Sessions Reinstates Asset Forfeiture At Justice Department


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
July 27, 2017

This has been a tough week for blogs, because I’ve wanted to blog about many stories concerning space, some recent discoveries of gravitational anomalies in Weyl crystals or Weyl materials, and so on, but the cultural news has, again, taken precedence, because the assault on fundamental liberties continues. More recently, I’ve been complaining that the Republithug party has been – for a very long time – the party of “fake opposition” to progressivism and statism.

Well, once again, it has stepped forward, and proven me to be correct, as Attorney General Jess Sessions has decided it’s “ok” for assets to be seized, effectively nullifying at the federal level the efforts of states to curtail the practice, according to this article shared by Mr. M.D., and citing, let it be noted, a lamestream media report from See B.S. News:

Sessions reinstates asset forfeiture policy at Justice Department

Note the opening three paragraphs:

The Justice Department announced their plans to reinstate the use of asset forfeiture, especially for drug suspects — making it easier for local law enforcement to seize cash and property from crime suspects and reap the proceeds.

The practice has been criticized because it allows law enforcement to take possessions — such as cars and money — without indictments or evidence a crime has been committed.

“Civil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement help defund organized crime, prevents new crime from committed and weakens the criminals and cartels,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Wednesday announcing the revived DOJ policy.

The problem, of course, is that one only has to be suspected of criminality, in order to lose all one’s assets. It’s a wonderful way to deal with potential political enemies: trump up a suspicion of criminal activity against an individual who is really a political enemy, and voila, problem solved.

And it has happened. There have been cases of Christian music groups touring the country whose assets, including some thousands of dollars of cash, were “forfeited” on the mere suspicion of criminal activity.

This can happen to you, to your children, to your friends, to me… to anyone deemed an enemy of the state. And don’t put it past the “authorities” to plant evidence in order to achieve it.

The problem, of course, is that it is wholly unconstitutional. When the oligarchs met in Philadelphia to give us the current American constitution, the anti-federalists insisted upon a Bill of Rights, sensing that without it, all the vehicles of repression were still in place. One of the articles – the sixth – of that Bill of Rights, clearly states:

Article the sixth… The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Asset forfeiture of course, by any normal person’s standards of language, customary usage, or understanding, an unreasonable search and seizure. Of course, there will be plenty of lawyers and so on to argue this case or that case, this precedent, or that precedent, to say otherwise, and that it is all “perfectly legal and constitutional.”

And that is America’s problem: the willingness to believe authority and clever sophistical arguments, over the clear – and regrettably unenforced – language and provisions of the Constitution. Does this mean the drug dealer gets to travel down the interstate free from unreasonable search and seizure? Yes it does, because that protects the freedom of all.

What is intriguing, however, is that the practice has been challenged by states:

CBS News’ Paula Reid reports that 24 states have passed laws limiting the practice, but local law enforcement can get around those restrictions by giving seized assets to the federal government instead of returning them to their owners. This practice is called “adoption” and it’s been used to seize almost $1 billion in assets over the last decade.

Think about that for a moment: twenty-four states, just one shy of half the states in the union.  What this means is that the federal government is now acting in opposition to almost half the state governments in the country, effectively nullifying their own wishes and their own attempt to curtail abuses, and those state governments have acted because their angry and frustrated citizenry have seen enough of the abuses of the federal Robespierres blathering about virtue and fighting crime and so on.  Robespierre, of course, had his own way of cutting away the difficulties of independently thinking people. Regrettably, the comparison becomes more and more apt, because the policies of the federal government more and more resemble those, not of constitutional government, but of a Committee of Public Safety, the wet dream of every progressive, and a National Convention issuing more and more assignats (federal reserve notes), while Europe looks on in disbelief at the growing instability of a neighbor…

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Advertisements

Wake Up To The Rockefeller Movie Of Political Reality

TruthFact
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
July 24, 2017

The key document here is the 2010 Rockefeller Foundation brainstorming exercise, “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”.

It imagines various disasters and possible responses to them.

The report presents a friendly and concerned front, but reading between the lines, you can see Globalism at work, shoring up a new and improved international order—as if that solution is the only viable future for humanity.

Here is a choice bit of scenario-building and forecasting from the report:

“In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit…national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.”

Ah yes, the favorite phony stepchild of the Globalists: a pandemic. Forget the fact that every dire prediction of worldwide destruction from a dreaded virus, during the past 15 years, has fallen flat. SARS, Swine Flu, West Nile, Bird Flu, etc. Duds.

Here’s another preposterous Rockefeller future, from the viewpoint of 2010:

“Undeniably, the planet’s climate was becoming increasingly unstable.”

“Sea levels were rising fast, even as countries continued to build-out coastal mega-cities.”

“In 2014, the Hudson River overflowed into New York City during a storm surge, turning the World Trade Center site into a three-foot-deep lake. The image of motorboats navigating through lower Manhattan jarred the world’s most powerful nations into realizing that climate change was not just a developing-world problem.”

The last Time I looked, New York City was not underwater. Submarine taxis weren’t taking people to work.

Now read further, to get a flavor of the Rockefeller solution to the “climate disaster.” Notice that an international order, and NOT separate nations, is required:

“In such an interconnected world, where the behaviors of one country, company, or individual had potentially high-impact effects on all others, piecemeal attempts by one nation here, one small collective of environmental organizations there, would not be enough to stave off a climate disaster – or, for that matter, to effectively address a host of other planetary-scale problems.”

“But highly coordinated worldwide strategies for addressing such urgent issues just might. What was needed was systems thinking – and systems acting – on a global scale.”

“International coordination started slowly, then accelerated faster than anyone had imagined.”

“In 2015, a critical mass of middle income and developed countries with strong economic growth publicly committed to leveraging their resources against global-scale problems, beginning with climate change. Together, their governments hashed out plans for monitoring and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the short term and improving the absorptive capacity of the natural environment over the long term.”

“In 2017, an international agreement was reached on carbon sequestration (by then, most multinational corporations had a chief carbon officer) and intellectual and financial resources were pooled to build out carbon capture processes that would best support the global ecosystem. A functioning global cap and trade system was also established.”

“Worldwide, the pressure to reduce waste and increase efficiency in planet-friendly ways was enormous.”

Now here is the big one, with technocracy as the master:

“New globally coordinated systems for monitoring energy use capacity – including smart grids and bottom-up pattern recognition technologies – were rolled out. These efforts produced real results: by 2022, new projections showed a significant slowing in the rise of atmospheric carbon levels.”

“Inspired by the success of this experiment in collective global action, large-scale coordinated initiatives intensified. Centralized global oversight and governance structures sprang up, not just for energy use but also for disease and technology standards. Such systems and structures required far greater levels of transparency, which in turn required more tech-enabled data collection, processing, and feedback.”

“Enormous, benign “sousveillance” systems allowed citizens to access data – all publicly available – in real time and react. Nation-states lost some of their power and importance as global architecture strengthened and regional governance structures emerged. International oversight entities like the UN took on new levels of authority, as did regional systems like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and the Asian Development Bank (ADB).”

Are you following this? The monitoring of energy use, for example. This is nothing less than moment to moment tracking of energy production and consumption, planet-wide.

It’s the ultimate top-down force. What flows from this position is the ALLOCATION of energy to every nation—and, up the road, TO EVERY HUMAN.

“Mr. Jones, your energy-use card shows you’ve reached your limit for this month. Ten days left until February 1. All your energy-producing devices and assets will shut down now. Have a nice day.”

You don’t think that could ever happen? There is no way to assign energy-use limits to nations without directly impacting use by individuals.

I also hope you noticed the reference to emerging “regional governance structures.” The takeover of separate nations by the UN, the EU, and other unelected bodies.

This is the preferred and mandated Rockefeller solution.

And now a word about the hated and loved Donald Trump. Whatever you think of him, he raised the issue of Globalism, front and center. He shot down the Rockefeller TPP treaty. He didn’t sign the Paris Climate pact. He emphasized nationalism, as opposed to internationalism. He mocked climate-change “science.”

For the moment, let’s assume the very worst. Trump didn’t mean anything he said. He was a liar, is a liar, and will be a liar. He was actually put in office by the Globalists, who wanted a ludicrous enemy to play off of. He wasn’t and isn’t an enemy of Globalism. He’s a complete fraud. By relentlessly attacking Trump, the Globalists will defeat their “last opponent,” and in the next election they will sweep into power as never before, believing they can then complete their plan for worldwide domination. Let’s assume all this.

Nevertheless, millions and millions of people have become alerted to this thing called Globalism as a destructive force with a covert agenda of planetary control.

Observers can go full-bore gloom and doom, claiming it doesn’t matter. They can bitch and moan about how nothing has changed. They can confirm their own personal prophecy of failure along all fronts.

Or they can try to wake up more people to what Globalism is really all about.

All along I’ve said I’m far more interested in the people who supported Trump, for their own reasons, than I’m interested in Trump. And I’m not particularly interested in those supporters’ reasons, either—except when FREEDOM is involved.

The freedom to take destiny into their own hands.

That idea is not dead. It will never be dead.

Time is long.

THE INDIVIDUAL is at the very bottom of the Globalist plan. He is considered to be a fly in the ointment who needs to be eradicated, in favor of The Group.

He is considered to be an extinct evolutionary appendage.

That is why the Globalist superstructure must be defeated.

Psychologically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, creatively, a separate nation is better than an oligarchical global government.

An individual is better than a nation.

A free individual is better than a sleeping individual.

A self-empowered individual—free, responsible, rational, intensely creative—is possible and necessary.

This is where it all starts.

This is where it has to start.

It doesn’t start with a global glob of fantasizing utopians, who are unaware they’re acting on behalf of an Earth Empire.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Think You Are a “Free American” with Constitutional Protections? Read This

TruthFact
Source: Rutherford.org
John W. Whitehead
July 22, 2017

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”—Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

We have entered a new regime and it’s called the American police state.

As the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez makes clear, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice.

Continuing its disturbing trend of siding with police in cases of excessive use of force, a unanimous Court declared that police should not be held liable for recklessly firing 15 times into a shack where a homeless couple—Angel and Jennifer Mendez—was sleeping.

Understandably, the Mendezes were startled by the intruders, so much so that Angel was holding his BB gun, which he used to shoot rats, in defense. Despite the fact that police barged into the Mendez’s backyard shack without a search warrant and without announcing their presence and fired 15 shots at the couple, who suffered significant injuries (Angel Mendez suffered numerous gunshot wounds, one of which required the amputation of his right leg below the knee, and his wife Jennifer was shot in the back), the Court once again gave the police a “get out of jail free” card.

Unfortunately, we’ve been traveling this dangerous road for a long time now.

In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

While the First Amendment—which gives us a voice—is being muzzled, the Fourth Amendment—which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents—is being disemboweled.

A review of critical court rulings over the past decade or so, including some ominous ones by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting the ruling class and government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Strieff, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively gave police a green light to embark on a fishing expedition of one’s person and property, rendering Americans completely vulnerable to the whims of any cop on the beat.

In a blistering dissent in Utah v. Strieff, Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the court for holding “that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights.” Sotomayor continued:

This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants—so long as he can point to a pretextual justification after the fact. That justification must provide specific reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, but it may factor in your ethnicity, where you live, what you were wearing, and how you behaved. The officer does not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction—even one that is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous.

The indignity of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal. The officer may next ask for your “consent” to inspect your bag or purse without telling you that you can decline. Regardless of your answer, he may order you to stand “helpless, perhaps facing a wall with [your] hands raised.” If the officer thinks you might be dangerous, he may then “frisk” you for weapons. This involves more than just a pat down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may “‘feel with sensitive fingers every portion of [your] body. A thorough search [may] be made of [your] arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.’”

If you still can’t read the writing on the wall, Sotomayor breaks it down further: “This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong… So long as the target is one of the many millions of people in this country with an outstanding arrest warrant, anything the officer finds in a search is fair game for use in a criminal prosecution. The officer’s incentive to violate the Constitution thus increases…”

Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. More recently, in State v. Howard, the Kansas Supreme Court declared that motorists who recline their car seats are guilty of suspicious behavior and can be subject to warrantless searches by police. That ruling, coupled with other court rulings upholding warrantless searches and seizures by police—for such “suspicious” behavior as having acne scars, driving with a stiff upright posture, having car windows that are too heavily tinted, driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, leaving a parked car door open for too long, avoiding a traffic light by driving through a parking lot, driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, toll transponders or rosaries), or displaying pro-police bumper stickers—renders one’s car a Constitution-free zone.

Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.

Police can “steal” from Americans who are innocent of any wrongdoing. In refusing to hear a challenge to Texas’ asset forfeiture law, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas police to keep $201,000 in ill-gotten cash primarily on the basis that the seized cash—the proceeds of a home sale—was being transported on a highway associated with illegal drug trade, despite any proof of illegal activity by the owner. Asset forfeiture laws, which have come under intense scrutiny and criticism in recent years, allow the police to seize property “suspected” of being connected to criminal activity without having to prove the owner of the property is guilty of a criminal offense.

Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint, although mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment (Birchfield v. North Dakota). Police can also conduct sobriety and “information-seeking” checkpoints (Illinois v. Lidster and Mich. Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz).

Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. In Maryland v. King, a divided U.S. Supreme Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA. Once again the Court sided with the guardians of the police state over the defenders of individual liberty in determining that DNA samples may be extracted from people arrested for “serious” offenses. While the Court claims to have made its decision based upon concerns of properly identifying criminal suspects upon arrest, what they actually did is open the door for a nationwide dragnet of suspects targeted via DNA sampling.

Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Upon arriving on the scene of a nighttime traffic accident…

Continue Reading At: Rutherford.org

Book Review: Churchill & Orwell: The Fight For Freedom by Thomas E. Ricks | #SmartReads

TheFightForFreedom
TheBreakaway | BreakawayConciousness
Zy Marquiez
July 1, 217

“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

“Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
– George Orwell

In Churchill And Orwell, Thomas E. Ricks does an apt job of juxtaposing two of history’s pillars of freedom – Winston Churchill and George Orwell, whose real name is Eric Arthur Blair.

The author follows the lives of these men through the 30s and 40s with lucidity, while comparing and contrasting key elements of these stalwarts of critical thought and independence.

Though both men were incisive writers that did not overlook the power of the written word, each man went through his own trials and tribulations that helped mold who they became.  Those life lessons they learned helped each become staunch supporters of freedom and individuality in a world that sought then, as it still seeks now at times, to conform individuals at nigh every turn.

With a critical eye to the unique path these men have walked, the author sagely states that their path:

“… is a path we should all strive for if we are to preserve the right to think, speak, and act independently, heeding the dictates not of the state or of fashionable thought but of our own consciences.  In most places and most of the time, liberty is not a product of military action.  Rather, it is something alive that grows or diminishes every day, in how we think and communicate, how we treat each other in our public discourse, in what we value and reward as a society, and how we do that.”[1]

Such a compelling statement beckons rumination for those that value freedom.   Freedom isn’t something that’s merely handed down, but an idea that’s alive, fluid, wholly able to grow or whither depending on how it is treated.

As such, given the totalitarian train of tyranny and fascism that is barreling down the pike, it would be wise to reap wisdom from these prescient pillars of the past, whilst also contemplating what Freedom truly means to us.

If the past is any indication of the future, and we certainly know that it is, then given the cyclic nature of history and man’s inability to learn from the past, then it is only a matter of time before we are waist deep in the very totalitarian and tyrannical issues that both Churchill and Orwell fought to prevent.

This makes learning our history and from those that stood before us and fought the good fight an imperative.  If not, humanity is merely choosing the path of ignorance once again.

Churchill & Orwell: The Fight For Freedom is an evocative read, made all the more relevant by the rise in tyranny and censorship that seeps further into society.  The courage Churchill and Orwell brought to bear in the fight for freedom was immeasurable, just as their wisdom is timeless.  To ignore their words and actions would be unwise, and if we do that, we do that at or own peril.

__________________________________________________________
Sources:

[1] Thomas E. Ricks, Churchill & Orwell, pg. 269.
___________________________________________________________
If you find value in this information, please share it.  This article is free and open source.  All individuals have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________
About The Author:

Zy Marquiez is an avid book reviewer, inquirer, an open-minded skeptic, yogi, and freelance writer who aims at empowering individuals while also studying and regularly mirroring subjects like Consciousness, Education, Creativity, The Individual, Ancient History & Ancient Civilizations, Forbidden Archaeology, Big Pharma, Alternative Health, Space, Geoengineering, Social Engineering, Propaganda, and much more.

His other blog, BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com features mainly his personal work, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information nigh always ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Germany Begins Raiding Homes For “Freedom”


Source: ActivistPost.com
Dawn Luger
June 21, 2017

In the ever increasing global creep toward totalitarianism, some nations are stepping up punishments for their civilians caught using social media for free speech. Now Germany is in the headlines for raiding the homes of those who the government declared had posted “offensive” content on social media.

It hit the fan when it comes to free speech in Germany. Wasn’t this the country that had to fight tooth and nail to free themselves from the grip of Adolf Hitler’s censorship? It’s like some lessons are never learned. In a coordinated campaign across 14 states, the German police raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful postings over social media, including “threats,” “coercion,” and “incitement to racism.” The goal of these raids was the confiscation of the “hate posters” Internet connection devices, according to a press release from the German federal police (BKA). 

In the most ironic statement of the century, Holger Münch, president of the Federal Criminal Police Office, said “The still high incidence of punishable hate posting shows a need for police action. Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence, and violence either on the street or on the internet.” So in Germany, a free society means “don’t say things the government doesn’t like, or your home will be raided.”

The raids come as German politicians are debating the draft of a new social media law aimed at cracking down on hate speech, a measure that an array of experts said was unconstitutional at a parliamentary hearing on Monday. The law simply dictates what one is allowed to say or not say on social media. That’s, without a doubt, a free speech violation. Of course, the German government is selling it in the name of “freedom.”

Under German law, social media users are subject to a range of punishments for posting illegal material, including a prison sentence of up to five years for inciting racial hatred. Under the draft statute, networks must offer a readily available complaint process for posts that may amount to threats, hate speech, defamation, or incitement to commit a crime, among other offenses.Social media outlets would have 24 hours to delete “obviously criminal content” and a week to decide on more ambiguous cases. The law, approved by Germany’s cabinet in April, would be enforced with fines of up to $53 million.

But even human rights organizations understand that all speech, even that which is disliked, is considered free speech, and any law against it is a human rights violation.

Human rights, including free expression, aren’t just essential to functioning democracies, but to safe and secure societies. While controversial, protecting the expression of even the most disfavored views is how we ensure that free speech is protected for all, including the most marginalized groups. –Human Rights First

Some of the posts were cruel in nature, but still free speech. According to Abendzeitungpolice arrived at one man’s house in Munich at 6 am and confiscated two of his cell phones. The 23-year-old was accused of commenting that gays should hang themselves underneath a Facebook photo of two men kissing. Others were accused of making “anti-government” statements.

It looks like Germany will have to relearn all the lessons they have failed. It wasn’t so long ago that they allowed the government enough power that it exterminated millions of people. But relearning these lessons will be costly at best and disastrous at worst.

Read More At: ActivistPost.com
___________________________________________________________________

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Dawn Luger of The Daily Sheeple.

Dawn Luger is a staff writer and reporter for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up – follow Dawn’s work at our Facebook or Twitter.

Image Credit

Book Review: Battlefield America – The War Against The American People by John W. Whitehead | #SmartReads

BattlefieldAmerica
TheBreakaway | BreakawayConciousness
Zy Marquiez
June 14, 2017

“We know where you are.  We know where you’ve been.  We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”
– Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt

“You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”—George Orwell, 1984

Over the last decade, American has been sinking deeper and deeper into a totalitarian landscape.  Battlefield America by John W. Whitehead not only catalogues many of the tyrannical events that should have never taken place against the populace in America, but soberingly warns about the further incoming tyranny that’s slowly seeping in America and will certainly continue if the people don’t wake up to these.

The overall pattern of tyranny in America has been covered by much of the alternative media, but rarely the mainstream media.  That’s why a book like this is so important, because it brings clarity to such a sobering and disconcerting topic.

That said, what does the “Police State” encompass?  For starters, it involves hyper-criminalization of many events.  How do we know this is taking place?  For incisiveness and accuracy, let’s cite the author in his own words:

“…it is estimated that the average American actually commits three felonies a day without knowing it.  In fact, according to law professor John Baker, “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime.  That is not an exaggeration.”[1][Bold emphasis added.]

Such is the foundation of a tyrannical police state.

Citing dozens and dozens of examples, the author catalogues a Marine having been detained for criticizing the government on facebook, a reporter persecuted for not revealing his sources, many instances of SWAT teams bursting into homes unannounced to investigate minor crimes [or sometimes none at all!], and more.  Examples of police brutality are also covered, as well as invasive searches with no warrant where they have stripped searched people, drawn blood, probed people intimately, charged people for feeding crows, charged individuals for living off grid, charged others for watering a neighbor’s yard, or for installing solar panels, or raising chickens in the back yard, and even carrying out the heinous crime! of growing vegetables.  It is no coincidence that much of what the government has criminalized are things that allow self sufficiency to individuals.  Self-sufficient individuals take care of themselves and rarely if ever need the governmentThe less and less people need government, the more the Government power seeps away.  It’s a simple formula.  As such, forcing people to tyrannically have to be dependent on the corrupt system is part of the plan.  It’s crystal clear.

And yet, do we really need all of this policing?  The number of violent crimes in the country is down to the lowest rate in 40 years.[2]  Violent crimes are going down, but the power of the police continues to increase.  That’s called a paradox.  That’s the opposite of what should be taking place.

As the author notes:

“You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart diseases than from a terrorist attack.  You are 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane.  You are 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack.  You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack.  You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocating in bed than from a terrorist attack.  You are 9 more times likely to choke to dean in your own vomit that n die from a terrorist attack.  You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.”[3]

Even actual police officers are more likely to harm individuals than terrorists – that’s an incredibly frightening prospect, and one that is oft-overlooked in the age of distraction and sound-bites.

In conjunction with that, the desensitization of the police state is also covered by the author.  As the author notes, TV shows, movies and video games, accustom the mind to seeing a police state as normal, while schools now criminalize child behavior, all of which is leading to the next generation seeing as normal something that the founding fathers clearly warned about.  To the next generation growing up in a police state will be normal because that is all they have ever known.  That will make this disturbing trend even harder to reverse.

Battlefield America also delves into the ominous growth of Big Brother and it’s endless surveillance machinations.  From the ubiquitous presence in spying by the NSA, as well as the disturbing connection between Google and the government in facilitating spying on citizens, the author sifts through a wide range of modalities that are employed against the populace.

Also exposed is coming age of drones (that will also aid in spying, by the way), which has already begun, and also the ceaseless growth of DHS.  The enormous scope of the Big Brother & Police State expansion covered by the author branches far and wide showing, and it shows many of the components that undergird such this growing totalitarian system.

The author even goes on to juxtapose the current pattern of tyranny with similar patterns in history, while also drawing parallels from fiction such as 1984 and Brave New World.

Comprehensive in its aim, and disturbing implications, this is a book that should be read by everyone.  The Police State affects all of us, and it’s only going to get worse given the complacency and ignorance that a sizeable portion of the population retains.  Whatever future manifests, it will come about through the action, and inactions of individuals from all over.  If you value freedom, you should ponder about this issue, because not only does the system already show everyone as a criminal (remember the first quote), but worse, history has shown, time and time again that those that value freedom, and yet don’t act to keep their freedoms end up in a life of servitude.

___________________________________________________________
Footnotes:

[1] John W. Whitehead, Battlefield America, p. 3.
[2] Ibid., p. 63., citing Richard A. Oppel Jr. “Steady Decline In Major Crime Baffles Experts,” The New York Times (May 23, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html
[3] Ibid., pp. 43-44.

___________________________________________________________
If you find value in this information, please share it.  This article is free and open source.  All individuals have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________
About The Author:

Zy Marquiez is an avid book reviewer, inquirer, an open-minded skeptic, yogi, and freelance writer who studies and mirrors regularly subjects like Consciousness, Education, Creativity, The Individual, Ancient History & Ancient Civilizations, Forbidden Archaeology, Big Pharma, Alternative Health, Space, Geoengineering, Social Engineering, Propaganda, and much more.

His other blog, BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com features mainly his personal work, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information nigh always ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

Death Sentence for Facebook Post: America Funding Human Rights Violations


Source: TheDailyBell.com
June 12, 2017

Ideally, America would stop giving out all foreign aid, but a good place to start would be nixing aid to countries with horrible human rights records.

For instance, Pakistan just sentenced a man to death for blasphemy. It is far from the first time someone has been sentenced to death for blasphemy, but it is the first time a death sentence has been handed down for blasphemy on social media. The 30-year-old man said derogatory things about Muhammad on Facebook.

He was tried by a counter-terrorism court for his online hate speech. This sounds eerily familiar to Theresa May’s calls to crack down on Internet freedom in an effort to counter terrorism. Pakistan shows the world one of the most extreme interpretations of government policing online discourse in the name of anti-terrorism.

At the same time, “Right groups say the harsh blasphemy laws are often used to settle personal scores.”

So basically, the more power a government has to regulate online behavior in the name of safety and security, the more power corrupt officials have to serve personal vendettas or bring politics into the court system.

And we may seem immune to that type of thing in the U.S. yet just last week an appeals court refused to give Ross Ulbricht a new trial. Ulbricht created the website the Silk Road which was used to traffic drugs and other illegal things on the dark web. He received a life sentence for his role as a “kingpin” and accessory to drug trafficking, even though all he did was create the web platform for exchange.

Two federal agents involved in the case are now behind bars for corruption. They stole from the Silk Road while investigating it, and one of their testimony was crucial to convicting Ross. The clearly untrustworthy agent had administrative access to the website that would have made it easy to frame Ulbricht, but the courts refused to allow this possibility to be explored.

The cases are different in scope and degree, but have basically the same lesson; government courts will rule the way the government wants them to rule to protect the interests of the government and government officials, regardless of right or wrong.

America Funds Pakistan’s Human Rights Abuses

But even though Pakistan is clearly violating human rights, the United States is ready to hand over another $800 million in aid to the country. Last year the U.S. gave them even more money for supporting the fight against terrorism in bordering Afghanistan.

The Trump administration has proposed to give Pakistan US $800 million as reimbursement for its military and logistical support in counter-terrorism operations

The specifics of what Pakistan will use this money for are not known, but since the money is meant to help them in their fight against terrorism, it could be used to fund their counter-terrorism courts; the court which sentenced a man to death for a blasphemous Facebook post.

And America has quite the track record of funding countries that abuse their citizens. Just look at the most recent arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth $110 billion dollars. Why does America supply the oppressive dictatorship weapons,

…while Saudi Arabia continues ravaging the country of Yemen and its civilian population with U.S. bought weapons, aiding and funding several terrorist groups, and oppressing women to lives of servitude for men.

Why does America do business with a country that treats women like property?

On June 5, Amnesty International reported that one of Saudi Arabia’s most prominent women’s rights activist, Loujain al-Hathloul, was arrested. They noted she has no access to a lawyer and that the reason for her arrest has not been disclosed, though the organization believes it’s in relation to her activism. In 2014, she was arrested and detained for 73 days for driving.

America follows the golden rule, he who has the gold, makes the rules. But if the dollar ever lost its magical power, how would the U.S. maintain its power at home and abroad? All the more reason to explore alternatives to manipulated fiat currency, which is then used in turn to manipulate others.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com