Police State Redux

[GWTJ]

The pathetic mother was taking the easy way out. Throw her in jail instead of the girl. I wouldn't let a cop taser my ten year old in this or any lifetime. The world sickens me more every day.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

More intimidation & crack-down on parents who home school (& don't submit to the government indoctrination centers)...

Parents Arrested for Failing to Register Kids With County

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

while this article is laced with some of the usual libertarian flaws, the overall message is important. andincredibly dangerous for America's future as the "land of the free."

<H1 align=center>Neither Sword Nor Shield: Full-Spectrum CivilianDisarmament</H1>
by William Norman Grigg
by William Norman Grigg
Recently by William Norman Grigg: The Old 'False-Flag Trick'




"We need to make it clear," fulminated Patrick Lynch of the New York City Policeman's Benevolent Association, "that if someone lifts even a finger against a police officer, their life could be on the line."



Taken literally, this would make a capital offense out of a familiar disrespectful gesture, a salute that is entirely appropriate when directed at officious tax-grazers of Lynch's ilk. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that Lynch perceives criticism of the police as a species of crime.


A little more than a decade ago, Lynch (whose surname appears to be one of God's little in-jokes) attempted to manufacture public outrage over Bruce Springsteen's song "American Skin (41 Shots)."


That ballad described the death of unarmed African immigrant Amadou Diallo, who was perforated by 19 bullets fired by NYPD officers in a perfectly avoidable eruption of gunfire. The officers were pursuing a rapist, and Diallo â€" who, like countless other slightly built young black men, vaguely resembled the suspect â€" supposedly provoked an outburst of "contagious gunfire" by reaching into his pants to retrieve his ID.


Springsteen's song was uniformly denounced as the successor to N.W.A.'s "F**k Da Police" by a legion of opportunistic pundits who apparently hadn't actually heard it. However, Springsteen's lyrics displayed a degree of sympathy for the four Street Crimes Unit who killed Diallo after one of them mistook the victim's wallet for a gun.


"You're kneeling over his body in the vestibule, praying for his life," sang Springsteen, apparently in reference to the actions of Officer Sean Carroll, who wept openly as he administered CPR in a desperate attempt to save Diallo's life.


The song certainly reflected the opinion that the needless slaughter of Amadou Diallo was, to an extent, a product of racial profiling. It also captured the grim reality that urban residents often have at least as much to fear from the police as from common street criminals:
<BLOCKQUOTE>


Lena gets her son ready for school
She says "On these streets, Charles You've got to understand the rules
If an officer stops you, promise me you'll always be polite
And that you'll never ever run away
Promise Mama you'll keep your hands in sight."</BLOCKQUOTE>


Whatever the merits of Springsteen's treatment of the Diallo killing, his song didn't depict the officers themselves as deranged predators. However, from the perspective of Lynch and other police union officials, Springsteen had committed a form of lèse majesté by focusing on victims of needless police violence.


Proving himself to be as tone-deaf as police dogs are color-blind, Lynch denounced Springsteen for "trying to fatten his wallet by reopening the wounds of this tragic case at a time when police officers and community members are in a healing period." (Lynch's choice of words was singularly inapt, given the role a wallet played in Diallo's violent death.)


Springsteen â€" like many others â€" didn't see the need to treat the police as victims in this episode, given that the SCU officers avoided both criminal and civil penalties and suffered no professional consequences. Diallo's parents, on the other hand, had to bury their innocent son.


The officers who gunned down Diallo were following legitimate leads in pursuit of an individual who had committed crimes of violence against innocent people. Their actions most likely were the product of panic, rather than depravity. Still, given that an innocent man died at their hands, the SCU officers should have faced some kind of accountability.


It's also worth contemplating the treatment a civilian would receive were he to shoot and kill a police officer under similar circumstances.


In that respect it's instructive to recall the travails of Cory Maye, currently imprisoned (and, at one time sentenced to death) for shooting and killing a police officer who broke into his home during a no-knock drug raid at the wrong address.


If Maye had been gunned down as Diallo was, the incident almost certainly would have been treated as a tragedy, rather than a crime, and the public would have been admonished by the police and their media stenographers not to second-guess brave officers tasked to do "dangerous work" entailing "split-second decisions." No similar official sympathy was ever extended to Maye, who had to make a split-second decision when dealing with a party of armed strangers who had invaded his home and threatened his family.


According to the State, Maye's actions, though purely defensive, amounted to first-degree murder. After all, he â€" a Mundane â€" had dared to lift his hand against one of the State's Anointed, who are invested with an unqualified license to kill.


Recent actions by federal courts suggest that while it's perfectly all right for mere Mundanes to keep firearms, actually bearing them is a privilege reserved exclusively for those mockingly referred to by Second Amendment sentinel David Codrea as the "Only Ones" â€" that is, members of the State's enforcement caste.


On December 23, the First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a civil rights complaint filed by attorney Greg Schubert of Springfield, Massachusetts, who was disarmed and detained at gunpoint by police officer J.B. Stern while on his way to court.


After noticing that Schubert was carrying a concealed pistol, Stern erupted from his vehicle in what was described as a "dynamic and explosive manner," racing over and shoving his gun in the attorney's face. After his gun was confiscated, the attorney provided both his "Class A" gun license and driver's license. Stern kept the gun and told Schubert that he would have to retrieve it from the Springfield Police Department.


By way of a contemptuous parting gesture, Stern insisted that he was "the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat." This would help explain the fact â€" cited by both Stern and the Circuit Court â€" that the neighborhood in which this assault took place is a "high-crime area." Disarming the law-abiding tends to engender, rather than extinguish, violent crime, of course â€" but we shouldn't forget that civilian disarmament is carried out for the benefit of rulers, not subjects.


A little more than a week earlier, the U.S. District Court for Georgia's Northern District dismissed another civil rights complaint filed by Christopher Raissi. In October 2008, Raissi was surrounded by police, forcibly disarmed, and detained for a half-hour when he attempted to board the MARTA train while carrying a concealed firearm. After Raissi was able to produce his license to carry a concealed weapon, his gun was returned to him â€" but not before a lengthy and potentially lethal encounter with the police.


In dismissing Raissi's complaint, Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. described possession of a state-issued firearms license as "an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding [public transportation] with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon." Somehow, according to the judge, this justifies the actions of the police in detaining and disarming Raissi.


John Monroe, Raissi's attorney, points out that the decision means that "everyone seen carrying a firearm in any place that is prohibited without a license is subject to being stopped, arrested, and prosecuted even if they have a license." In principle, this should apply to police officers as well as private citizens. In practice, of course, this standard means that only law enforcement personnel would have a license to bear arms in public.


A license of any sort, of course, is a government-issued document that transmutes an innate individual right into a State-conferred, and state-revocable, privilege. Raissi's case demonstrates that the only advantage conferred by a firearms license is an "affirmative defense" against a spurious criminal charge.


Advocates of a State monopoly on the use of force would not be appeased if the civilian population were entirely deprived of access to firearms. Efforts are underway to criminalize civilian use of purely defensive weapons.


In early December, California's Second District Court of Appeal overturned an 11-year-old state law forbidding felons to possess body armor. The law was challenged by Ethan Saleem, a parolee convicted of voluntary manslaughter who was arrested in 2007 when police noticed that he was wearing a 10-pound bulletproof vest.


"Certainly, Saleem wasn't wearing body armor because he was going to a job interview or going on a date," snarked a press release from the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL).


In fact, since neither Saleem nor any of the other passengers at the time of the traffic stop was armed, and given that he wasn't accused of any other offense, it's only a self-serving insinuation to suggest that he was detained en route to a crime.


California Attorney General Jerry Brown, insisting that police are acutely threatened by possession of "military-grade body armor" by felons, has promised to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.


If newly enthroned LAPD Chief Charlie Beck has his way, the law will someday be expanded to encompass the entire civilian population:


"The increasing number of assaults with deadly weapons against our frontline public safety defenders is a clear indication that we cannot give violent felons the upper hand. There is an absolute need for a ban on these types of body armor for anyone other than law enforcement personnel or law enforcement-related personnel. The men and women defending public safety across the state and the people of California deserve no less." (Emphasis added.)


Beck's statement is a tower of non-sequiturs piled unsteadily atop a foundation of begged questions.


Beck begins with the unwarranted assertion that police confront unprecedented danger from firearms; in fact, 2009 (as I've previously pointed out) was a remarkably safe year for police, even in the context of a decades-long decline in the number of duty-related firearms deaths.


Beck somehow assumes that the proposal to ban ownership of body armor by law-abiding civilians follows logically from his desire to restrain violent felons. He compounds that fallacy by asserting that the "people of California deserve no less" than the privilege of being deprived of legal access to a purely defensive weapon.


Not surprisingly, the LAPPL, which the same police union that describes civilian ownership of body armor as an unacceptable threat, went into paroxysms of outrage over a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that imposed modest (and inadequate) limits on the use of Tasers. Specifically, the court ruled that the use of a Taser by a police officer to subdue a mentally troubled but non-violent 21-year-old man constituted excessive force.


In this case, the victim â€" 21-year-old Carl Bryan â€" lost several teeth when he fell face-first to the pavement after being tasered by Officer Bryan McPherson. At the time of the Taser strike, Bryan and McPherson were separated by a distance of fifteen to twenty feet. Bryan, who had been stopped for a seat belt violation, was throwing what McPherson called a "bizarre fit" but did nothing to threaten the officer or anybody else.


"As every street cop knows, any suspect within 15 feet who is actively resisting verbal commands is a threat to officer safety," sniveled the union. "When a suspect fails to comply with verbal commands, it means the situation is rapidly escalating and some form of force will be required to gain compliance. Non-lethal force is the safest and best way to obtain the needed compliance. Non-lethal force instruments are designed to avoid injury to both officers and suspects by swiftly incapacitating the suspect."


Two problems thrust themselves upon us. The first is posed by the fact that the Taser is not a "non-lethal" weapon; it is a frequently lethal one.


The second problem is best stated as a question: What about those increasingly common incidents in which innocent individuals are faced with unwarranted and improper police demands for "compliance"? Why should we assume that in such circumstances it is proper to protect the policeman by incapacitating the recalcitrant civilian, instead of the civilian taking prudent action to protect himself from a criminal assault?


It is possible to protect one's self from the potentially lethal effects of a Taser strike. Florida-based body armor company called Point Blank Solutions sells a Taser-resistant fabric called "Thor Shield" that has successfully been tested against stun weapons of up to 900,000 volts.


"In today's marketplace there are more and more non-lethal energy weapons for police, military and civilian use, with no defense from these devices," observes the company, which proudly announces that it has "stepped up to fill the void in energy weapon protection."


Thor Shield is composed of a polyester fabric layered over a conductive material; it is designed to create a circuit loop that will return the electric charge to the weapon without inflicting a shock to the subject.


"If you are hit, the Taser gun won't work," explains George Shultz, who invented the fabric. "We return the voltage back to the gun." Light and breathable, the fabric is thin enough to be sewn into clothing.


Assuming you've been paying attention thus far, you know what's coming next.


G2 consulting, the Arizona-based contractor that serves as the exclusive distributor of the Thor Shield anti-Taser fabric, "is committed to Officer safety." For this reason, Thor Shield "is only sold to Military and Law Enforcement Agencies" under a non-disclosure agreement. The fabric is used in clothing intended to protect a law enforcement officer should his Taser fall into the "wrong" hands.


Somebody will eventually reverse-engineer Thor Shield or devise another suitable counter-measure to the portable electro-shock torture device and make it available to the productive segment of the population. At that point the air will be rent with anguished cries about the new threat to "officer safety" and demands for legislative action to criminalize private ownership of Taser-resistant fabric.


Well, if police are permitted to assault and detain peaceful citizens legally bearing arms in public, and civilians are forbidden to wear enhanced clothing intended to protect themselves against bullets and high-voltage energy weapons, we can still cower in our heavily fortified domiciles, can't we? A man's home is his castle, and all that?



Maybe not.


Last November, a measure went into effect in Oklahoma that makes it a felony, punishable by a five-year prison term and a $10,000 fine, to "fortify" a home "for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access by a law enforcement officer."


Under the measure, written by Republican (natch) State Representative Sue Tibbs, it is impermissible to "construct, install, position, use or hold any material or device designed ... to strengthen, defend, restrict or obstruct any door, window, or other opening into a dwelling, structure, building or other place to any extent beyond the security provided by a commercial alarm system, lock or deadbolt, or a combination of alarm, lock, or deadbolt."


Predictably, this measure is one of the many disfigured offspring of the War on Drugs, a singularly fecund progenitor of legislative absurdities. The measure specifies that its provisions apply to buildings in which drug offenses are "being committed, or attempted."


However, given the depraved ingenuity of prosecutors, it's safe to assume that some way will be found to apply it in cases without a clear "drug nexus." And it wouldn't surprise me at all to see similar measures â€" most likely cultivated by police lobbyists â€" cropping up elsewhere.


Given ongoing efforts to criminalize civilian efforts to protect themselves in non-violent fashion against official violence, Patrick Lynch's "lift one finger" standard could be considered a moderate view.
January 6, 2010
William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

 

[FootballDad]

Chilling. It's interesting to note that the law enforcement organizations that are pro-gun control are generally the political bodies rather than the rank-and-file. For instance, the recent concealed-carry expansion legislative rider that failed to gain the 60 necessary votes was under a heavy barrage by the Police Chiefs Association, Michael Bloomburg and the other usual suspects, yet when polled, the "beat on the street" overwhelmingly supported it, over 80%. In my travels, which are largely in the Midwest/Midsouth, law enforcement that I've come into contact with are extremely supportive that I carry. I've avoided a few traffic tickets just because I do, the officers and deputies seem to be aware that law-abiding folks packing heat make their jobs easier.

 

[Bart]

A police state can only be deterred by armed resistance. The usual suspects will not allow that to happen. They are feverishly working to disarm us.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/5684_33.htm

ADL Urges Supreme Court to Ensure States' Right to Keep Firearms Out of Hands of Extremists

New York, NY, January 6, 2010 "¦ In a brief detailing the "serious threat" of armed violence by extremists and extremist groups, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that states retain the right to reasonably regulate the possession of firearms by those who practice and preach racial and ethnic violence.

"We have placed the problem of armed extremism squarely before the high court," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Racist and anti-government extremists often have an obsessive fascination with firearms and have shown a willingness to engage in acts of shocking and often deadly violence. We urge the Supreme Court to ensure that cities and states retain the latitude they need to keep guns out of the hands of extremists, terrorists, and violent bigots."

ADL's "friend of the court" brief in McDonald v. City of Chicago points to the long history of gun violence by anti-government and racist extremists. The brief describes three such examples in detail: the June 2009 shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, by avowed anti-Semite and white supremacist James Von Brunn (an incident which left a security guard dead); the April 2000 shooting spree in Pittsburgh by white supremacist Richard Baumhammers (which left five dead); and the deadly standoffs in Waco, Texas in 1993 and Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992.

McDonald v. City of Chicago focuses on whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits most regulation of firearms by cities and states.

ADL has long supported the reasonable regulation of firearms, particularly when it comes to the possession of weapons by extremists.

"Extremists and those who commit hate crimes pose a serious threat to the safety of the general public and, more specifically, to the members of the discrete racial, ethnic and religious groups who often become their targets," reads the ADL brief. "Armed extremism leads to violent extremism with profoundly unsettling frequency and profoundly tragic results."

The League's brief was prepared by Leonard M. Niehoff and Martin E. Karlinsky of the law firm Butzel Long.

 

[space hillbilly]

Good find Bart!

 

[DixieDestroyer]

Thanks for posting that Bart. The Globalist Elite enabled ADL is indeed an enemy of our Republic, and especially to White, Christians who support full Constitutional adherence.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

The Globalist Elite enabled ADL is indeed an enemy of our Republic, and especially to White, Christians who support full Constitutional adherence.

Try telling your pastor or priest that the Jews/B'nai B'rith are behind the ADL (which IS trying to detroy White Christian culture by any means) and see how quickly they get really upset at you! You can't speak that uncomfortable truth without repercussions, gentlemen.

Edited by: Colonel_Reb

 

[Colonel_Reb]

More forced complying on the part of the FedGov. This time the victim is an Asian grad student trying to kiss his girlfriend goodbye. Now a Senator wants him to be charged with a Federal crime because the petty county charge "would not discourage people who want to break through the perimeter." Wake up America!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/nyregion/10newark.html

 

[White Shogun]

Did you guys catch the story about the passenger on a Slovak airline being used by the police in an undercover security test, without his knowledge?

They put a dummy explosive in his backpack without his knowledge, and watched him go through security. But a supervisor got distracted and failed to get the substance out of the backpack. The guy gets on the plane and flies off to his destination, where upon arrival he is taken into custody.

The Slovak embassy actually spoke up and admitted what happened (or at least said that they did it.. lol) so the guy was eventually released.

Interesting times.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

Another attempt to expand the Orwellian, police-state...

Army-sponsored report suggests new 'police force'

Domestic agents could be used in 'shaping an environment before a conflict'

Posted: January 20, 2010
9:16 pm Eastern

By Michael Carl
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A newly released Rand Corporation report proposes the federal government create a rapid deployment "Stabilization Police Force" that would be tasked with "shaping an environment before a conflict" and restoring order in times of war, natural disaster or national emergency.

But civil libertarians are worried just exactly what the force would do, domestically or overseas.

Page 16 of the 213-page report says the new elite unit's purpose depends on where it is and who would be in command.

"The answer to this question (about its purpose) depends on the situation into which an SPF might be inserted. The SPF could be used for missions such as: shaping an environment before a conflict; law enforcement duties in an active conflict environment; or security, stability, transition and reconstruction (SSTR) operations after a conflict. It could operate as an independent entity under a U.S. ambassador or a U.N. Senior Representative to the Secretary General (SRSG), or as a force element reporting to a Joint Task Force (JTF) commander," the report states.

The purpose statement doesn't say where the new unit would be deployed. However, Rand Corporation report co-author Terry Kelly said the Army-commissioned study primarily focuses on a force that would be sent overseas.

"The unit is supposed to deploy to places like Iraq or Afghanistan or maybe even places like Haiti where there's a tremendous disaster," Kelly said.

Learn what some organizations want in your future, read "Hope of the Wicked: Master Plan to Rule the World"

"Really, the purpose would be to help our military forces or whoever is in charge of maintaining stability to catch terrorists or prevent major criminals from operating," he added.

Mark Taylor, a private investigator and intelligence analyst with experience in Iraq, says he can't see the purpose for such a force.

"With regard to overseas missions, there is the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. If they need assistance, you have private military contractors such as XE and DynaCorp," Taylor said.

"In my case, the company I worked for moved in, did the mission and left. Period. In the case of a federal bureaucracy, you will fund it and it will do nothing but grow into a bureaucratic nightmare," Taylor said.

Taylor believes the additional force would just add to the confusion in any overseas situation.

"In addition the military and private contractor options, there are always the United Nations blue helmets, for whatever good they do. A federal police force would amount to nothing more than another colored helmet," Taylor said.

Taylor's comments about the U.N. point to the command structure of the overseas force. One of the statements in the report says the unit could serve under a U. S. foreign service officer or under U.N. authority.

Kelly admits the U.N. connection.

"It might be a U.S. ambassador who is in charge. It could work for the U.N. because there are plenty of U.N. missions that are working in different countries," Kelly said.

"That would be the decision that our government would make that this unit would work under U.N. authority. Usually when we have our forces under U.N. authority they're operating for a U.S. commander who is working with the U.N.," she said.

Although the report by the federally funded think tank spends most of its pages on overseas deployment, civil libertarians wonder if the proposed unit will only focus on foreign operations.

Kelly confirmed the force could be deployed in the United States.

"If there were a major disaster like Katrina it could be deployed in the U. S. but that's not the purpose of the research," he said.

"It's important to point out that the goal was to create a force that's deployable overseas. If it's to be used in the United States it would be a secondary thing and then only in an emergency," Kelly said.

But Taylor believes there is no need for a federal police force to function in the U.S.

"I cannot see any positives in setting up a national police force. Cities, counties and states have control over their own law enforcement and it should remain that way. Granting the federal government the power to police each individual locality is a Gestapo waiting to happen," Taylor said.

"If it became necessary to supplement local law enforcement in the case of another New Orleans, where a disaster situation is made more dangerous by lawless thugs looting, it would be more practical to hire a private contactor such as XE or DynaCorp to send their highly trained professionals in to stabilize the area. Once the job is done, they go on to the next (assignment)," Taylor said.

Darrell Castle is a retired Marine Corps officer with service in Vietnam, a practicing attorney and the Constitution Party's 2008 vice presidential nominee. Castle is skeptical of the report and believes the unit could be used in the U.S. against Americans.

"First, you have to approach anything done by or for the federal government in light of what I believe the ultimate goal of the federal government to be," Castle said.

"As I see it, the goal is to do the bidding of the international cartel of central bankers and financiers in order to assist them in building a world government police state which would entail total surveillance, total control, and the absence of what we think of as constitutional rights," he said.

Castle added that even though the report focuses mostly on foreign deployments, some of the language leaves open the possibility for domestic use.

"To that end, the question becomes, how does a stability police force for the United States move the federal government closer to its goal of totalitarian control? When the question is asked in that manner, the answer becomes fairly obvious," Castle warned.

Castle believes the goal is power, and a major springboard for such a power grab comes from the economy.

"Conditions have been intentionally created within the United States which make some kind of chaotic catastrophe very likely. This event could be anything the mind of man can dream up due to the overwhelming public debt and huge deficit which is budgeted to grow by trillions over the next few years," Castle said.

"Hyperinflation and the resulting loss of the dollar's reserve status seems unavoidable. The United States is now at deficit spending which is 40 percent of the budget and climbing," Castle said.

To illustrate his point, Castle turned to history.

"The Weimar government in pre-Hitler Germany accelerated deficit spending to 70 percent of budget and when it did, hyperinflation occurred with its ruination of the German nation that started a cataclysmic chain of events in motion," he said.

"The Stability Police Force then is necessary to control the population much as the U.S. military is attempting to control the remaining population of Haiti right now. It is part of a long existing effort to mingle and combine all law enforcement, federal, state, and local with the military into one force," Castle said.

Castle is not the only one who thinks the Stabilization Police Force is the next step in establishing a totalitarian state. The Rand Corporation's Kelly said that since the report's release, he's received a number of letters and phone messages making the same claim.

However, Kelly insists the study is not a master plan for authoritarian rule.

"There are all kinds of aspects of government that can be manipulated in a bad way. But it would require a whole bunch of things to go wrong. Any means of coercion that exist in the government can be manipulated if the right things go wrong," Kelly said.

"Is it is conceivable that it could be used for a malevolent purpose? Yes, but it's not designed to do that and its purpose would not be for power. Frankly there would be much easier tools for someone with bad intentions," Kelly said.

"The two options we thought were viable were as a reserve option where call a whole bunch of police officers from a whole bunch of precincts. That's a really hard thing to do," Kelly said.

"If someone wanted to use the unit for a bad purpose it would require the cooperation of a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of organizations," he said.

"The other option we picked was a military unit, to create a military police unit to do the specific tasks. Military police units do military police work, not civilian police work which is what you need in these countries like Iraq and Afghanistan," Kelly said.

"I don't think this unit will create any more danger than already exists. If somebody wanted to do something unfortunate, there are easier ways to do it than manipulating this force," Kelly said.

Command of the Stabilization Police Force is still a concern. Page 123 of the Rand Corporation report says the force would work best under a civilian federal agency or the military police.

"They (the data) suggest that the U.S. Marshals Service and the MP options are the only credible ones. The Marshals Service has sufficient baseline capabilities and a policing culture to build a competent SPF, and its location in the Department of Justice makes it well suited to achieve broader rule-of-law objectives. This finding is consistent with a significant body of academic and policy research, which strongly concludes that civilian agencies are optimal for the execution of policing functions."

Taylor's concerns about the creation of such a response force and placing the unit under a federal department come from seeing how federal operations have functioned in the past.

"Once you establish a government agency or program, it does nothing but grow into a huge bureaucratic monstrosity that feeds on the taxpayer. And, as with the case of health care, bank bailouts and the like, should the federal government even consider such an undertaking, it would amount to just another intrusion into the states' rights to govern and intrude into the liberties of the American people," Taylor said.

***Reference article...

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[DixieDestroyer]

The Orwellian police-state continues its rapid growth...

Police Plan to Use Military Spy Drones On CitizensEdited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[DixieDestroyer]

Google continues its service to/for the PTB's Orwellian police state.

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER : Killer way to slay the Google beast!

'They're telling us they will turn data over to the feds'

Posted: January 27, 2010
8:51 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Who in the world knows as much about you and your private thoughts as Google?

That's the question Katherine Albrecht, radio talk-show host and spokeswoman for Startpage, a search engine that protects user privacy, is posing to American Internet surfers.

"It would blow people's minds if they knew how much information the big search engines have on the American public," she told WND. "In fact, their dossiers are so detailed they would probably be the envy of the KGB."

Google exposed in Joseph Farah's "Stop the Presses!" autographed only at WND's online store.

It happens every day, Albrecht explained. When an unfamiliar topic crosses people's minds, they often go straight to Google, Yahoo or Bing and enter key terms into those search engines. Every day, more than a billion searches for information are performed on Google alone.

"If you get a rash between your toes, you go into Google," she said. "If you have a miscarriage, you go into Google. If you are having marital difficulties, you look for a counselor on Google. If you lose your job, you look for unemployment benefit information on Google."

Albrecht said Americans unwittingly share their most private thoughts with search engines, serving up snippets of deeply personal information about their lives, habits, troubles, health concerns, preferences and political leanings.

"We're essentially telling them our entire life stories â€" stuff you wouldn't even tell your mother â€" because you are in a private room with a computer," she said. "We tend to think of that as a completely private circumstance. But the reality is that they make a record of every single search you do."

The search engines have sophisticated algorithms to mine data from searches and create very detailed profiles about Americans. She said those profiles are stored on servers and may fall into the wrong hands.

She pointed to the recent cyber attacks that infiltrated Google's operations in China. Bloomberg News reported that Yahoo was also among the victims.

Albrecht said the government may also subpoena citizens' private information after it has been stored by Google, Yahoo and Bing. In a December 2009 interview with CNBC, Google CEO Eric Schmidt divulged that search engines may turn over citizens' private information to the government.

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt said. "But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it's important, for example, that we are all subject to the United States Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities."

A video of Schmidt's statements follows:

"My jaw hit the floor when I heard that," Albrecht said. "Now they are just coming right out and telling us that they will turn our data over to the feds. Based on what I know about how much information they have on us, it's really terrifying."

In addition to information collected from searches, Google also saves sent and received e-mails, including e-mail drafts, attachments and chat messages through its Gmail system.

"What these big search engines have is the eye in the sky," Albrecht said. "It's like the totalitarian dictator's dream. They know everything, and with a couple of mouse clicks, they could find every single person in the country who observes Passover or attends a Catholic or Baptist church or who buys ammunition."

She continued, "They've gotten so sophisticated that they actually boast that they can tell when their own employees are going to quit because they monitor their employees' mouse clicks."

Albrecht said she was alarmed to discover that another application, Google Flu Trends, used aggregated Google search data to track flu activity around the world. The organization boasted that it could spot a flu outbreak even before the Centers for Disease Control suspected one. The search-engine giant collaborated with the CDC on the project.

The following is a Google video illustrating how the Google Flu Trends works:

"We have found a close relationship between how many people search for flu-related topics and how many people actually have flu symptoms," Google explained. "Of course, not every person who searches for 'flu' is actually sick, but a pattern emerges when all the flu-related search queries are added together. We compared our query counts with traditional flu surveillance systems and found that many search queries tend to be popular exactly when flu season is happening. By counting how often we see these search queries, we can estimate how much flu is circulating in different states and countries around the world."

Albrecht said Google monitored search patterns that indicated a person may have had the flu. Then it would pinpoint a person's location using an IP address.

"They turned that map over to the government," she said. "They didn't give any personal information about individuals. They didn't give individual IP addresses or say who the people were â€" but they could have."

The search-engine giant uses its search records for marketing purposes, Albrecht explained.

She said some people wonder why Google would give them all this "free cool stuff" like Google Maps, Google Calendar, Google Groups, Google Spreadsheets, Google Earth and Gmail.

"When was the last time a company making billions of dollars gave you every single thing they offered for free?" she asked. "They're not giving you those products for free. You're the product, and that's the bait."

But she said there's good news. Startpage, and its European brand Ixquick,, are introducing a new search alternative that will protect and never store private information about its users. Startpage will launch its new proxy service tonight at 10 p.m. EST.


Startpage, a private search engine, launches new proxy service tonight.

The proxy service allows users to search and surf the Web anonymously. With each Startpage search, the word "proxy" appears under each result. If a user clicks "proxy," they may view the result privately.

Startpage visits the selected website, retrieves the information and shows it to the user in a privacy-protected window. A private user's browser never interacts directly with the external website so the websites cannot capture or record personal data or load malware onto a private computer. Websites only see that a site in the Netherlands is visiting the website, she said. The search engine never records personal information, search data or IP addresses.

"Startpage doesn't have any information, so even if it was served with a subpoena or, like Google, if it got hacked, there would be no records to obtain because it doesn't keep any records," Albrecht explained.

She said she hopes people will start supporting companies like Startpage and move their traffic away from the other big search engines, so Google, Yahoo, Bing and others will learn to respect user privacy.

"As consumers, we almost have an obligation to stop using them until they behave themselves," Albrecht said. "Sometimes you want to know private stuff. It doesn't mean you have something to hide or are doing anything wrong. It just means you don't want other people knowing what you're thinking about and looking up. It's nobody's business."


***Reference article...

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Thrashen]

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt said.



Haha, wow, are you sure this quote wasn't penned by Leon Trotsky? As if these blue blood, jewboy CEO's somehow "decide"Â￾ right from wrong, so that the poor little peasants won't have to think anymore.

Its official, the hubris of those in charge has reached astronomical levels. We'll see how "useful"Â￾ their homosexual bits and bytes are when real men are smashing down the gates leading to their ivory towers.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

Google partners with the NSA/Feds....Again.

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[DixieDestroyer]

House Overwhelming Passes Cyber "Security" Bill

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[DixieDestroyer]

More Orwellian, totalitarian push...

Feds Push For Tracking Cell Phones

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Freethinker]

Excerpt from the cyber security bill article: His belief that the internet is the "number one national hazard"Â￾ to national security is shared by the former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Obama's current director Admiral Dennis C. Blair. "It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet,"Â￾ said Rockefeller.

This statement by Jay Rockefeller has to be one of the most outlandish things ever spoken on record. I'll bet the sheeple we still re-elect this elitist P.O.S.

On a side rant I'm so sick of the Rockefellers, the Rothechilds and all the other families who have been looting the public for centuries now. I hope they face eternal suffering when they die.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

More Orwellian, police-state BS in government indoctrination centers...

6 Year Old Girl Handcuffed at (Govt) School

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Council of Governors takes shape
http://libertynewsradio.com/wire/news/2010/02/00665_Council_Of_Governors_Takes_Shape_005318.php

The U.S. is now a police state
http://libertynewsradio.com/wire/news/2010/02/00664_It_Is_Now_Official_The_U_S_Is_a_Police_State_003419.php

 

[DixieDestroyer]

More Orwellian, totalitarian push...

Feds Push For Tracking Cell Phones

Police Now Pushing for Warrantless Searches of Cell Phones...

More Orwellian Tactics...

 

[DixieDestroyer]

The Orwellian DHS & "Big Sister" continue to target Americans who they deem "right wing" (pro-Constitutional adherence, anti-abortion, anti-Globalism/NWO, anti-cultural marxism, etc.)...beliefs they (falsely) label as "extremist".

DHS Targets "Domestic Extremism"

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[DixieDestroyer]

More self-empowerment by the PTB's puppets...

Cybersecurity Bill to Give Obama New Powers

Edited by: DixieDestroyer

 

[Deadlift]

More "thought police"..


3 LA teachers removed over choice of black heroes

http://www.roadrunner.com/news/topic/article/rr/8459870/10547792/3_LA_teachers_removed_over_choice_of_black_heroes


These teachers' are being RAIL-ROADED - because they lack the "requisite" black ancestry.

Practically every afflete is a thug and drug-user. The "NAACP" would be upset if there was a Mike "the greatest" Tyson picture or one of Steve "almost won the Super Bowl" McNair, with his room-brightening smile. Maybe even a Tiger Woods picture would "upset" the NAACP! The media put INCREDIBLE efforts into building all of them up, but we are supposed to forget about them now? Tis ridiculous!

At CF, we are unlikely to forget all the womanizers and thugs and drugees!


P.S. - Blacks are in SUCH denial about black homosexuality and cross-dressing!

FREE these teachers! What's their crime?

 

[FootballDad]

These three teachers deserve medals! Black history month is offensive in itself. They mention "appropriate" black role models like NELSON MANDELA??? God help us.