YouTube Preview Image none

{ 0 comments }

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Will You Swallow Google’s Edible Microchip?

by Mr. Charrington on January 7, 2014

YouTube Preview Image none

{ 0 comments }

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

A Presidential Candidate was arrested last night AT THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE. And as if that’s not insane enough, it’s not even news?! Is that the kind of country you want to live in?

YouTube Preview Image none

{ 0 comments }

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

The surveillance society continues to expand across America, with those who refuse to go along subject to recriminations and reprisals.

That’s what’s happening to students at John Jay High School and Anson Jones Middle School in San Antonio whose parents refuse to have their children tracked by school officials.

According to reports, the school districts implemented new rules Oct. 1 that require each student to attend classes with photo ID cards embedded with a radio-frequency identification (RFID) chip, so officials are able to track every pupil’s location. Educators have said the requirement is necessary to stem rampant truancy, which is, in turn, taking a huge chunk out of the school’s funding. If the program is eventually judged to be effective, officials plan to roll it out to all 112 schools in the district, covering some 100,000 students.

Kids who won’t wear the ID trackers – which are supposed to be carried in pockets or around the neck – complain they are being targeted by teachers and are not permitted to take part in certain school functions. Some have even said they have been refused entrance to common areas like libraries and cafeterias.

Mark of the beast?

One student, Andrea Hernandez, a sophomore at John Jay, said in an interview that educators have turned a deaf ear to her pleas to respect her privacy and have told her she can’t participate in school elections if she doesn’t comply with the tracking program (apparently the Constitution really isn’t taught in many U.S. schools these days).

In an interview with Salon, Hernandez said subjecting herself to such continual monitoring was like being branded with “the mark of the beast,” a Biblical reference to the Book of Revelations.

Later, in a separate interview published by WorldNetDaily, Hernandez said the school responded by threatening her with the loss of her right to vote in the school’s homecoming king and queen contest for disobeying.

“I had a teacher tell me I would not be allowed to vote because I did not have the proper voter ID,” Hernandez told WND. “I had my old student ID card which they originally told us would be good for the entire four years we were in school. He said I needed the new ID with the chip in order to vote.”

Upon refusing to wear the RFID-chipped ID, the web paper said Deputy Superintendent Ray Galindo fired off a statement to her parents: “We are simply asking your daughter to wear an ID bad as every other student and adult on the Jay campus is asked to do.”

If she still refused; he went on, later repercussions would be stiffer than merely revoking her rights to vote in homecoming contests once the school decides to make the monitoring a mandatory attendance rule.

“I urge you to accept this solution so that your child’s instructional program will not be affected. As we discussed, there will be consequences for refusal to wear an ID card as we begin to move forward with full implementation,” Galindo wrote.

Steve Hernandez, Andrea’s father, told WND that the school seemed somewhat willing to work with his daughter, but went on to say the family is simply unwilling to “agree to stop criticizing the program” and endorse it publicly.

“I told him that was unacceptable because it would imply an endorsement of the district’s policy and my daughter and I should not have to give up our constitutional rights to speak out against a program that we feel is wrong,” Mr. Hernandez said.

Profiting from privacy destruction

But there’s money in tracking and privacy violation, you see – at least in this case.

The Northside Independent School District is set to collect north of $2 million in state funding to revise its poor attendance records; the RFID program will cost only about a quarter of that amount, with another $136,000 in annual maintenance costs.

But that money will likely not offset damages from unintended privacy violations on the back end: Heather Fazio, of Texans for Accountable Government, told WND she filed a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the program, for which she paid a $30 filing fee, and received the names and addresses of every student in the district.

“Using this information along with an RFID reader means a predator could use this information to determine if the student is at home and then track them wherever they go. These chips are always broadcasting so anyone with a reader can track them anywhere,” she said.

A spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union told the local San Antonio Express-News earlier this year her organization expects to file a legal challenge to the tracking program.

But Rebecca Robertson, who is with a local branch of the organization said that, “the ACLU of Texas will not be able to represent you or your daughter in this matter,” saying the case did not meet the group’s criteria.

Sources:

http://www.wnd.com

http://www.theblaze.com

http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-school-id-hernandez-033/

http://www.naturalnews.com/037548_students_micro-chipped_public_schools.html

none

{ 0 comments }

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

A school district in San Antonio, Texas is requiring middle and high school students to wear a “tracking” chip while on campus. And not just a passive RFID (Radio-frequency identification) chip, these second generation RFID chips include a battery that transmits a radio signal for constant location monitoring of the students. District spokesman Pascual Gonzalez said, “Chip readers on campuses and on school buses can detect a student’s location but can’t track them once they leave school property. Only authorized administrative officials will have access to the information.”

Yea, right.

From the San Antonio Times, May 12, 2012 we read:

Northside Independent School District plans to track students next year on two of its campuses using technology implanted in their student identification cards in a trial that could eventually include all 112 of its schools and all of its nearly 100,000 students.

Northside, the largest school district in Bexar County, plans to modify the ID cards next year for all students attending John Jay High School, Anson Jones Middle School and all special education students who ride district buses. That will add up to about 6,290 students.

The district’s stated reason is to help obtain funding from the state by documenting the number of students who attend the school.

The district plans to spend $525,065 to implement the pilot program and $136,005 per year to run it, but it will more than pay for itself, predicted Steve Bassett, Northside’s assistant superintendent for budget and finance. If successful, Northside would get $1.7 million next year from both higher attendance and Medicaid reimbursements for busing special education students, he said.

In [last May's] board debate, trustee M’Lissa M. Chumbley said she worried that parents might feel the technology violated their children’s privacy rights. She didn’t want administrators tracking teachers’ every move if they end up outfitted with the tags, she added.

Farmers currently use chips to track cattle and hogs. RFID is also commonly used for tracking store retail inventories and monitoring vehicle access to gated properties. Now that we have the technology, we’re “chipping” our children for money and their supposed safety? Orwell and Huxley must be outraged that their warnings have gone so unheeded.

From a current report in WND by Jack Minor, on the students already wearing these chips this year, we read:

…..a counselor at the school told Steve Hernandez, a parent whose daughter Andrea is a sophomore at John Jay [high school], that the district currently does not have any single person assigned to monitor the location of students or track the data.

“That destroys the argument that the purpose to track students for attendance purposes,” Hernandez said. “How are they supposed to safeguard privacy concerns if no one is responsible for its administration?”

Heather Fazio, executive director of Texans for Accountable Government, said the district has not been willing to take steps to listen to parent’s concerns over the chips.

Highlighting the dangers the chips pose to student privacy issues even while off campus, Fazio said she was able to get list containing the names and addresses of all of the students in the district by filing a Freedom of Information Request.

“After paying a $30 fee with the FOIA request I was able to get every student’s name and address,” Fazio explained. “Using this information along with an RFID reader means a predator could use this information to determine if the student is at home and then track them wherever they go. These chips are always broadcasting so anyone with a reader can track them anywhere.”

Read the entire article, it’s the old-school investigative journalism we hope to find but rarely read anymore.

Americans cannot allow the onrush of technology to not so incrementally destroy our 4th amendment rights of privacy as partially addressed in the recent SCOTUS case, United States v. Jones. While a few constitutionally clueless schools boards have already taken the big leap from chipping farm animals to chipping our school children, the next small steps to chipping all our citizens cannot be far behind. Dictators and tyrants, hiding behind the twin veils of safety and fairness will rush to embrace these new tools at their disposal.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Unless all the good men and women of this nation act forcefully against these electronic chains now placed on our children, we too shall be so chained.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/texas_school_district_to_require_students_to_wear_rfid_chip_whil_on_campus.html

none

{ 1 comment }

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

YouTube Preview Image

Lt. Jonathan Josey sucker punching bystander without cause. MSN trying to push the fact she was spraying “silly string” on the philly cops however a closer look at the video section below you can clearly see that someone else is responsible for Josey sucker punching the woman in the mouth.

Lt. Jonathan Josey

none

{ 0 comments }

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Missouri police gun down man working to expose corruption.

by Mr. Charrington on September 12, 2012

YouTube Preview Image

12:50pm September 12th, 2012:

I called Troop C of the Missouri State Highway Patrol to solicit more information about the incident that happened the day prior. Not too surprisingly, Al Nothum, the “public information officer”, wasn’t too public with the related information. Just imagine if this situation would have been different.

Do you think the names of the shooter(s) would have been withheld for so long? That the details surrounding an incident that caused a person to be airlifted to a hospital with two shots to the chest and one to the head would be summarized by saying a “confrontation” occurred? Might the shooter(s) in this incident be afforded double standards due to his place of employment?

Jeffrey Weinhaus

It seems we have a developing story. Jeffrey Weinhaus [born October 6, 1966], a member of Central Missouri Copblock, has been gunned down by the Missouri State Highway Patrol. Jeff was working on and had a lot of info incriminating info on surrounding Leos and various departments.

A friend and I, that both knew Jeff personally, were discussing this event and this is what he had to say…

“He named highway patrol cops by name. we have been exposing them all. we have been physically trying to wake the masses and start this party before they do. they start it, its game over from the start. he was armed, that is true. he was very fucking scared, and wasn’t leaving home without one. he was going to meet the troopers. there was no warrant, yet the news says there is, so meh. they called him there to meet and shoot him, and they did.”

http://www.copblock.org/20857/jeffreyweinhaus/

none

{ 0 comments }

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

attack on paid for CIA agents

An interior view of the damage at the U.S. consulate, which was attacked and set on fire by gunmen yesterday, in Benghazi September 12, 2012.(Reuters / Esam Al-Fetori)

The US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed when local militia assaulted Washington’s consulate in Benghazi. President Barack Obama has condemned the attack.

Reports from various sources paint an unclear picture of the circumstances surrounding Ambassador John Christopher Steven’s death.

A group of extremist militia members stormed Benghazi’s US consulate on Tuesday night. Stevens may not have been killed in the Tuesday night assault, however, but rather when a second mob attacked his motorcade as it was leaving Benghazi Wednesday morning, the Guardian said.

Libyan officials alleged that Islamist militants fired rockets at Steven’s car, killing him and three other embassy staffers. Witnesses cited by local media claimed that members of the hardline Islamist group Ansar Al-Sharia were among the ranks of the attackers.

President Obama and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen have roundly condemned the attack, and mourned Steven’s death.

“Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi,” Obama said in a statement.

“We apologise to the United States, the people and to the whole world for what happened,” interim Libyan president Mohammed Magarief said in a news conference. “We confirm that no one will escape from punishment and questioning.”

The US diplomatic facility in eastern Libya was evacuated following violent clashes, and a horde of militia members then stormed the building and torched it.

Tunisian Salafis are now calling for an attack on their country’s US embassy, Tunisian media outlets said. Salafis militants had previously attempted to attack the embassy, but were repelled by security forces. Many in the region believe another attack is imminent.

President Obama has ordered increased security for US diplomatic personnel around the world, and a Marine fleet anti-terrorist security team has been dispatched to Libya to boost security.
Film mocking Muhammad sparks violence, worldwide anger among Muslims

The outbreak of violence is part of global Islamic outrage against the American amateur film ‘Innocence of Muslims,’ which was deemed offensive to the Prophet Muhammad. Similar attacks took place at the US embassy in Cairo, Egypt.

The independent film was allegedly produced and directed by Sam Bacile, a 56 year-old Israeli-American real estate developer. According to Ynet, Bacile said he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors, whom he declined to identify. On the eleventh anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, controversial pastor Terry Jones released a video promoting the film, which portrays the Prophet in what he described as a “satirical” manner.

http://rt.com/news/us-ambassador-libya-killed-946/

none

{ 0 comments }

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

A St. Louis, Michigan police officer intent on enforcing a mandatory leash law repeatedly shot a family’s dog as a neighbor watched in horror.

Via WNEM:

Walmsley says she was outside playing with her own dog when her neighbor’s golden retriever, Scout, ran over into her yard. She says she called the dog over to play, which Scout did, and then Scout ran back over back into his own yard. That’s when Walmsley says a police officer showed up.

Walmsley said the officer asked if the was dog hers. She said “no,” but told the officer Scout wasn’t dangerous. She says the officer tried to catch the dog, who apparently didn’t want to be caught. The dog tried to run away and when cornered by the officer, let out a little growl. Walmsley says she couldn’t believe what happened next.

“I heard ‘pop pop pop pop pop,’ and I thought, ‘what is going on,’ and I [saw] the St. Louis Police Department standing over my dog,” said Scout’s owner.

“He just started shooting him, he just kept shooting him in the head,” said Walmsley. “I said, ‘What are you doing? He’s just a puppy!’”

The dog was taken to the vet were it later died.

The witness says the officer wasn’t provoked and she doesn’t feel his reaction was warranted. Scout’s owners were inside their house during the incident.

The police chief says the shooting was justified because the officer “felt threatened.”

That the dog was the one being threatened and was merely acting in self-defense I guess is in no way relevant.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=40914

none

{ 0 comments }

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

ATF’s latest gun grab – they can even take your home.

by Mr. Charrington on September 10, 2012

The Obama administration is making it easier for bureaucrats to take away guns without offering the accused any realistic due process. In a final rule published last week, the Justice Department granted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” That means government can grab firearms and other property from someone who has never been convicted or even charged with any crime.

It’s a dangerous extension of the civil-forfeiture doctrine, a surreal legal fiction in which the seized property — not a person — is put on trial. This allows prosecutors to dispense with pesky constitutional rights, which conveniently don’t apply to inanimate objects. In this looking-glass world, the owner is effectively guilty until proved innocent and has the burden of proving otherwise. Anyone falsely accused will never see his property again unless he succeeds in an expensive uphill legal battle.

Such seizures are common in drug cases, which sometimes can ensnare people who have done nothing wrong. James Lieto found out about civil forfeiture the hard way when the FBI seized $392,000 from his business because the money was being carried by an armored-car firm he had hired that had fallen under a federal investigation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Mr. Lieto was never accused of any crime, yet he spent thousands in legal fees to get his money back.

Law enforcement agencies love civil forfeiture because it’s extremely lucrative. The Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund had $2.8 billion in booty in 2011, according to a January audit. Seizing guns from purported criminals is nothing new; Justice destroyed or kept 11,355 guns last year, returning just 396 to innocent owners. The new ATF rule undoubtedly is designed to ramp up the gun-grabbing because, as the rule justification claims, “The nexus between drug trafficking and firearm violence is well established.”

The main problem is that civil forfeiture creates a perverse profit motive, leaving bureaucrats with strong incentives to abuse a process that doesn’t sufficiently protect those who may be wrongly accused. Criminal forfeiture is more appropriate because it’s tied to a conviction in a court with the option of a jury trial and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocents like Mr. Lieto have to fight against the might of the U.S. government with a watered-down standard that stacks the legal deck so prosecutors can get a quick win.

The rule extending civil-forfeiture power to the ATF recognizes this dynamic, stating with perhaps unconscious cynicism that an uncontested civil forfeiture “can be perfected for minimal cost” compared to the “hundreds or thousands of dollars” and “years” needed for judicial forfeiture. Nowhere is there any recognition of the burden placed on innocent citizens stripped of their property, or of the erosion of their civil liberties. In fact, the rule argues that, because in the past the ATF could turn over requests for civil forfeiture to the Drug Enforcement Administration, there has been no change in “individual rights.”

Instead of expanding the profit motive in policing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. should be working to eliminate it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/atfs-latest-gun-grab/

none

{ 0 comments }

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...