Give Us Your Urine
by Jon Rappoport
August 2, 2016
Every day in the news business is a fake day.
Headlines and articles smear lies, cover stories, distractions, diversions, and phony parroting across the landscape. And headlines that would reveal important truth are omitted.
The gullible buy in and submit themselves to prime-A mind control.
Here are three current stories I have covered in detail already:
Zika, Florida (one Miami area is the focus): the CDC has issued a travel warning. Pregnant women, or women planning to become pregnant, should avoid this area. Feds are going door asking for urine samples, to test for Zika.
But every effort in Brazil, America, Colombia and other countries to link Zika to the birth defect called microcephaly has failed. Utterly.
The correlation between the presence of Zika and cases of microcephaly is so weak, so thin, that researchers have resorted to a bumbling “add-on” analysis. It goes this way:
“If we can find several groups in which Zika and microcephaly are barely connected at all, and combine these findings, we can say they add up to a convincing case.”
In Brazil, embarrassed researchers have simply given up trying to show a correlation between Zika and the birth defect. They simply assert the connection, despite the fact that, at best, Zika is present in perhaps one-fifth of all microcephaly cases.
By any scientific measure, this constitutes counter-evidence that Zika causes microcephaly. But it doesn’t deter the CDC or the World Health Organization. They march on, their message of unrelenting fear fed directly into the brain of the mainstream press, and out into the public. The promise? A blockbuster vaccine, and high profits for Pharma.
Shifting to Hillary Clinton: her email scandal is, at the least, a case of extreme gross negligence in the handling of classified materials. FBI Director Comey said as much, several weeks ago, as he recommended no-prosecution during a global press conference.
“She’s guilty as hell, but we shouldn’t take her to court.”
Comey, acting as if he were, suddenly, a Grand Jury, the US Attorney General, and an appellate judge, misread the Federal Penal Statute—which specifically states that intent to do harm is irrelevant, and gross negligence is the standard—and dismissed a felony case against Hillary out of hand.
Now, Bill Binney, a former high-level NSA analyst who exposed the Agency’s crimes long before Ed Snowden emerged, states that the NSA would actually have all her emails, including the ones which were deleted and never turned over to the Justice Department.
Not only that, the NSA would, as a matter of course, share this information with the FBI and the CIA. In other words, the FBI has been posturing for over a year, in its comments about the missing emails. They could have access to them with a single request.
But mainstream press outlets are ignoring these new revelations. The Hillary case is history. Nothing to see. It’s old news. She’s been exonerated. She’s good to go in her campaign to win the Presidency. That’s the unanimous mainstream consensus.
And finally, Obama has signed the Dark Act, the federal bill which guts the right of any state to clearly label food products containing GMOs. Instead, a new federal standard will be developed—a so-called Q rating system. Under this program, which may possibly be implemented in the next five years, consumers can, if they’re aware, stop shopping and use their i-phones (or an 800 number) to discover what a “Q” means for a given product. Shop all day, check up on four products.
Good luck. Monsanto wins. As I’ve detailed, Obama is the GMO President. He has appointed a whole raft of former Monsanto people to key posts in his administration. He has let more new GMO food crops in the door than any President. This, despite his nudge and wink to supporters during his first run for the White House—signaling that he was on their side, and would make sure they’d know what was in their food. It was all con all the time.
But of course, the mainstream press is giving this zero coverage. There was barely a mention the other day when he signed the new federal bill making GMO labels a cumbersome and useless piece of nonsense.
It’s a good and great thing that mainstream news is dying like a giant corpse who insists on continuing to walk down the street. The New York Times, which keeps re-financing its debt, is showing disastrous numbers for ad-sales revenue this quarter. I’m waiting for the death rattle, when all Times’ front-page stories will center on celebrities and their peccadillos. “Goofy Toofy, Reality Star, shows off her very pregnant shape on a beach in Monaco, in a tiny bikini you won’t believe.” “The British Queen’s fourth cousin’s nephew tries to grow a beard in support of unlimited European immigration.”
Yes, why not go all the way? The Times reporters would love it. Instead of channeling lies out of certified experts, they could make it all up. Low gossip is a lot easier than high gossip.
Meanwhile, pretending a Presidential candidate is innocent of a felony that could carry a 10-year sentence, opening the way to unlabeled GMO anything-and-everything, and blaming a harmless virus for a birth defect that has existed for centuries—it’s just another day at the office.
“Want to grab a few drinks after work?”
“What are you working on?”
“A story about how Putin created ISIS when he was fourteen years old.”
“Sounds good. Who’s your source on it?”
“Osama Bin Laden.”
“Isn’t he dead?”
“The FBI just found a few hundred emails he sent to Putin in 1973.”
By Derrick Broze June 24, 2016
To understand the plans of tyrants we must examine past attempts to destroy liberty in the name of security. To understand where we are today we must understand what might have been. In Part 2 of this series we take a look at the infamous Patriot Act II.
In the days following the 9/11 attacks the U.S Congress moved quickly to pass their Orwellian bill the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” or simply, the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act dramatically expanded the U.S. government’s abilities to monitor emails and landline phone calls, as well as allowed access to voicemail through a search warrant rather than through a title III wiretap order. There is also section 215 of the Patriot Act, which has been used to justify mass surveillance programs by the National Security Agency. (For more information on the history of the Patriot Act see part 1 of this series.)
While you may be familiar with the dangers and civil liberties violations of the Patriot Act, you may not remember a second threat to freedom launched by the Bush Administration shortly after the passage of the first Patriot Act.
In early February 2003, the Center for Public Integrity obtained a draft of previously unreleased legislation known as the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, or the Patriot II, as it came to be known. The bill was drafted by the staff of John Ashcroft, who was serving as Attorney General at the time.
At the time of the release of the text, the bill had reportedly only been seen by a handful of people, although rumors of an update to the Patriot Act had been swirling around D.C. However, an Office of Legislative Affairs “control sheet” that was obtained by the PBS program NOW with Bill Moyers seems to indicate that a copy of the bill was sent to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Vice President Richard Cheney on Jan. 10, 2003. “Attached for your review and comment is a draft legislative proposal entitled the ‘Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,’” the memo, sent from “OLP” or Office of Legal Policy, says.
The draft of the bill was immediately criticized as an expansion of the already invasive powers granted to the Bush Administration in the first Patriot Act. Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor and author of Terrorism and the Constitution, told the Center that the Patriot II bill “would radically expand law enforcement and intelligence gathering authorities, reduce or eliminate judicial oversight over surveillance, authorize secret arrests, create a DNA database based on unchecked executive ‘suspicion,’ create new death penalties, and even seek to take American citizenship away from persons who belong to or support disfavored political groups.”
Following the disclosure of the draft, Barbara Comstock, director of public affairs for the Justice Dept., released a statement saying that, “Department staff have not presented any final proposals to either the Attorney General or the White House. It would be premature to speculate on any future decisions, particularly ideas or proposals that are still being discussed at staff levels.”
The American Civil Liberties Union outlined some of the most egregious changes proposed in the draft of the Patriot II. For example, Section 301-306 would have created a “Terrorist Identification Database,” a DNA database for suspected terrorists. Here are a few of the other changes proposed by the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003:
- The government would no longer be required to disclose the identity of anyone, even an American citizen, detained in connection with a terror investigation – until criminal charges are filed, no matter how long that takes (sec 201).
- Current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity would be repealed (sec. 312).
- The government would be allowed to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant (secs. 126, 128, 129).
- Wiretaps without any court order for up to 15 days after terror attack would be permissible (sec. 103).
- Release of information about health/safety hazards posed by chemical and other plants would be restricted (sec. 202).
- The reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism would be expanded – individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501); their organization could be subject to wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) and asset seizure (secs. 428, 428).
- Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it (sec. 321, 322).
- Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings (secs. 503, 504).
“Where is the evidence that the law passed less than two years ago is insufficient? When will Congress draw the line and say ‘this much of our civil liberties you’ve taken under the guise of terrorism — you may have no more’?”, asked Cindy Cohn, Legal Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Thankfully, public criticism of the Patriot II was so great that the bill never really gained traction and by the end of 2003 had completely fallen out of favor. However, as The Washington Times noted,“Democrats said the strategy was “to sneak” the elements of the bill through Congress, without presenting it as the next installment of the Patriot Act.” As we showed in part 1 of this series, provisions like Total Information Awareness and the Patriot II were still eventually developed – only under different names, using different agencies.
One provision of the Patriot II that was quickly adopted under a different bill relates to the government’s use of a tool known as National Security Letters. The Patriot Act vastly increased the use of National Security Letters, a tool used by the government to force telecommunications companies to give customer information without the use of a warrant from a judge. The NSLs are typically issued by the FBI to gather information from companies when related to national-security investigations. This information can include customer names, addresses, phone and Internet records, and banking and credit statements. The NSL also requires employees who have been questioned to be silenced via a gag order which prevents them from notifying anyone that the government is invading customers’ privacy.
In late 2003, Congress voted in favor of an intelligence bill that included a provision which expanded the power of NSLs. The provision was directly out of the text of the Patriot II. In November 2003, Wired reported:
Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can acquire bank records and Internet or phone logs simply by issuing itself a so-called national security letter saying the records are relevant to an investigation into terrorism. The FBI doesn’t need to show probable cause or consult a judge. What’s more, the target institution is issued a gag order and kept from revealing the subpoena’s existence to anyone, including the subject of the investigation.
The new provision in the spending bill redefines the meaning of “financial institution.” The wider definition explicitly includes insurance companies, real estate agents, the U.S. Postal Service, travel agencies, casinos, pawn shops, car dealers and any other business whose “cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters.
The new provision inserts one of the most controversial aspects of Patriot II into the spending bill.
Chris Schroeder, a Duke law professor and former assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel at the Justice Department, told Wired that the “re-insertion” of the provision showed that, “They are going to insert these provisions on a stealth basis. It’s insidious.”
Some of the darkest elements of the Patriot II would be codified into law in late 2011, when President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, complete with provisions allowing indefinite detention of Americans. Indeed, much of the plans of the Patriot II are now common activities of local, state, and federal law enforcement. The bulk of American communications are now scanned, monitored, stored in a database, and analyzed for signs of terrorism. The NSA has even built a giant database in Utah to handle all of this data. Big Brother and Big sister are listening through an array of devices. Cell site simulators aka stingrays, Automatic License Plate Readers, Audio recording devices aka gunshot detectors, hidden cameras and microphones in public, thermal imaging planes and drones.
What can we do about this? How do we reclaim our privacy and liberty? It starts on the individual level in our hearts and minds, and it continues in our communities. It’s up to each of us to begin taking steps in our own lives to create the world that we wish to see.
By Matt Agorist – June 23,2016
In 2014, the FBI announced their plans to launch a massive database containing 52 million images of faces, in order to keep tabs on Americans through a biometric facial recognition program known as Next Generation Identification (NGI). However, according to an exhaustive report by the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO), the program is far larger than they claimed, and ominous.
According to the report, the system actually contains about 411 million photos, only 30 million of those are “civil and criminal mugshots.” The overwhelming majority of images in the FBI database are of innocent people.
According to the GAO Report, as reported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, FBI’s Facial Analysis, Comparison, and Evaluation (FACE) Services unit not only has access to FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) face recognition database of nearly 30 million civil and criminal mug shot photos, but also has access to the State Department’s Visa and Passport databases, the Defense Department’s biometric database, and the drivers license databases of at least 16 states. Totaling 411.9 million images, this is an unprecedented number of photographs, most of which are of Americans and foreigners who have committed no crimes.
The agency has done nothing to make sure innocent people are kept out of their search results, according to the report.
As EFF notes, face recognition is notoriously inaccurate across the board and may also misidentify African Americans and ethnic minorities, young people, and women at higher rates than whites, older people, and men, respectively.
Also, when the GAO pointed out that agencies contributing data to the program might have lower accuracy than the FBI, the Justice Department responded by saying, “there is value in searching all available external databases, regardless of their level of accuracy.”
The FBI has been hiding this information from the public as well, in egregious violation of federal law and the FBI’s own policy.
According to EFF, the GAO report criticized the FBI for rolling out these massive face recognition capabilities without ever explaining the privacy implications of its actions to the public. Federal law and Department of Justice policies require the FBI to complete a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) of all programs that collect data on Americans, both at the beginning of development and any time there’s significant change to the program. While the FBI produced a PIA in 2008, when it first started planning out the face recognition component of NGI, it didn’t update that PIA until late 2015—seven years later and well after it began making significant changes to the program. It also failed to produce a PIA for the FACE Services unit until May 2015—three years after FACE began supporting FBI with face recognition searches. As GAO notes, the whole point of PIAs is to give the public notice of the privacy implications of data collection programs and to ensure that privacy protections are built into the system from the start. The FBI failed at this.
The FBI, in its reply to the GAO report, said the bureau “has established practices that protect privacy and civil liberties beyond the requirements of the law.”
“The FBI fully recognizes that the automated nature of face recognition technology and the sheer number of photos now available for searching raise important privacy and civil liberties considerations. For that reason, the FBI has made privacy and civil liberties integral to every decision from the inception regarding its use of face recognition technology,” the bureau added.
Apparently, keeping a massive database of facial images of innocent Americans to spy on them using hidden cameras for unknown reasons is “protecting privacy and civil liberties” if you are the FBI.
Aside from being entirely unethical, illegal, and a death blow to privacy, the database is a glaring failure. As Ars Technica notes, the system “utterly failed in the Boston bombing manhunt.”
It seems the U.S. government knows no limit as to how low they will go to ‘protect’ you from terrorism. The state’s tendency of problem, reaction, solution only serves to erode liberties while furthering the problem.
If the U.S. truly had any interest whatsoever in preventing terrorism, they would stop creating it.
Matt Agorist is the co-founder of TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this articlefirst appeared. He is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world.
By Derrick Broze – June 17, 2016
A federal court has ruled that the city of Seattle cannot release information related to hidden surveillance cameras operated by the FBI.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Richard issued a temporary restraining order preventing Seattle from releasing any further information about the purpose and location of surveillance cameras hidden throughout the city. The ruling comes after the U.S. Department of Justice sued Seattle officials for releasing some documents related to surveillance cameras the Federal Bureau of Investigations had placed on utility poles. The bureau has argued that disclosing details could damage ongoing investigations.
“The city said it had planned to release the information pursuant to public records requests by news reporters and a privacy activist. The state Public Records Act typically exempts “specific intelligence information” from disclosure if its release would compromise effective law enforcement,” TheWashington Post reported.
The people of Seattle have a history of fighting for privacy. In 2013 residents responded to the Seattle Police Department’s purchase of two drones by unanimously passing an ordinance requiring any city department intending to acquire surveillance equipment to get council approval. The drones have since been returned. Still, the law has an exception that allows police to acquire surveillance equipment for a criminal investigation.
Phil Mocek, the privacy activist who filed records requests for information about the cameras, told the Post that Seattle City Light may have broken the law. “It appears a security manager at Seattle City Light has been running a rogue surveillance camera scheme, allowing federal agencies to install surveillance cameras and personally maintaining an inventory of those cameras,” Mocek said. “If that’s what’s happening, the public should know about it.”
These surveillance cameras installed on utility poles of Seattle are not the first time the federal government has been caught secretly monitoring the public. Activist Post reported on Jeff Harp, a former FBI special agent and security analyst, in San Francisco who recently told KPIX 5 News that FBI agents regularly hide microphones in indiscriminate locations for surveillance purposes. Harp says that between March 2010 and January 2011, FBI agents hid microphones inside light fixtures and at a bus stop outside the Oakland Courthouse without a warrant to record conversations. The FBI is reportedly attempting to catch real estate investors involved in fraud.
“They put microphones under rocks, they put microphones in trees, they plant microphones in equipment,” Harp said. “I mean, there’s microphones that are planted in places that people don’t think about, because that’s the intent!”
As Harp pointed out, “An agent can’t just go out and grab a recording device and plant it somewhere without authorization from a supervisor or special agent in charge.” The decision to plant microphones had to come from high-ranking authorities with the bureau.
The FBI has also been caught hiding bugs near the San Mateo County Courthouse. In 2015, The Recorder reported that in 2009 and 2010, the FBI hid bugs inside a metal sprinkler control box attached to the wall, and in a vehicle parked on the street.
In another recent story, Activist Post asked‘Why Is The Federal Government Installing Mysterious Boxes On Utility Poles?’. We looked at the case of Phoenix resident Brian Clegg, who was concerned about a box he witnessed being installed on a power pole. Clegg said the box was facing his house and he believed it may have had cameras inside. The pole was owned by Arizona’s largest power provider, SRP, who claimed no one had permission to put the box on their pole. Brian Clegg says shortly afterwards SRP sent a crew to remove the box.
Shortly after ABC15 investigated the matter, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice, acknowledged installing the box as part of an ongoing investigation. Officials with the ATF would not provide details about their alleged investigation and would not confirm if they were conducting surveillance in the area.
It’s time to wake up, brothers and sisters. The United States is a Surveillance State paid for by the American taxpayer. What will you do to save privacy in the minds of the coming generations? Can freedom survive the erosion of civil liberties and the concept of privacy? That all depends on the actions you take today. It’s time to build something new.
By Jay Syrmopoulos – June 19, 2016
Recently, an expert has come out to claim that Facebook may be listening in on your conversations. Kelli Burns, a mass communication professor at the University of South Florida, believes the app might be using people’s microphones to gather data on the content of people’s conversations.
Facebook admits that the app is capable of listening to what’s happening around it — but claims the feature simply identifies what people are listening to or watching as means of conveniently posting about it.
Professor Burns has said that the tool appears to be using the audio it gathers not simply to help out users, but might be doing so to listen in to discussions and serve them with relevant advertising. She says that to test the feature, she discussed certain topics around the phone and then found that the site appeared to show relevant ads.Though Professor Burns said she was not convinced that Facebook is listening in on conversations – it may have been that she was searching for the same things that she chose to discuss around the phone – but she said that it wouldn’t be a surprising move from the site.
The claim chimes with anecdotal reports online that the site appears to show ads for things that people have mentioned in passing.
Facebook admits that their app can listen to audio and collects audio information from users – but that the two aren’t combined, and that no audio data is stored or correlated with advertising.
“Facebook does not use microphone audio to inform advertising or News Feed stories in any way. Businesses are able to serve relevant ads based on people’s interests and other demographic information, but not through audio collection,” said Facebook in a recent blog post. “We only access your microphone if you have given our app permission and if you are actively using a specific feature that requires audio. This might include recording a video or using an optional feature we introduced two years ago to include music or other audio in your status updates.”
Although Facebook claims they do not listen in on conversations, the catch here is that Facebook does have access to your phone’s microphone — as giving permission to access your microphone is a requirement to be able to download the site’s mobile app – thus giving the company the ability to access your phone’s mic at any time.
According to a report in Forbes:
This is not the first time Facebook was accused of listening to conversations using smartphone microphones. Reddit user NewHoustonian started a discussion last year about whether the Facebook app was listening to conversations for advertising purposes. NewHoustonian started off the discussion with a post — which has since been removed — about how he suspects the Facebook app was listening to him because he started seeing pest control ads after talking to his girlfriend about killing a cockroach. That Reddit thread now has over 1,700 comments in regards to Facebook listening to conversations and several of those comments refer to similar experiences.
Additionally, police in Belgium have warned citizens to not use Facebook’s recently added Reactions feature if they are concerned about safeguarding their personal privacy.
Whether or not Facebook is actually listening is debatable, but the ability to listen certainly exists given the fact that each person with the mobile app has already given the company permission to access their phone’s microphone. Thankfully, there is an easy solution for those that don’t trust the social media giant with access to their microphone.
One simple way is to uninstall the app altogether and simply access Facebook from the mobile site itself, thus never having to give any permissions to access your data or microphone.
Another fix is to turn off the microphone in a phone’s settings, which is relatively easy to do. Since this is done at the operating system level, doing so will mean that Facebook loses the ability to access your microphone completely.
On an iPhone this can be done by entering the app’s settings, going to privacy and then switching the slider for the microphone to the off position; on an Android phone, go to settings and then privacy, App permissions, Microphone, and from there you can change the permissions that the Facebook app is given.
While Facebook claims that they may not be actively listening to your conversations, the idea that you have given permission for the company to access your microphone and text message data simply by downloading and installing the app is certainly disconcerting for those completely unaware that they have given such privacy-shattering permissions to Facebook.
Image Credit: Anthony Freda Art