mark Levin revealed on his show that he received a visit from armed Treasury Department agents after penning a March 2012 letter complaining the IRS was targeting tea party organizations.
Levin noted the two Treasury officials who visited him were “armed” and carrying weapons by claiming “we’re law enforcement.”
Earlier this month, Josh Margolin of ABC News reported that journalists touring the IRS offices in Cincinnati were “escorted” by an armed federal officer.
“The fact is the trust in the IRS is gone,” Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga, said at a speech yesterday. “The American people have lost trust in this organization and rightfully so.”
With additional research by Joshua Klein.
Critics were mocked as 'right-wing fear-mongers'
The issue of Internal Revenue Service agents carrying weapons may warrant further scrutiny amid the nationwide distrust of the agency for targeting conservative organizations.
The IRS is also the chief enforcer of Obamacare requirements.
In 2010, the Federal Business Opportunities website posted an IRS request for a quote on the price of shotguns for the agency’s Criminal Investigation Division.
The site sought a quote for 60 Remington Model 870 Police 12-gauge pump-action shotguns, the only weapons authorized for IRS duty.
The IRS Criminal Division includes roughly 2,700 special agents who are required to carry a firearm.
According to the basic qualifications for a position as an IRS special agent for the criminal division, “applicants must carry and use a firearm.”
In October 2012, J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, released a report charging IRS agents need more thorough firearms training and must better report accidental firings of their guns.
“Special agents not properly trained in the use of firearms could endanger the public, as well as their fellow special agents, and expose the IRS to potential litigation over injuries or damages,” George said at the time.
George said IRS agents accidentally fired their weapons 11 times during fiscal years 2009 through fiscal 2011.
‘Right wing’ fear mongering?
When the IRS publicly sought the 60 shotguns in 2010, the progressive activist group Media Matters for America attacked what it labeled the “right-wing blogosphere” for “baselessly fear monger[ing]” over the IRS weapons issue.
Media Matters blasted the popular Drudge Report for its Feb. 3, 2010, headline “The IRS is buying shotguns!”
American Thinker blogger Ralph Alter said of the IRS weapons request: “It looks like the IRS under the Obama administration is getting serious about improving its ability to collect taxes and enforce the tax codes.”
Radio host Tammy Bruce was also spotlighted by Media Matters after she posted on her blog the IRS request for a quote on weapons and commented: “Nothing warms me up in the morning like the idea that the IRS is preparing a swat team equipped with pump-action shotguns. I guess [Obama] thinks they’re gonna have to start shooting at us to squeeze what we have left out of us?” She concluded: “Give us your money or we’ll shoot!”
Mark Levin gets a visit
Earlier this month, national radio host Mark Levin revealed on his show that he received a visit from armed Treasury Department agents after penning a March 2012 letter complaining the IRS was targeting tea party organizations.
Levin noted the two Treasury officials who visited him were “armed” and carrying weapons by claiming “we’re law enforcement.”
Earlier this month, Josh Margolin of ABC News reported that journalists touring the IRS offices in Cincinnati were “escorted” by an armed federal officer.
“The fact is the trust in the IRS is gone,” Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga, said at a speech yesterday. “The American people have lost trust in this organization and rightfully so.”
With additional research by Joshua Klein.
April 22, 2013
FBI's History of Handing "Terror Suspects" Live Explosives
*Source: Land Destroyer
April 16, 2013 (LD) - In late September 2011, AFP reported that a man was charged with "planning to fly explosive-packed, remote controlled airplanes into the Pentagon and the Capitol in Washington." In its report, "US man charged with Pentagon bomb plot," AFP stated (emphasis added):
The FBI's official statement titled, "Oregon Resident Arrested in Plot to Bomb Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in Portland," released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office on November 26, 2010 stated (emphasis added):
Has the FBI ever presided over "sting operations" that were actually carried out? The answer is yes. The FBI in fact was presiding over the terrorists who carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The role of the FBI leading up to the deadly attack would most likely have gone unreported had an FBI informant not taped his conversations with FBI agents after growing suspicious during the uncover operation. The New York Times in their article, "Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast," reported:
Recent explosions at the Boston Marathon have left two dead and many more injured. While the public waits to find out who will be blamed, and the role, if any the FBI played in the lead up to the explosions, it would be best to keep in mind the insidious and/or incompetent role the FBI has played during similar events, some of which have occurred recently and in close proximity to the latest explosions.
Already some across the Western media are attempting to draw parallels to the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington - despite the fact that the US is now deliberately funding and arming Al Qaeda in Syria, as well as openly supporting previously listed terrorist organization, Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), in Iran. Vigilance must be kept against Western governments eager to both exploit and perpetuate terrorism and tragedy as well as manufacture it when necessary.
April 16, 2013 (LD) - In late September 2011, AFP reported that a man was charged with "planning to fly explosive-packed, remote controlled airplanes into the Pentagon and the Capitol in Washington." In its report, "US man charged with Pentagon bomb plot," AFP stated (emphasis added): During the alleged plot, undercover FBI agents posed as accomplicesIn November 2010, a similar "plot" was engineered, then "disrupted," also by the FBI - this time in Portland, Oregon. The so-called "Christmas Tree Bomber" attempted to remote detonate a van he believed was filled with explosives, provided by the FBI, before being arrested during a Christmas tree lighting ceremony at Pioneer Courthhouse Square. The FBI's official statement regarding the incident revealed that FBI agents had handled, even detonated live explosives with the entrapped suspect at Lincoln County Park in the lead up to the final failed bombing.
who supplied Ferdaus with one remote-controlled plane, C4 explosives,
and small arms that he allegedly envisioned using in a simultaneous
ground assault in Washington.
However, ''the public was never in
danger from the explosive devices, which were controlled by undercover
FBI employees,'' the FBI said.
Ferdaus was arrested in Framingham, near Boston, immediately after
putting the newly delivered weapons into a storage container, the FBI
said.
Authorities described Ferdaus as a physics graduate from
Northeastern University who followed al-Qaeda and was committed to
''violent jihad'' since early last year.
The FBI's official statement titled, "Oregon Resident Arrested in Plot to Bomb Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in Portland," released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office on November 26, 2010 stated (emphasis added):
According to the affidavit, on November 4, 2010, Mohamud and theYet another similar operation was carried out by the FBI in February 2012, where yet another otherwise incapable patsy was provided with live explosives in the lead up to what was ultimately a failed suicide bombing at the US Capitol. USA Today reported in their article, "FBI foils alleged suicide bomb attack on U.S. Capitol," that (emphasis added):
undercover FBI operatives traveled to a remote location in Lincoln
County, Ore., where they detonated a bomb concealed in a backpack as a
trial run for the upcoming attack. Afterwards, on the drive back to
Corvallis, undercover FBI operatives questioned Mohamud as to whether
he was capable of looking at the bodies of those who would be killed in
the upcoming attack in Portland. According to the affidavit, Mohamud
responded, “I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave
either dead or injured.”
Upon returning to Corvallis that same
day, the affidavit alleges that Mohamud recorded a video of himself
with the undercover FBI operatives in which he read a written statement
that offered a rationale for his bomb attack. On Nov. 18, 2010,
undercover FBI operatives picked up Mohamud to travel to Portland in
order to finalize the details of the attack.
Earlier this
evening, Mohamud was arrested after he attempted to remotely detonate
what he believed to be explosives in a van that was parked near the
Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the affidavit alleges.
According to a counterterrorism official, El Khalifi "expressed interestThe frightening trend of the FBI cultivating otherwise incapable "terror" suspects, providing them with and detonating real explosives, before giving them inert or controlled devices to carry out attacks on public targets where mass casualties are averted only at the last possible moment, sets the stage for at the very least, incredible potential for catastrophic blunders, and at worst, false flag attacks.
in killing at least 30 people and considered targeting a building in
Alexandria and a restaurant, synagogue and a place where military
personnel gather in Washington before he settled on the Capitol after
canvassing that area a couple of times," the Associated Press writes.
During the year-long investigation, El Khalifi detonated explosives at a
quarry in the capital region with undercover operatives. He is not
believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda, officials said.
Has the FBI ever presided over "sting operations" that were actually carried out? The answer is yes. The FBI in fact was presiding over the terrorists who carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The role of the FBI leading up to the deadly attack would most likely have gone unreported had an FBI informant not taped his conversations with FBI agents after growing suspicious during the uncover operation. The New York Times in their article, "Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast," reported:
Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building aWhat takes shape is an FBI at the center of perpetuating America's terror menace, not at the forefront of fighting it. With every attack foiled or carried out involving FBI uncover operatives revealed only after successful "stings" or in the case of the World Trade Center bombings, an inconvenient witness stepping forward and revealing the FBI's role, the first and foremost suspect considered after any bombing on US soil should be the FBI itself.
bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and
they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless
powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.
The
informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the
fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had
other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the
informer said.
The account, which is given in the transcript of
hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his
talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far
better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New
York City's tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more
than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars.
Recent explosions at the Boston Marathon have left two dead and many more injured. While the public waits to find out who will be blamed, and the role, if any the FBI played in the lead up to the explosions, it would be best to keep in mind the insidious and/or incompetent role the FBI has played during similar events, some of which have occurred recently and in close proximity to the latest explosions.
Already some across the Western media are attempting to draw parallels to the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington - despite the fact that the US is now deliberately funding and arming Al Qaeda in Syria, as well as openly supporting previously listed terrorist organization, Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), in Iran. Vigilance must be kept against Western governments eager to both exploit and perpetuate terrorism and tragedy as well as manufacture it when necessary.
March 25, 2013
DHS To Buy 360,000 More Rounds of Hollow Point Ammunition
*Source: InfoWars
Arms build-up continues as Congress demands answers
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 25, 2013
Arms build-up continues as Congress demands answers
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
March 25, 2013
While the Department of Homeland Security continues to ignore members of Congress demanding to know why the federal agency is engaged in an apparent arms build-up, the DHS has just announced it plans to purchase another 360,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition to add to the roughly 2 billion bullets already bought over the past year.
The DHS has now purchased over 2 billion rounds of ammo.
A solicitation on the Federal Business Opportunities website details the DHS’ plan to purchase 360,000 rounds of “Commercial leaded training ammo (CLTA) Pistol .40 caliber 165 grain, jacketed hollow point.” The bullets are to be delivered to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico, the same destination for 240,000 hollow point rounds which were purchased only last month.
Although the DHS has attempted to explain its mammoth purchase of ammunition by claiming the bullets are being acquired in bulk to save money and that they are for training purposes only, this has been disputed by reputable voices such as former Marine Richard Mason, who told reporters with WHPTV News in Pennsylvania earlier this month, “We never trained with hollow points, we didn’t even see hollow points my entire four and a half years in the Marine Corps.”
Hollow point bullets are almost twice as expensive as full metal jackets, therefore the DHS’ explanation that it is buying huge quantities in bulk to “save money” doesn’t make sense.
As we reported yesterday, concerns about the apparent arms build-up are growing, with retired United States Army Captain Terry M. Hestilow sending a letter to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) warning that the ammo purchases represent “a bold threat of war by that agency (DHS), and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America.”
Questions from members of Congress about why the federal agency is buying up ammo, exacerbating shortages across the country, have been met with silence.
- Kansas Congressman Timothy Huelscamp said last week that threats should be made to withdraw funding from the DHS if it didn’t explain why it was purchasing so many bullets, remarking, “They have no answer for that question. They refuse to answer to answer that.”
- Earlier this month, New Jersey Congressman Leonard Lance said, “Congress has a responsibility to ask Secretary Napolitano as to exactly why these purchases have occurred,” signaling his intention to get answers.
- Californian Congressman Doug LaMalfa and 14 of his House colleagues have written a letter to the Department of Homeland Security asking if the purchases are, “being conducted in a manner that strategically denies the American people access to ammunition.”
Although members of Congress are treating the matter with the seriousness it deserves, the mainstream and leftist media have attempted to ridicule the entire issue as a conspiracy theory, with Atlantic Wire even suggesting that the story had its origins in a debunked email, a report that completely failed to even mention the admitted fact that the DHS had purchased around 2 billion bullets.
While the DHS continues to purchase bullets in large quantities, police departments have been forced to barter amongst each other in a desperate scramble to meet their ammo needs.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
February 11, 2013
Have You Heard of the NDAA?
Breaking the Set's Manuel Rapalo asks onlookers outside the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse to find out exactly how many know what the NDAA is.
*http://www.breakingtheset.com
*https://www.facebook.com/BreakingTheSet
*http://www.youtube.com/user/breakingtheset
*http://www.mediaroots.org
*https://www.facebook.com/MediaRootsNews
*https://www.facebook.com/JournalistAbbyMartin
*http://www.youtube.com/user/AbbyMediaRoots
*https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin
*http://www.breakingtheset.com
*https://www.facebook.com/BreakingTheSet
*http://www.youtube.com/user/breakingtheset
*http://www.mediaroots.org
*https://www.facebook.com/MediaRootsNews
*https://www.facebook.com/JournalistAbbyMartin
*http://www.youtube.com/user/AbbyMediaRoots
*https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin
New York Artist To Debut 'Drone-Proof' Anti-Surveillance Clothing Line
*Source: RT
Some fashonistas strive for sexy when it comes to clothes, but one artist from New York is taking a rather utilitarian approach with outfits — he’s about to unveil a whole line of garments designed to make the wearer nearly invisible to drones.
Brooklyn-based artist Adam Harvey used to work primarily with photography, but he undertakes an entirely different medium with his newest project. He says that in the years since the United States post-9/11 PATRIOT Act has been in place, cameras have stopped becoming “art making tools” and have instead become “enablers of surveillance societies.”
That was Harvey’s explanation last year when he discussed his projects with the website Rhizome. At the time, Harvey was experimenting with how household make-up could render it harder for computers to use facial recognition programs to pluck people out of crowds. And while the practice of examining facial features using biometrics and sophisticated surveillance cameras has certainly intensified in the months since, Harvey has found another type of evasive practice that is a bit harder to avoid: the drone.
The United States currently has a modest arsenal of unmanned aerial vehicles — UAVS, or drones – that it uses in surveillance missions on its border with Mexico and in war zones overseas. By the year 2020, however, the Federal Aviation Administration expects the number of domestic drones in American airspace to be as large as 30,000.
At the moment, law enforcement agencies across the country are trying to get their hands on their own surveillance drones, some of which “can zoom in and read a milk carton from 60,000 feet,” according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And while escaping a space-age robotic spy machine thousands of feet above the Earth might not be as easy as, say, putting on some blush or mascara to make it harder to be detected, Harvey has designed an entire clothing line that will help disguise people from the all-seeing eye of Big Brother.
On January 17, Harvey will unveil Stealth Wear at a studio in London. There he’ll debut his “new counter surveillance fashions” that he plans to also test before his private audience.
“Building off previous work with CV Dazzle, camouflage from face detection, Privacy Mode continues to explore the aesthetics of privacy and the potential for fashion to challenge authoritarian surveillance,” the press release reads.
In collaboration with NYC fashion designer Johanna Bloomfield, Harvey has tried to tackle “some of the most pressing and sophisticated forms of surveillance today.”
Ultimately, it’s a fashion statement that says an earful to those enabling a growing spy state.
“I think building privacy into modern garments can make them feel more comfortable and, like armor, more protected,” Harvey told Rhizome last year. “Data and privacy are increasingly valuable personal assets and it doesn’t make sense to not protect them. It’s also a great conversation starter.”
Harvey hopes to get those conversations starting next week in London, where he will unveil an anti-drone hoodie and matching scarf, a shirt that shields the wearer from X-rays and a pocket protector that he says blocks cell phones from sending and receiving signals.
For the hoodie and scarf set, Harvey and Bloomfield use materials designed to thwart thermal imaging, which the artist says most UAVs employ in order to zero-in on targets. The t-shirt allegedly protects a person’s internal organs from harmful X-rays and the “Off Pocket” pants accessory disconnects mobile devices from service providers with special materials.
“Smartphones infiltrate our senses. They cause anxiety, phantom vibrations, and keep us on alert,” he told Rhizome. “We expend energy maintaining an always-on connection. Smartphones should come with a switch to turn this off, but they don’t. Turning my iPhone off and back on takes 45 seconds. Using flight mode is also clumsy. I wanted a way to quickly and politely disconnect myself without relying on the phone’s software or hardware features. The Off Pocket circumvents this design flaw.”
“[W]hen I first modified my pants with signal attenuating fabric, it felt odd to be unplugged. It was as if I had blocked out part of the world, covered my ears, or closed my eyes. But then I adjusted and realized that I had just opened them again.”
The artist says accompanying each project will be either recorded and in-person demonstrations that reveal the process behind each specific technology and counter technology relevant to his work.
Speaking to the UK’s Register back in 2010, Harvey said even then that surveillance was becoming more prevalent.
"The number of sensors that are going into the public spaces has been increasing,” he said, adding that we very well might be “heading to the point where we as a society need to think about what we are comfortable with."
"Maybe you could go to a privacy hair stylist in the future,” he quipped.
Some fashonistas strive for sexy when it comes to clothes, but one artist from New York is taking a rather utilitarian approach with outfits — he’s about to unveil a whole line of garments designed to make the wearer nearly invisible to drones.
Brooklyn-based artist Adam Harvey used to work primarily with photography, but he undertakes an entirely different medium with his newest project. He says that in the years since the United States post-9/11 PATRIOT Act has been in place, cameras have stopped becoming “art making tools” and have instead become “enablers of surveillance societies.”
That was Harvey’s explanation last year when he discussed his projects with the website Rhizome. At the time, Harvey was experimenting with how household make-up could render it harder for computers to use facial recognition programs to pluck people out of crowds. And while the practice of examining facial features using biometrics and sophisticated surveillance cameras has certainly intensified in the months since, Harvey has found another type of evasive practice that is a bit harder to avoid: the drone.
The United States currently has a modest arsenal of unmanned aerial vehicles — UAVS, or drones – that it uses in surveillance missions on its border with Mexico and in war zones overseas. By the year 2020, however, the Federal Aviation Administration expects the number of domestic drones in American airspace to be as large as 30,000.
At the moment, law enforcement agencies across the country are trying to get their hands on their own surveillance drones, some of which “can zoom in and read a milk carton from 60,000 feet,” according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And while escaping a space-age robotic spy machine thousands of feet above the Earth might not be as easy as, say, putting on some blush or mascara to make it harder to be detected, Harvey has designed an entire clothing line that will help disguise people from the all-seeing eye of Big Brother.
On January 17, Harvey will unveil Stealth Wear at a studio in London. There he’ll debut his “new counter surveillance fashions” that he plans to also test before his private audience.
“Building off previous work with CV Dazzle, camouflage from face detection, Privacy Mode continues to explore the aesthetics of privacy and the potential for fashion to challenge authoritarian surveillance,” the press release reads.
In collaboration with NYC fashion designer Johanna Bloomfield, Harvey has tried to tackle “some of the most pressing and sophisticated forms of surveillance today.”
Ultimately, it’s a fashion statement that says an earful to those enabling a growing spy state.
“I think building privacy into modern garments can make them feel more comfortable and, like armor, more protected,” Harvey told Rhizome last year. “Data and privacy are increasingly valuable personal assets and it doesn’t make sense to not protect them. It’s also a great conversation starter.”
Harvey hopes to get those conversations starting next week in London, where he will unveil an anti-drone hoodie and matching scarf, a shirt that shields the wearer from X-rays and a pocket protector that he says blocks cell phones from sending and receiving signals.
For the hoodie and scarf set, Harvey and Bloomfield use materials designed to thwart thermal imaging, which the artist says most UAVs employ in order to zero-in on targets. The t-shirt allegedly protects a person’s internal organs from harmful X-rays and the “Off Pocket” pants accessory disconnects mobile devices from service providers with special materials.
“Smartphones infiltrate our senses. They cause anxiety, phantom vibrations, and keep us on alert,” he told Rhizome. “We expend energy maintaining an always-on connection. Smartphones should come with a switch to turn this off, but they don’t. Turning my iPhone off and back on takes 45 seconds. Using flight mode is also clumsy. I wanted a way to quickly and politely disconnect myself without relying on the phone’s software or hardware features. The Off Pocket circumvents this design flaw.”
“[W]hen I first modified my pants with signal attenuating fabric, it felt odd to be unplugged. It was as if I had blocked out part of the world, covered my ears, or closed my eyes. But then I adjusted and realized that I had just opened them again.”
The artist says accompanying each project will be either recorded and in-person demonstrations that reveal the process behind each specific technology and counter technology relevant to his work.
Speaking to the UK’s Register back in 2010, Harvey said even then that surveillance was becoming more prevalent.
"The number of sensors that are going into the public spaces has been increasing,” he said, adding that we very well might be “heading to the point where we as a society need to think about what we are comfortable with."
"Maybe you could go to a privacy hair stylist in the future,” he quipped.
December 20, 2012
Piers Morgan resorts to name calling after losing Gun Control debate !!!
British wanker Piers Morgan resorts to childish name calling after
horribly losing a gun control debate with Larry Pratt who is the
executive director of the Gun Owners of America.
The Queen of England has sent her top propagandist lackey to brainwash Americans into believing that hiding behind furniture and waiting for police to show up is better than being armed against criminals and tyrannical government.
All throughout history unarmed populations have been slaughtered by their rulers and governments that promised them safety and security if they would just surrender their weapons. Unfortunately for them, they would all end up in mass graves for being so trusting and gullible.
Today the government will ban your rifles, tomorrow it will be your hand guns, after that it will be your cars claiming they want to prevent accidents...if you are still alive that is !
Wake up or learn the same lesson that hundreds of millions of gullible serfs and peons have learned before you.
The Queen of England has sent her top propagandist lackey to brainwash Americans into believing that hiding behind furniture and waiting for police to show up is better than being armed against criminals and tyrannical government.
All throughout history unarmed populations have been slaughtered by their rulers and governments that promised them safety and security if they would just surrender their weapons. Unfortunately for them, they would all end up in mass graves for being so trusting and gullible.
Today the government will ban your rifles, tomorrow it will be your hand guns, after that it will be your cars claiming they want to prevent accidents...if you are still alive that is !
Wake up or learn the same lesson that hundreds of millions of gullible serfs and peons have learned before you.
September 27, 2012
Dr. Scott Johnson: End Time Preparedness/Prepper Mega Study.
End Time Preparedness/Prepper Mega Study
*Part 1 Table of Contents:
*Part 2 Table of Contents:
*Part 3 Table of Contents:
****PDF: End Time Preparedness/Prepper Mega Study****
**Dr. Scott Johnson
http://www.contendingfortruth.com
*Part 1 Table of Contents:
- Part 1: When The Music Stops – How America’s Cities May Explode In Violence
*Part 2 Table of Contents:
- Part 2: When The Music Stops – How America’s Cities May Explode In Violence
- Biblical Resistance to Tyranny
- Black mob violence and the media silence–BIG LIST of racial attacks, assaults and threats
*Part 3 Table of Contents:
- Long Term Food Company Recommendation
- Proactive Measures In the Event of a Pandemic
- Book–Dare To Prepare
- Book–Strategic Relocation: North American Guide to Safe Places
- Book–Prudent Places USA
- The Top 5 Priorities of Emergency Preparedness
- Christian Believer’s Immune Boosting Tip
- Excellent Emergency Medical Supplies
- Doomsday Bunkers Shows–Helping People Prepare For The End Times
- Emergency Response Protocols: Establishing Operational Guidelines for Times of Crisis
- 22 Page Comprehensive Review from a Listener–He Writes: This is a guide to the gear that I recommend you buy, gear that will LAST…
****PDF: End Time Preparedness/Prepper Mega Study****
**Dr. Scott Johnson
http://www.contendingfortruth.com
September 12, 2012
16-Year-Old Questioned by FBI Over You Tube Video
*Source: InfoWars
Special Agents visit boy’s home to ask about school project
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
In another shocking example of how the federal government is repositioning itself as a secret police force to target political dissidents, a 16-year-old boy was questioned by FBI agents over a You Tube video he created for a school project which highlighted how America was slipping into a police state.
The video clip above, which promotes the presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul, was put together by Justin Hallman as part of a project for his American Government class. The video helped earn Hallman an A+ pass and his teacher enthused about how impressed he was with Hallman’s efforts.
The video touches on a number of issues, including the National Defense Authorization Act, evidence suggesting the Republican caucus in Maine was fixed to disenfranchise Ron Paul, the hacktivist group Anonymous, military drills taking place in American cities, as well as eviscerations of the right to free speech.
About a month later, Hallman was shocked to receive a knock on the door of his family’s home from two FBI agents, including Special Agent Matthew Bowman. Hallman provided us with images of Bowman’s FBI card which he left at the property when Hallman decided not to answer the door.
When Hallman’s mother called the number on the card she was told by Bowman, “We need to talk to your son.”
The two FBI agents returned to the house and began to talk to Hallman about his interests and hobbies, a tactic Hallman saw as the FBI agents attempting to gain his trust.
The FBI agents then attempted to recruit Hallman to spy on Anonymous. “They wanted me to be an informant, to possibly put my life in danger, to help them arrest and gain intel on occupy protesters and hackers,” he writes.
The agents then began to question Hallman about his support for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign as well as a conversation he had conducted with his teacher about the Illuminati secret society.
“They also asked me why I had talked to my teacher about the Illuminati,” writes Hallman. “I told them it was just harmless talk about the 1776 Illuminati that formed from the enlightenment era. I said my teacher said they are/were terrorists and not to talk about them (this caused the FBI agents to look puzzled and they changed the subject very fast to Anonymous). In the end they finally left for an “important meeting.”
The fact that the FBI men knew about Hallman’s conversation with his teacher clearly suggests that it was the teacher or another official at the school who reported Hallman to the FBI in the first place.
Hallman concluded his email by expressing concern the incident could hamper his future career prospects.
“So that’s my story, a teen from the suburbs who was questioned by the FBI about a harmless free speech protected video I made for school. My record forever scarred with the truth that the FBI questioned me. When getting a job they will see that, when getting a passport they will see that, when going to college they will see that,” he writes.
This case represents merely the latest example of Americans being questioned, harassed and intimidated by different branches of the federal government over their political beliefs.
Last month former Marine Brandon Raub was kidnapped by authorities and held in a psychiatric ward for political posts made on Facebook, just one of thousands of similar ongoing cases. Gun owners are also having their firearms confiscated having been declared “mentally defective” due to their political beliefs.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
September 3, 2012
August 31, 2012
Cop Tasers, Pepper Sprays, and Kicks Defenseless Man On Ground In Throat
*Source: The Intel Hub
By Alexander Higgins
theintelhub.com
August 31, 201
A cop who knew he was being videotaped kicks a defenseless man laying on the ground in the throat after tasing and pepper spraying him.
The victim asks the cop over and over again what he is being arrested for but the officer refuses to answer.
“Can you tell me what’s going on? You don’t have a warrant for my arrest,” the man pleads as he coughs as a result of being pepper sprayed and tased.
The officer clearly sees he is being videotaped but simply does not care as he assaults the man lying on the ground.
Why should he care when the taxpayer will foot the bill for any lawsuits brought against him and he knows damn well his buddies with pull out all stops to cover it up.
You can enter this one in the books as just one more case of police brutality for which no justice will be served.
The Daily Sheeple reports:
The clip, which was uploaded to You Tube yesterday, begins with the man prostrate on the floor. According to the man filming the footage, he has already been tased and maced in the face.
The victim asks the cop over and over again what he is being arrested for but the officer refuses to answer.
“Can you tell me what’s going on? You don’t have a warrant for my arrest,” the man pleads as he coughs as a result of being pepper sprayed.
At the 1:15 mark in the video, the cop kicks the man in the throat for no apparent reason.
Source: Infowars via Liberty Mill
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Alexander Higgins is an independent journalist and frequent Intel Hub contributor. He also writes on his own website, blog.alexanderhiggins.com
Follow The Intel Hub on TwitterAugust 28, 2012
The History of the Department of Homeland Security’s Ammunition Purchases.
*Source: The Intel Hub
By James Smith
theintelhub.com
August 25, 2012
“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.”
– Adolf Hitler
The question of whether a leader is good or a tyrant is an age old question. Being the one who wears the crown opens you up to criticism from all levels, and to be quite frank, you can’t make everyone love you.
This article is to outline purchases by the Department of Human resources since August 2002, a ten year span.
The Department of Homeland Security was created by then President Bush as a preventative measure from further terror attacks on American soil. And since its inception, has been fodder for skeptics and fuel for those demanding a smaller, unintrusive government.
Below you will find the lists of solicitations, hyper linked to their pages located at http://www.fbo.gov. The following filters were used:
- US Coast Guard and Secret Service were not accounted for. The USCG rarely requested ammunition, and the Secret Service were mainly “Award Only” notices. No amounts of ammunition could be obtained.
- Any “Award Notice” only entries were omitted due to the lack of needed information.
In the first chart, you find the hyper linked solicitation, the total number of rounds requested, and the agency requesting the ammunition.
Of all of the sub-departments, only Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) ordered ammunition outside the filters discussed above.
The second chart, show below, demonstrates the total number of ammunition requested by year.
After that chart, is the breakdown by percentage of the year against the total amount requested. As can be seen, 58% of all the ammunition that has been ordered, was ordered under the Obama Administration.
| 2004 | 0.06% |
| 2005 | 0.17% |
| 2006 | 6.80% |
| 2007 | 1.76% |
| 2008 | 32.40% |
| 2009 | 1.00% |
| 2010 | 19.98% |
| 2011 | 25.30% |
| 2012 | 12.51% |
The last chart provides the chilling breakdown of just how much ammunition was requested.
The grand total? A mere 1.88 BILLION rounds ordered in less than eight years time.
Oddities were discovered during this examination. A solicitation for an emergency allotment of 18,000,000 rounds of .40 S&W ammunition was requested to cover a shortfall of until December of 2009, but no major purchase could be found until December of 2010.
Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition to purchase an “interim supply” of 18,000,000 rounds of .40 Smith & Wesson (S&W) Caliber 135 grain ammunition to bridge the gap in inventory until long term Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts can be put in place. Contract awarded to Federal Cartridge Company of Anoka, MN
This also provides justification for such large numbers of ammunition purchases, ie, training.
However, in order to be more fiscally sound, the ammunition should be a ball type, or full metal jacket, not a jacketed hollow point, where the cost would be anywhere from two to five times less expensive.
To put this in very simple terms: in the 8 years, 5 months, 23 days that have elapsed since the first ammunition order,
- 7 rounds every second would need to be shot in order to use every last round ordered as of today.
- That would be 5.9 rounds per American.
- For every letter in the King James Bible, 608 rounds.
- If you were to put the ammunition in the small 50 round box of .45 ACP, it would be approximately 496,382 cubic feet, or 63 Olympic sized swimming pools.
The question of whether all these ammunition purchases are for an outbreak of civilian riots cannot be answered here. There are too many variables to accurately ascertain the likelihood.
Many of those who would fight for the government would place family above duty and thereby weaken the chances of a successful martial law across the fruited plain. In limited areas, yes, martial law could and would be implemented.
Those areas unmolested by civil disorder would do best by informing the public to arm themselves for the possibility of malcontents and criminals that may want to stir up trouble.
But perhaps what this Administration forgets is the most basics of warfare. It is not ammunition nor weapons that decides a war. It is the indomitable human spirit that cries for freedom that decides who wins and who dies.
Tyranny may win a battles, but Freedom and Liberty will win the war. Every time. Just ask any American, Spanish, English, Frenchman or Pole.
”Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive one; it is man and not materials that counts.”
- Mao Tse-tung 1938
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)