The true origins of the two World Wars have been deleted from all our history books and replaced with mythology. Neither War was started (or desired) by Germany, but both at the instigation of a group of European Zionist Jews with the stated intent of the total destruction of Germany. The documentation is overwhelming and the evidence undeniable. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
That history is being repeated today in a mass grooming of the Western world’s people (especially Americans) in preparation for World War III – which I believe is now imminent.
This method includes the employment of living organisms or chemical substances to kill or incapacitate. Although the Geneva Convention prohibits a nationstate from using bio-chemical weapons it is not enough to prevent against its hostile use. Developing an infectious agent and then dispersing it in the adversary’s territory has the potential to cause a social and economical catastrophe. The examples of anthrax released in Washington DC in 2001 or the use of chlorine by insurgents in Iraq in 2007 increases the requirement for biocontainment and bio-security.
The Fluoride-Induced American Holocaust Continues Unabated
“Fluoridation amounts to public murder on a grand scale.” — Dr. Dean Burk
For liberals fluoridation of water became a cause to advance government intervention in behalf of improving dental health. After decades of fluoridation numerous unrefuted studies have established not only that fluoridation is damaging to teeth, but also is associated with a wide range of health and cognitive issues ranging from cancer to ADHD and lower IQ scores. Despite the evidence the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the fluoride lobby and associated bought scientists continue to proclaim the unproven benefits of fluoridation. Soren Korsgaard concludes his report on the real evidence with the suggestion that those responsible for the immense adverse health effects of fluoridation be brought before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. This is a very important readable scientific report. Read it and see the total absence of concern for public health by the CDC.
— Paul Craig Roberts
Seventy-four long years have passed since the US government decided to start community water fluoridation of a few selected cities. Back then when fluoride was first added to water supplies, asbestos was the preferred fireproofing material, PCBs were used as insulation and in pesticides, and the notoriously “safe and effective” DDT was sprayed in schools and from airplanes over large populations, killing tens of thousands of people from cancer and other diseases. All of these chemicals have been banned, except fluoride. Since 1945, the US fluoridation program has expanded massively and now encompasses over 70% of all community water supplies while the majority of the world has rejected or banned it (only 5% of the world, US included, consumed artificially fluoridated water in 2012). Fluoride is allegedly added to water supplies and most commercial toothpaste to strengthen teeth and hence reduce cavities. Until recently, US water supplies contained 1.0-1.2 ppm of fluoride i.e. around one milligram per liter of water. In 2015, the US government lowered the recommended amount of fluoride to 0.7 ppm.
The Food and Drug Administration classifies fluoride as a prescription drug; yet, there is no control of the intake. Athletes, people living in warmer climates and the elderly who cannot excrete fluoride to the same extent as younger generations are obviously overexposed. Fluoride is, among others, also absorbed by plants and animals making it increasingly difficult to avoid. Ethically, fluoridation deprives people of informed consent to medication. On the other hand, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has proclaimed that water fluoridation is “one of public health’s greatest success stories” and “one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.” The CDC proclaims to work “24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S.” The veracity of these statements by the CDC, is for the readers to judge in the pages that follow.
Provocations Have A History Of Escalating Into War
Can War Be Avoided and the Planet Saved?
Paul Craig Roberts
The Russian Government and President Putin are coming under pressure not from US sanctions, which are very good for Russia as they force Russia into independence, but from Russian patriots who are tiring of Putin’s non-confrontational responses to Washington’s never-ending insults and military provocations. Russian patriots don’t want war, but they do want their country’s honor defended, and they believe Putin is failing in this job. Some of them are saying that Putin himself is a West-worshipping Atlanticist Integrationist.
This disillusionment with Putin, together with Putin’s endorsement of raising the retirement age for pensions, a trap set for him by Russia’s neoliberal economists, have hurt Putin’s approval ratings at the precise time that he will again be tested by Washington in Syria.
In many columns, I have defended Putin from the charge that he is not sufficiently Russian. Putin wants to avoid war, because he knows it would be nuclear, the consequences of which would be dire. He knows that the US and its militarily impotent NATO allies cannot possibly conduct conventional warfare against Russia or China, much less against both. Putin also understands that the sanctions are damaging Washington’s European vassals and could eventually force the European vassal states into independence that would constrain Washington’s belligerence. Even with Russia’s new super weapons, which probably give Putin the capability of destroying the entirety of the Western World with little or no damage to Russia, Putin sees no point in so much destruction, especially as the consequences are unknown. There could be nuclear winter or other results that would put the planet into decline as a life-sustaining entity.
Sometimes We Learn The Most About Ourselves From Our Opponents
This is a North Korean film with English voiceover that examines
the role of propaganda in the United States and the Western world generally to
keep the population distracted, ignorant, and brainwashed.
North Korea is the most demonized country on earth, more so even
than Iran, Russia, and Syria. Americans are likely to dismiss the film as North
Korean propaganda. However, the film is worth watching, because it shows how we
are perceived by other people, and it is not flattering.
O jornalista investigador Seymour Hersh https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh
confirmou, através de fontes do FBI, que os emails de Hillary foram furtados
por Seth Rich e oferecidos ao Wikileaks em troca de dinheiro. Hersh confirma
que as notícias falsas sobre a pirataria informática russa foi uma campanha de
desinformação iniciada pelo Diretor da CIA, John Brennan.
Hersh também confirma que, simplesmente, a comunicação mediática escreve o que a CIA lhes
conta. Diz que foi por esse motivo que ele deixou o jornal ‘New York Times’, há anos.
Eric Zuesse conclui que o relatório de Hersh é a prova
de que a oligarquia americana protege os seus interesses, controlando as explicações e enganando o público americano, que é como a Matrix funciona.
Durante muitos meses, observamos
que os emails da DNC (Comissão
Nacional Democrática) foram divulgados por alguém que tinha acesso a essa
informação confidencial enão foram pirateados pelos russos.
O jornalista investigador, Seymour Hersh, vencedor
do prémio Pulitzer - que revelou em 1974 que a CIA estava a espiar Americanos e que foi o primeiro a divulgar a história do
massacre Mai Lai, no Vietnam e o escândalo da tortura nas prisões, no Iraque -
disse numa entrevista telefónica recente, relacionada com o WikiLeaks:
[A
polícia do DC aprisionou o computador de Seth Rich, mas não conseguiu aceder à
senha/à password dele.] Então, chamam a unidade de informática do FBI.
***
Os agentes do FBI Feds acedem [à senha/password do
computador de Rich], e é isto que eles encontram. Isto está de acordo com o
relatório do FBI.
***
O que o relatório diz é que – em determinada
altura, no final da primavera ou no início do verão - ele [Rich] entra em
contacto com o WikiLeaks. Essa prova está no seu computador.
***
Eles [o FBI] descobriram que o que ele [Rich] tinha
feito, foi ter enviado (ao Wikileaks) uma série de documentos - de emails, de
emails sensacionais - do DNC.
A propósito, toda essa patifaria sobre os emails da
DNC, eles não foram pirateados...
Ele (Rich)ofereceu
uma amostra, uma amostra extensa, tenho a certeza, de dezenas de emails, e
disse: ‘Quero dinheiro’. [Lembrem-se,
que o WikiLeaks geralmente paga aos denunciantes.]
Mais tarde, o WikiLeaks conseguiu a senha/password.
Ele [Rich] tinha uma dropbox, uma dropbox protegida, o que não é difícil de
fazer.
***
Eles (o Wikileaks) tiveram acesso à dropbox. O
mesmo consta no relatório do FBI.
Ele [Rich] também permite que algumas pessoas
saibam com quem ele estava a lidar ... a palavra foi divulgada, de acordo com o
relatório do FBI: "Eu também partilhei essa drop-box com alguns amigos,
portanto, se algo me acontecer, não vai resolver o vosso problema".
***
Mas o Wikileaks conseguiu o acesso, antes de ele
ser morto.
***
Tenho uma narrativa da maneira como começou esse
absurdo. É uma operação Brennan [do anterior Director da CIA, John Brennan].
Foi uma desinformação dos americanos [sobre a campanha].
Durante a última parte de uma chamada telefónica, realizada
pelo maior jornalista de investigação do mundo, Seymour Hersh , ele apresenta agora, “uma narrativa [da sua investigação] sobre a maneira como
essa coisa maldita começou”, incluindo quem está realmente por trás das mentiras
do "RussiaGate" e o motivo por que é que estão a espalhar essas
mentiras.
Num vídeo do YouTube, datado de 1 de Agosto,
ele revela as suas fontes internas no FBI e no Departamento da Polícia de
Washington DC – presentemente e muito antes do Conselheiro Especial do
Departamento de Justiça, Robert Mueller, apresentar as suas “descobertas” oficiais
à nação – a respeito das acusações de que a Rússia teve algum envolvimento nos
vazamentos ao Wikileaks a respeito da DNC (Comissão Democrática Nacional) e da
campanha de Hillary Clinton, que essas mesmas acusações divulgadas pela imprensa,
eram uma mentira instilada pela CIA e que aquilo que o Wikileaks conseguiu,
eram apenas divulgações (incluindo, pelo menos, as fornecidas por Seth Rich,
funcionário assassinado da DNC) e não eram de ninguém do exterior (incluindo
“os russos”), mas que Rich não foi morto por esse motivo, mas, sim, atingido
nas costas durante um assalto brutal, que ocorreu nas redondezas da zona de
elevada criminalidade de Washington DC, onde ele morava. Eis o video e a
transcrição do mesmo:
—
Dir-lhe-ei o que sei:
(Indistinto)
… surgiu de um relatório do FBI, não me pergunte como.
Posso imaginar, estive lá tempo suficiente.
O jovem - não considero que foi assassinado [por
causa disto]. Não penso que foi assassinado devido ao que ele sabia.
Esse jovem era um bom rapaz, de 27 anos. Não era um
perito em Informática, sabia alguma coisa, era programador de dados, mas aprendeu
coisas e residia numa rua, algures.
Vivia num bairro problemático e, precisamente, na
área onde ele morava, tinha havido - tenho a certeza que você sabe -
aconteceram cerca de 8, 9 ou mesmo 10 assaltos violentos, na maioria deles com
alguém a brandir uma arma e tenho a certeza de que você sabe.
As mãos [do jovem] apresentavam marcas, os polícias
concluíram [HERSH VIU O RELATÓRIO DA POLÍCIA]que ele lutou contra alguém,
tentou correr e eles alvejaram-no duas vezes nas costas, com balas de calibre
22 e depois o jovem que fez isso, fugiu. Ficou assustado.
Então, os polícias fazem isto, aqui está o que
ninguém sabe. O que lhe estou a dizer agora, talvez você saiba algo sobre isto.
Quando ocorre uma morte como essa, os polícias de (Washington)
DC, como você está [a lidar agora com uma pessoa que está] morta, você
geralmente não age rapidamente e vai embora.
Sim, eu sei qual é o motivo. Sei aquilo que acontece.
Você tem de ir ao apartamento do jovem e ver o que pode encontrar. Se ele está
morto, você não precisa de um mandado, mas a maioria dos polícias obtêm um mandado,
porque não sabem se o jovem tem um colega de quarto. Portanto, requerem um
mandado. Estou a dizer-lhe. Existe uma coisa dessas.
Eles entram e não podem conseguir muito do
computador dele, [para encontrar a] senha/password. Os polícias não sabem muito
sobre esse assunto, por isso, têm uma divisão informática, em DC, cujos
funcionários são mais sofisticados. Eles entram no computador e investigam.
A ideia talvez seja que ele tenha tido uma série de
trocas com alguém que disse: 'Vou matar-te, seu filho da p…' por causa de uma
jovem, e eles não conseguem entrar. Os peritos em informática são um pouco
melhores, mas não podem perceber o sentido do que encontram. Assim sendo,
chamam a unidade dos peritos de informática do FBI.
A unidade DC, os que fazem o [controlo] de dados de
proveniência russa e os auxiliares, são verdadeiros peritos. O responsável que
dirige o departamento de Washington, é como um general de três estrelas numa base
do exército. Está preparado [indistinto], você sabe o que quero dizer.
Ele vai fazer um trabalho primoroso.
Existe uma unidade informática que é excelente. O
que você obtém num mandado, a informação pública que você obtém num mandado não
inclui os depoimentos subentendidos sobre o motivo pelo qual você está a entrar
no computador, qual foi o motivo da investigação. Isso quase nunca está disponível,
posso dizer-lhe – em 99% das vezes, a tese de um mandado é um documento público.
Então eles chamam os federais. Os federais entram (no computador) e aqui está o
que eles encontram [HERSH VIU O RELATÓRIO DO FBI].
Isto está de acordo com o relatório do FBI. O que
eles verificam é que, em primeiro lugar, você tem de conhecer alguns factos
básicos. Um dos factos básicos é que não existe nenhum email DNC ou email
protegido, depois do dia 22 de Maio. O último email de qualquer um desses
grupos. Então, o que o relatório diz, é o seguinte:
(2: 50-) Num
dado momento, no final da primavera passada, do qual estamos a falar, em 21 de
Junho - não sei, talvez no final da primavera ou início do verão - ele (Seth
Rich) entra em contacto com o Wikileaks. Isso está no seu computador e ele faz
contacto: “Agora, tenho que ter cuidado porque conheci Julian [Assange] na Europa,
há dez ou doze anos [atrás]. Afasto-me de pessoas assim. Ele convidou-me e
quando estou em Londres, recebo sempre uma mensagem: ‘Venha ver-me na Embaixada
do Equador’ e eu não vou lá. Tenho problemas suficientes, mesmo em ser
fotografado. Ele está sob a vigilância total de toda a gente.”
Eles descobriram o que ele tinha feito. Ele [Seth
Rich] enviou uma série de documentos, emails da DNC - e, a propósito, todo esse
assunto sobre o DNC, você sabe, era ou não era “uma armação”? Seja o que for que tenha acontecido, foram os
próprios democratas que escreveram essa porcaria. Percebe o que quero dizer?
Tudo o que sei é que ele ofereceu uma amostra,
envia uma amostra, você sabe, tenho a certeza, dezenas de emails e disse:
“Quero dinheiro”. Mais tarde, o Wikileaks conseguiu a senha/a password [SETH
RICH VENDEU AO WIKILEAKS O ACESSO AO SEU COMPUTADOR.] Ele tinha uma drop-box,
uma drop-box protegida por uma [senha], o que não é difícil fazer. Quero com
isto dizer, que você não precisa ser um especialista em TI [Tecnologia de Informação].
Ele não era burro. Eles (Wikileaks) conseguiram o acesso à drop-box. Tudo isto
consta no relatório do FBI.
Também deixou que soubessem com quem ele estava a
lidar. Não sei como ele conseguiu. Vou contra-lhe tudo sobre o Wikileaks num
segundo. Com o Wikileaks, o mecanismo… Mas, de acordo com o relatório do FBI,
ele partilhou a sua drop-box com alguns amigos, então "Se algo me
acontecer, isto não vai resolver o vosso problema", ok?
Não sei o que isso significa. Mas, de qualquer
forma, o Wikileaks teve acesso. E, antes de ele ser morto, posso dizer-lhe
agora, [o Director da CIA, durante a Presidência Obama, John] Brennan é um
idiota. Conheci essas pessoas durante anos. Clapper é um tipo melhor, mas não é
uma pessoa extremamente inteligente. Os fulanos da NSA são atrasados mentais e o
problema com todos esses fulanos é que a única maneira de serem contratados
pela SAIC é se fornecerem alguns contratos [do governo]. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/government_contracts.
É a única razão pela qual eles ficaram lá.
Com Trump, eles foram embora, vão viver das suas
pensões, não vão conseguir fazer [grandes fortunas]. Tenho de dizer-lhe, que os
fulanos nesse trabalho, não querem viver das suas pensões. Querem estar nas
administrações [das empresas], como os seus [indistinto] milhares de
dólares [corte].
Tenho alguém lá dentro, você sabe, estou lá há
muito tempo. Alguém que irá ler um arquivo para mim. Essa pessoa é
incrivelmente precisa e cuidadosa. É uma pessoa de um nível muito elevado e
far-me-á esse favor. Você vai ter de confiar em mim. Tenho o que eles chamam no
meu emprego, jornalismo de longa data. Tenho uma explicação da maneira como
tudo começou.
(5: 50-) É
uma operação de Brennan. Foi uma desinformação criada pelos americanos e o
Presidente, no momento em que eles começaram a contar à imprensa - eles eram o
principal alvo de atenção – quando informaram a imprensa. O chefe da NSA contou
à imprensa - o maldito e estupido Rogers - dizendo à imprensa que nós [eles]
até sabíamos quem é que vazou a informação nos Serviços Secretos militares
russos. Tudo mentiras flagrantes. Eles estavam a divulgá-las. Trabalhei no New
York Times muitos anos, eram pessoas inteligentes, mas estavam totalmente
dependentes das fontes.
—Se o Presidente
ou o Chefe da CIA lhes disser algo, eles acreditam realmente nisso. Aposentei-me
do Times no final da Guerra do Vietnam, em 1972, porque eles estavam
bloqueados. Então, é isso que o Times é. Essas pessoas dirigem o Times, e Trump
não está errado. Gostaria que ele se acalmasse, tivesse um Secretário de
Imprensa melhor, você sabe, que não fosse tão... Trump não está errado ao
pensar que todos mentiram sobre a sua pessoa.
ATUALIZAÇÃO:
A cobertura da comunicação mediática sobre este
assunto está concentrada em alegações de que Seth Rich foi assassinado a fim de
ser silenciado. Toda essa cobertura mediática ignora muito do que Hersh disse ao
telefone (onde Hersh deixa claro que Rich, de facto, foi assassinado num
assalto vulgar) e, portanto, deve ser visto como um exemplo do que o Washington
Post e outros jornais da comunicação mediática designam como "notícias
falsas", mas que realmente se aplica a eles mesmos, acima de tudo, tanto
os da esquerda como os da direita.
O objectivo dessas histórias de notícias
"distorcidas" pode ser o desejo dos aristocratas do Partido Democrata
e do Partido Republicano, distrairem a atenção do público da compreensão muito
mais profunda a que conduz a "narrativa" que Hersh, nesse clip, está
a descrever: apodrecidos pela aristocracia dos EUA, que controla estes doispartidos políticos da América, para enganar o público americano.O objectivo
é proteger a aristocracia. Isto não é publicável; é o samizdat(1) americano. A
corrupção governa os Estados Unidos. Não é o público. Isto é o que Hersh
descreve nesta sua "narrativa".
( (1) --Samizdat: A cópia e a
distribuição clandestina de literatura proibida pelo Estado, especialmente,
como acontecia antes, nos países comunistas da Europa Oriental.
Twilight of the Courts: The Elusive
Search for Justice in the American Police State
By John W. Whitehead June 05, 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.
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, an Alabama police officer shot a driver exiting his car, mistakenly believing the wallet in
his hand to be a gun. From
the time the driver stumbled out of his car, waving his wallet in the air, to
the time he was shot in the abdomen, only six seconds had elapsed. Although the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded “that a reasonable officer in
Hancock’s position would have feared for his life,” the video footage makes
clear that the courts continue to march in lockstep with the police, because no
reasonable person would shoot first and ask questions later. A report by the
Justice Department found that half of the unarmed people shot by one police
department over a seven-year span were “shot because the officer saw
something (like a cellphone) or some action (like a person pulling at the waist
of their pants) and misidentified it as a threat.”
Police have free reign to use
drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” In Florida v. Harris, a unanimous U.S.
Supreme Court determined that police officers may use highly
unreliable drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. In doing so, the
justices sided with police by claiming that all that the police need to do to
prove probable cause for a search is simply assert that a drug detection dog
has received “proper” training. The ruling turns man’s best friend into an extension
of the police state, provided the use of a K-9 unit takes place within a
reasonable amount of time (Rodriguez v. United States).
Not only are police largely
protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for
wrongdoing. The Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a police officer who allowed a police
dog to maul a homeless man innocent of any wrongdoing. The case arose in 2010 after a police dog attacked a
homeless man near an abandoned house where police were tracking a robbery
suspect. The cop refused to call off the dog immediately, despite the man’s
pleading and the fact that he did not match the description of the robbery
suspect. The homeless man suffered deep bites on his hand, arm and thigh—which
required a nearly 16-inch skin graft—as well as causing severe bleeding,
bruising, swelling and an arterial blood clot. Incredibly, not only did the
court declare that the police officer was protected by qualified immunity,
which incentivizes government officials to violate constitutional rights
without fear of repercussion, but it had the nerve to suggest that being mauled
by a police dog is the equivalent of a lawful Terry stop in
which police may stop and hold a person for questioning on the basis of
“reasonable suspicion.”
Police can subject Americans to
strip searches, no matter the “offense.” A divided U.S. Supreme Court actually prioritized making life easier for
overworked jail officials over the basic right of Americans to be free from debasing strip searches. In its
5-4 ruling in Florence v. Burlington, the Court declared that any
person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the
severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a
minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail
officials, which involves exposing the genitals and the buttocks. This “license
to probe” is now being extended to roadside stops, as police officers
throughout the country have begun performing roadside strip searches—some
involving anal and vaginal probes—without any evidence of wrongdoing and
without a warrant.
Police can break into homes without
a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. In an 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v. King,
the U.S. Supreme Court placed their trust in the discretion of police officers,
rather than in the dictates of the Constitution, when they gave police greater leeway to break into homes
or apartments without a warrant. Despite the fact that the police in question ended
up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment
and violated just about every tenet that stands between us and a police state,
the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real
protection in the face of all manner of abuses by police.
Police can use knock-and-talk
tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Aggressive “knock and talk” practices have
become thinly veiled, warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and
intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors
in the middle of the night. Poor Andrew Scott didn’t even get a chance to say
no to such a heavy-handed request before he was gunned down by police who pounded aggressively on the wrong door at
1:30 a.m., failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot
and killed the man when he answered the door while holding a gun in
self-defense.
Police can interrogate minors
without parents present. In
a devastating ruling that could very well do away with what little Fourth
Amendment protections remain to public school students and their families—the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a lower court ruling
in Camreta v. Greene, which required government authorities to
secure a warrant, a court order or parental consent before interrogating students
at school. The ramifications are far-reaching, rendering public school students
as wards of the state. Once again, the courts sided with law enforcement
against the rights of the people.
It’s a crime to not identify
yourself when a policeman asks your name. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada, a majority of the high court agreed that refusing to answer when a policeman
asks “What’s your name?” can rightfully be considered a crime under Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute. No
longer will Americans, even those not suspected of or charged with any crime,
have the right to remain silent when stopped and questioned by a police
officer.
Police can carry out no-knock raids
if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous. Police can perform a “no-knock” raid as long as
they have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence,
under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile or give
occupants a chance to destroy evidence of a crime (Richards v. Wisconsin).
Legal ownership of a firearm is also enough to justify a no-knock raid by
police (Quinn v. Texas). For instance, a Texas man had his home subject
to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the
suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. The
homeowner was actually shot by police through his closed
bedroom door.
The military can arrest and detain
American citizens. In
refusing to hear Hedges v. Obama (2014), a legal challenge to
the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of
2012 (NDAA), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can
arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. In so doing, the high
court also passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of
Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the
American People, we
are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence
carried out against individuals posing little or no real threat, who are
nevertheless subjected to such excessive police force as to end up maimed or
killed.
When all is said and done, what
these assorted court rulings add up to is a disconcerting government mindset
that interprets the Constitution one way for the elite—government entities, the
police, corporations and the wealthy—and uses a second measure altogether for
the underclasses—that is, you and me.
URGENT IMPORTANT -- FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE NEEDED FOR A YOUNG BOY 14 Y OLD WITH BRAIN CANCER
Dear Friends,
I have never asked any money/donations for myself in my blogs (400) but this is an exceptional emergency. Please help the best you can to assist Isabelle, our French Coordinator, to alleviate as much as possible her step son's health condition.
You can donate through Kees De Graaff
Type your recurring amount here:
The email address connected with Kees Paypal account is keesdegraaff@gmail.com
/https://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2021/09/25/huawei-executive-meng-wanzhou-receives-warm-welcome-upon-return-to-china/_1_meng_wanzhou_2.jpg)
