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

Points For “Good Behaviour”: Canadian Government Introduces the Creepiest App Ever

Source:  CorbettReport
July 17, 2017

READ THE NEWSLETTER: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=23274 Yes, the Canadian government has rolled out an app that gives you points for eating well and exercising and taking quizzes about the flu shot and other healthy activities! And everyone seems totally fine with this. Welcome to the future, everyone, because the totalitarian states of tomorrow will be more carrot then stick, and we will all be pigeons in a virtual Skinner box. What could go wrong?

Domestic Abuse: A Smart Device Called the Police


Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 14, 2017

This article is not about fear. This article is about common sense.

Last week, we discussed the internet of things, and how smart devices could be used to literally know more about us than we know about ourselves.

This is not some distant future dystopia we are talking about. It is already happening.

A smart device in a home called the police during a domestic violence incident.

It appears to have been a reaction by the device to the abuser yelling at his girlfriend, “Did you call the sheriffs?” The device heard “Call the sheriffs,” and did so.

A SWAT team arrived at the home and after negotiating for hours, they were able to take Barros into custody. Police tell ABC News that the man’s girlfriend was injured but did not need to visit a hospital. The couple’s daughter was safe and unharmed.

“The unexpected use of this new technology to contact emergency services has possibly helped save a life,” Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales III said in a statement.

It’s hard to look at this as big brother ruining lives; after all, the guy was abusing his girlfriend in front of their daughter. Constant spying has entered the mainstream media as a good thing. Look at all the benefits of having nowhere to hide; the scum of the earth who abuse their girlfriends will be caught and locked up.

But there are a lot of crimes out there, and not all of them harm others. In fact, chances are we all break multiple laws on a daily basis. So if the government knows about every law you break, they could certainly choose to overlook them. If they also know however that you legally reduced your taxes to almost nothing, or that you have a legal foreign bank account, well then maybe they have some incentive to snag you.

Al Capone was never arrested for murder, racketeering, or selling alcohol. He was arrested for tax evasion. If they want you, they can find a way to get you. They have been doing it since Capone’s time.

What if it had been another illicit activity that was recorded by the smart device? What if it had been a victimless crime? Would the police have come if they heard people talking about growing 25 marijuana plants in the basement?

The media will point to the “success stories” of locking up the bad guys with this technology. They will not highlight the people who are nabbed for code violations, renting out a room illegally, or hate speech.

In some ways, this problem has an easy solution; simply do not use devices that will spy on you.

But in another sense, that is not so simple. Even most cell phones these days are constantly recording your conversations. Is the only solution becoming hermits?

Are we willing and able as consumers to demand that type of privacy? Comment with your thoughts on how you have dealt with this problem in your own life.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Pentagon in bed with Hollywood, documents show

Source: RT
July 7, 2017

The US government played a part in producing more than 800 major films and 1,000 TV shows from the 1950’s through the present, according to over 4,000 pages of documents a watchdog group obtained. RT America’s Natasha Sweatte has more on the cooperation between the nation’s media and political capitals.

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.

Nazism 2.0: Germany Moves To Ban Free Speech Online


Source: TheDuran.com
Adam Garrie
June 30, 2017

The German Bundestag (parliament) has voted to implement a law which would impose a fine of €50million to social media companies who failed to remove so-called “hate speech” and so-called “fake news”.

According to the law, social media companies would have just 24 hours to comply with the German government’s edict before the monumental fine would be issued.

This legislation is not only poorly conceived, almost impossible to enforce and excessive in its punitive stance towards private enterprise, but it is just plain wrong.

Laws which predate the invention of the internet make it so that issuing a criminal threat is illegal. This goes for threats written on poster-board, graffiti, obscene art exhibitions, digital statements or oral pronouncements.

This is as far as any such law needs to go. Hate is not a threat, it is merely the expression of a feeling or viewpoint. It is legal to dislike things, it is legal to hate things, it is legal to feel such hatred without having to intellectually justify it.

But these basic principles of modern law in the civilised world seem to be lost on an increasingly tyrannical German regime.

Even if one felt that expressing hatred or ‘fake news’ was a some sort of crime, the law does not define such things. Is it acceptable to hate Russia but not hate the EU? Would a pro-Russian Brexit supporter living in Germany (and yes, there are many such people) therefore be engaged in ‘hate speech’?

Is it acceptable to hate Palestine but not Israel? Is it acceptable to hate veterinarian food but not hate ham sandwiches? Is it acceptable to hate ugly people but not to hate people who have had plastic surgery?

Are Donald Trump’s statements which infuriate liberals now hate speech for which Twitter can be fined millions of Euros?

What about people who find it hateful that images of heterodox sexual propaganda are spread by major western corporations and governments to corrupt the minds of the young? Will their definition of hate speech be taken into account?

None of these questions are answered by the Germany lawmakers.

Also in respect of ‘fake news’ covered by the law, whose fake news? Should social media owners be fined when people post CNN stories about ‘Russiagate’ because this is by CNN workers own admission fake news?

When state-run British broadcaster BBC posts bogus stories about the Syrian government, will this incur a fake news fine?

While Facebook has condemned Germany’s move, this is merely a matter of Facebook’s self-interest in knowing that they could be fined for failing to censor something which goes against the wishes of Germany’s political narrative. Facebook already takes it upon itself to censor people whose sense of humour does not correspond with Facebook’s own ultra-liberal narrative.

As with most things in life, one man’s fake news is another man’s truth, one man’s idea of hate is another one’s idea of joy. If the German regime is to be the final arbiter of truth and taste, social media won’t really be social media at all, it will simply be statements that the German regime deems to be good and healthy according to its own very narrow narrative, one that the majority of the planet finds both hateful and fake.

Read More At: TheDuran.com

New Invasive Measures Are Coming to Your Local Airport


Source: ActivistPost.com
Derrick Broze
June 28, 2017

The federal government will soon begin searching through travelers’ books at the airport as airlines test out fingerprint scans.

Next time you choose to take a flight in the United States, you will not only be given the option of a free walk through the full body scanner or a complimentary rub down courtesy of the Transportation Security Administration. Your next flight might include a search of your laptop, books, and possibly a fingerprint scan. Since the launch of the Trump administration travelers have been subject to increasingly invasive measures in the form of laptop searches and discrimination against those traveling from majority Muslim countries.

Now the TSA is testing out new measures that require passengers to remove books and paper goods from their carry-on luggage. According to new reports from The Wall Street Journal and Sacramento Beethe TSA had already begun to roll out these new invasive policies.

“While I expect going through airline security to be time-consuming and mildly annoying, my attitude changed recently as I prepared to board a flight out of Sacramento International Airport in the days after Memorial Day weekend,” the Sacramento Bee wrote. “As I stood in line, Transportation Security Administration officials announced at SMF that everyone was to take books, magazines and food out of their bags and put them into a separate bin for inspection. That was it. A line was crossed for me.”

As the Bee notes, reading material is extremely personal and revealing about a person. If individuals know that their reading habits – whether they relate to philosophy, politics, sexuality, or religion – will be scrutinized they may began a process of self-censorship. It also presents the question, what type of reading material could be questionable or even, banned? At this point the TSA is claiming that bombs could be hidden within books and are not focusing their efforts on content specifically. However, this is likely the beginning of an incremental strategy to remove as much freedom as possible for travelers. As the Sac Bee wrote, “We need to resist the creep of authoritarianism. During the Cold War, spying on neighbors was common in the Soviet Bloc. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, people reported others for listening to Western Classical Music.”

The American Civil  Liberties Union noted that there have already been multiple cases of passengers singled out for their First Amendment-protected expressions. “For example, in 2010 the ACLU sued on behalf of a man who was abusively interrogated, handcuffed, and detained for nearly five hours because he was carrying a set of Arabic-language flash cards and a book critical of U.S. foreign policy,” the ACLU writes. We also know that the DHS database known as the “Automated Targeting System,” which tracks information on international travelers, has included notations in travelers’ permanent files about controversial books in their possession.”

In a recent interview with Fox News, John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, seemed to confirm the goal of implementing the strategy on a nationwide scale. Kelly was asked whether or not the new policy of unpacking carry on luggage and separating food and electronics into separate bins will indeed go nationwide.

“Yes, I mean, the reason we’ve done, TSA, of course, works for me,” Kelly stated. He then blamed the need for these programs on travelers who are “trying to avoid the $25 or $50 or whatever it is to check a bag” by stuffing their bags too full and TSA monitors can not see what’s inside. When pushed further about the program going nationwide, Kelly states, “We might, and likely will.”

These plans were confirmed once again on Wednesday, as Secretary Kelly announced plans for new strategies to be implemented by the TSA. “We cannot play international whack-a-mole with each new threat,” Kelly said. “Instead, we must put in place new measures across the board to keep the traveling public safe and make it harder for terrorists to succeed.”

Although DHS officials declined to comment on specifics, ABC News reports that passengers may notice more swabbing of passengers’ hands and luggage to test for explosives. It is highly likely that the agencies book policy will be a part of these new strategies.

Another change making its way to your local airport includes the implementation of biometrics. A writer with Yahoo Finance discusses the new policies on display during a recent demonstration at Washington’s National Airport.

“Instead of handing your boarding pass and ID to a Transportation Security Administration agent, you could soon simply place two fingerprints on a scanner to be recognized and ushered through security — and then you could repeat the process to board the plane,” Yahoo writes.

These changes are part of an initiative started by Delta Air Lines. Delta has started the practice at Delta’s SkyClub lounge at National airport. Sandy Gordon, Delta’s vice president of airport operations, says the airline aims to have the strategy added to the check-in experience. Yahoo notes that the process saves minimal to no time since the process is still a part of the routine admittance policies for boarding a flight. Sandy Gordon said Delta is working with the TSA to get full approval for the program.

Yahoo’s writer said they also had to scan their driver’s license and enter Social Security number to participate in the fingerprint scan. The fingerprint and iris scans will be stored with the private company Clear. The company is promising not to sell the information to third parties, but Jeramie Scott, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Domestic Surveillance Project, says that Clear’s privacy policy doesn’t require it to delete your data if you cancel your membership.

This is a test. This an important moment in time where passengers and travelers will have to decide if they are willing to put up with anything for the right to travel. The DHS has already begun implementing biometric entry and exit requirements for international travelers arriving and leaving the United States. This is part of the larger strategy of dividing Americans over illegitimate fears of terrorism and foreigners so they willingly give up what little civil liberties they have left.

Read More At: ActivistPost.com
____________________________________________________________________

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1 and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2

Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com

This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Image Credit: Pixabay