Category Archives: REALLY!!!

New Role for the Military?

Posted on by

DOD challenges Posse Comitatus doctrine: issues directive saying the US military can kill Americans on US soil

WHAT?!!

MERYL NAss

https://x.com/Holden_Culotta/status/1845935989333659721

Why the Posse Comitatus Act Must Be Reformed

Significant exceptions and loopholes, along with a lack of enforcement mechanisms, undermine the law that prevents military involvement in law enforcement.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/why-posse-comitatus-act-must-be-reformed

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was enacted to keep the U.S. military out of civilian law enforcement except where authorized by Congress. While it is meant to prevent federal troops from being used against Americans, gaping loopholes and exceptions threaten to swallow the rule. Brennan Center counsel Joseph Nunn discusses his new report covering the reforms needed to strengthen this crucial guardrail.

What is the origin of the phrase posse comitatus, and how does that relate to the purpose of the Posse Comitatus Act?

That is actually a fun fact. Posse comitatus is Latin for “the power of the county.” It refers to the authority that sheriffs and some other law enforcement officials had at common law to gather a group of citizens to pursue lawbreakers. In Britain and the United States, before the modern era, the sheriff was often the only local law enforcement officer, and any significant lawbreaking would be more than he could handle alone. The posse comitatus power allowed him to call in reinforcements. To connect this to popular culture, in a Western film, when the sheriff gathers a “posse” of townsfolk to chase outlaws, that’s a posse comitatus.

The Posse Comitatus Act is so named because it prohibits the use of federal armed forces as a posse comitatus or to otherwise enforce the law unless doing so is expressly authorized by Congress.

What is the main issue with the Posse Comitatus Act as it’s written now?

It’s too weak. The Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program is often concerned with statutes that are dangerous because they grant too much authority or they’re too broad. The Posse Comitatus Act, however, is dangerous because it doesn’t go far enough: it’s too flimsy a guardrail. On paper, the law limits federal military participation in law enforcement, but it is undermined by an overabundance of exceptions, significant loopholes, and the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism.

As a result, the principle enshrined in the Posse Comitatus Act is protected more by norms and historical practice than by the text of the law itself. Unfortunately, we’ve entered an era in which we can no longer rely on tradition to constrain executive action.

What exceptions and loopholes in the Posse Comitatus Act concern you the most?

When thinking about weak points in the Posse Comitatus Act, the Insurrection Act is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. This law grants the president incredibly broad authority to deploy the military domestically, under circumstances that aren’t clearly defined. The Brennan Center has written extensively about the dangers of the Insurrection Act and proposed reforms, so our new report focuses on the lesser-known loopholes.

One significant loophole is the District of Columbia National Guard. While all other National Guards are commanded by their state or territorial governors, the DC Guard falls under the president’s direct control at all times. Although it can act as a federal force, the Department of Justice has long claimed it can also operate as a non-federal “militia” that is not constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act. This means presidents can theoretically use the DC Guard for law enforcement whenever they choose.

Another loophole is Section 502(f) of Title 32 of the U.S. Code, which allows the National Guard to carry out federal missions at the request of the president or secretary of defense while remaining under state control, thus bypassing the Posse Comitatus Act. While the rest of Section 502 is principally used for training missions, there are no criteria limiting what kinds of missions Subsection f can be used for. The Trump administration exploited this license a few years ago when it invited National Guard troops from 11 states into DC to suppress protests following the murder of George Floyd. This unprecedented action was done without invoking the Insurrection Act, as the president could simply ask sympathetic state governors to give the orders on his behalf.

To make matters worse, the Posse Comitatus Act lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. The law is a criminal statute, yet there’s no real threat of prosecution for violating it in practice. No one has ever been convicted for violating the Posse Comitatus Act, and only two people have ever been prosecuted — both more than 140 years ago.

Why is it a problem for the military to act as a domestic police force?

Military participation in law enforcement is sometimes necessary in a true crisis, but it is always risky. One of the most immediate concerns is that soldiers are trained to fight an enemy who lacks constitutional rights; they are not generally trained for domestic law enforcement. For instance, soldiers aren’t necessarily instructed in how to provide due process or conduct searches and arrests appropriately. Asking soldiers to perform these duties raises the risk of infringing on the public’s First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights — and it is unfair to the soldiers, who did not enter the military with the goal of policing their fellow citizens.

Beyond those immediate concerns, there’s an American tradition that traces back to the founding of this country rejecting military interference in civilian affairs. The founders were extraordinarily suspicious of military power, and not just when it was used domestically. During the Constitutional Convention, there was significant debate about whether to even allow a national standing army. These debates were motivated by fears that such an army could easily become a tool of tyranny. When an army is turned inward, that danger is particularly acute.

Importantly, though, the Brennan Center’s stance is not that military participation in law enforcement is never appropriate. Rather, it should be confined to emergencies when civilian authorities are truly overwhelmed. The January 6 insurrection is a paradigmatic example of this. Civilian authorities — the Capitol Police — were manifestly overwhelmed. And in that moment, there was a genuine physical threat to Congress. So in that case, deployment of the DC National Guard was entirely appropriate. Indeed, the president rightly came under criticism for delaying deployment of the Guard.

Why is prosecution under this law so rare?

The most straightforward answer is that violations are not very common. Federal forces aren’t deployed domestically very often, and when they are, they are guided by strong norms of compliance — at least historically speaking. Our report aims to highlight the significant risk of abuse and misconduct rather than to identify a clearly established pattern of it.

There are likely other reasons at play too. For instance, one-off infringements by individual soldiers acting without authorization might be considered too minor to justify criminal charges, while there would be little appetite within the Department of Justice to pursue criminal charges against a soldier acting on orders passed down from civilian commanders.

If the law is so problematic, why hasn’t it been reformed before?

There are a few reasons. Chief among them is that this is an area of the law that Congress is extremely reluctant to touch. The Posse Comitatus Act is regarded as sacrosanct. Lawmakers are wary of making changes to such an important guardrail — but that’s why it’s important to show that the guardrail isn’t as solid as they might think.

Another reason is that significant violations of the Posse Comitatus Act are not common, as I mentioned before, in part because the military takes compliance very seriously. This stems, I believe, from a commitment to the principle enshrined in the law, as well as the more practical reason that the military does not like to do domestic law enforcement. From their perspective, it’s not their job. They understand it’s not something they’re principally trained for, it is a distraction from what they regard as their core focuses, and it is unpopular with both soldiers and the public.

The small number of violations can also be chalked up to the United States being very lucky so far. Presidents have generally acted with restraint when it comes to domestic use of the military, but there’s no reason to assume that will remain true. Luck is no substitute for robust legal safeguards.

What are the main reforms you’re advocating for?

There are several important reforms outlined in the report, but I’ll mention four particularly important ones here. First and foremost, reform the Insurrection Act. There must be clear standards for when and how presidents can use the law, as well as meaningful checks by the other branches of government.

Second, close the DC National Guard loophole by either transferring control over the DC Guard to the mayor of Washington or extending the Posse Comitatus Act to cover the DC Guard at all times.

Third, close the Section 502(f) loophole. The Posse Comitatus Act should be extended to cover National Guard deployments when the Guard performs a federal mission at the request of the president or the secretary of defense.

Fourth, create more effective enforcement mechanisms. Congress should impose an exclusionary rule that prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act from being used in court. Congress should also consider allowing individuals harmed by violations of the Posse Comitatus Act to sue for civil damages. The risk of having crucial evidence thrown out and the potential for lawsuits by injured citizens will provide far stronger incentives for both the military and their civilian leadership to comply with the law than the nonexistent prospect of criminal prosecution.

What are the prospects for reforming the Posse Comitatus Act?

There is a bipartisan understanding in Congress that some degree of domestic deployment reform is necessary, particularly regarding the Insurrection Act. Additionally, there is some support for broader reforms aimed at the National Guard and the Posse Comitatus Act. That said, advancing these reforms will take time and require a good deal of discussion about why they matter, as this area of law is not tremendously well understood. Our hope is that this report can help to move this process forward.

from:    https://merylnass.substack.com/p/dod-challenges-posse-comitatus-doctrine?publication_id=746368&post_id=150319881&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Some Background on Kamala for the Curious

Posted on by

Who Is Kamala Harris and What Is Her Big Secret? Candace Owens Investigates!

September 27, 2024 Candace Owens and Olive Barker 7

Janet Jackson was recently harshly criticized for saying this about Kamala Harris: “She’s not Black. That’s what I heard. That she’s Indian.” She added that she heard that Kamala’s father was white. This has become an issue because Kamala Harris is courting the black vote and may be downplaying the white side of her family that were reported to have been slave traders. Candace Owens investigated the claim and opened a can of worms in her last 3 podcasts.

Kamala Harris’ book, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, features a photo of Kamala with her purported paternal grandmother, Beryl. But it seems impossible because Beryl died in 1960 and Kamala wasn’t born until 4 years later in 1964. Kamala’s father, Donald Harris is a radical Marxist who was a professor of economics at Stanford University. He says that he was born in Jamaica in 1938, but there is no birth certificate for Donald Harris.

Candace speculated that Oscar, Kamala’s reported grandfather, and Beryl never did marry and that Beryl was included in Kamala’s history to “blackify” her.

Kamala’s father had worked for the Jamaica Information Service that was part of the government of Jamaica and Kamala’s mother’s father was the Deputy Secretary of the Government of India.

.

Link for video

Links for all 3 investigation videos part 1, part 2, part 3

Kamala’s Family Tree

You Mean Kamala Harris Isn’t Actually Black? Shocker.

By Olive Barker

The mainstream media is back this week with more election shenanigans as they are now diving in head first to try to prove to the public that Kamala Harris is actually black.

But the problem is, the internet doesn’t believe Kamala Harris is actually black.

And just as the internet does when you feed it information, we do what we can to find out the truth. Which is exactly what happened when it was revealed in Kamala’s new book that she has a black paternal grandmother named Beryl Harris (Finegan).

The internet quickly able to debunk that statement after discovering that Beryl Harris died in July of 1960, four years before Kamala was born.

Kamala Harris was born in 1964 to an Indian American woman named Shyamala Gopalan, and a Jamaican American man named Donald J. Harris. Note that Jamaican does not mean black, that’s a common misconception.

How do we know all of this? We know all of this because Candace Owens released Kamala’s birth certificate and ancestral history on her show earlier this week. After she released that information, people began to ask questions about Kamala and why she was claiming she was black if she wasn’t.

Janet Jackson was one of those people.

“That’s what I heard. That she’s Indian. That her father’s white. That’s what I was told. I mean I haven’t watched the news in a few days. I was told that they discovered that her father was white.” – Janet Jackson

So then naturally, as the mainstream media does, they all produced similar headlines claiming that Janet Jackson was making false claims about Kamala’s race. Here are some of those headlines:

“Janet Jackson Repeats False Claims About Kamala Harris’s Race” – The New York Times

“Janet Jackson tells interviewer she’s heard Kamala Harris is not black, echoing election disinformation.” – NBC News

“Janet Jackson’s Kamala Harris Remarks Spark Blacklash.” – Newsweek

Instead of the media owning up to creating and spreading false information about Kamala’s background, they are now doing everything they can to smear Janet Jackson’s name, similar to what they did with her brother Michael Jackson. You remember the good ole “Wacko Jacko” headlines?

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/09/who-is-kamala-harris-and-what-is-her-big-secret-candace-owens-investigates/

Attack on the First Amendment or Whose Speech is “Disinformation”?

Posted on by

John Kerry Says Our First Amendment Stands As A Major Block Against “Disinformation”

October 2, 2024 WEF and Real Clear Politics 3

Former U.S. Senator and Biden administration climate envoy John Kerry correctly identified the First Amendment as a “major block” preventing the government from halting spread of “disinformation.”

.

Transcript from Real Clear Politics:

Last week at a World Economic Forum panel on Green Energy investing and sustainable development the former U.S. Senator and Biden administration climate envoy John Kerry correctly identified the First Amendment as a “major block” preventing the government from halting spread of “disinformation.”

JOHN KERRY: The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing. It is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. It’s really hard to govern today. You can’t — the referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn’t a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree. And people go and self select where they go for their news, for their information. And then you get into a vicious cycle.

So it is really hard, much harder to build consensus today than at any time in the 40-50 years I’ve been involved in this.

You know there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you’re going to have some accountability on facts, etc.

But look, if people only go to one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.

So what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern, by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.

Obviously, there are some people in our country who are prepared to implement change in a whole other way, but —

I think democracies are very challenged right now and have not proven they can move fast enough of big enough to deal with the challenges they are facing, and to me, that is part of what this election is all about. Will we break the fever in the United States?

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/10/john-kerry-says-our-first-amendment-stands-as-a-major-block-against-disinformation/

What Can Be Said? Who Is voting for You?

Posted on by

List of 158 Democrats Who Voted Against the Deportation of Migrant Rapists and Sex Abusers

September 19, 2024 Newsweek 4

158 Democrats voted against Republican Representative Nancy Mace’s bill that would close loopholes and ensure that undocumented immigrants convicted of sex offenses are deported or deemed inadmissible to the country. Mace said, “We are fed up with headlines about women losing their lives or becoming victims of assailants who trespassed into our country illegally under the Biden-Harris border crisis. This legislation sends a strong message: If you are an illegal who has committed acts of violence against women, you will not find sanctuary here.” She added that those opposing the bill “voted against deporting rapists, pedophiles and murderers of women and kids.”

Opponents of the bill said it was demonizing immigrants..

More than 150 Democrats voted against Republican Representative Nancy Mace‘s bill that would ensure undocumented immigrants convicted of sex offenses are deported or deemed inadmissible to the country.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act passed in a 266-158 vote on Wednesday. Every Republican present voted for the bill, as did 51 Democrats, while 158 Democrats voted against it.

The bill would also deport or deem inadmissible to the country undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of, or admit to having committed, sex offenses, domestic violence, stalking, child abuse or violating a protection order.

It comes as immigration is among the most important issues on the minds of voters ahead of November’s election, with former President Donald Trump and Republicans repeatedly claiming that President Joe Biden‘s immigration policies have led to a spike in violent crime by people who are in the country illegally. Studies have generally found no link between immigration and violent crime.

Mace told WCIV in Charleston, South Carolina, that the legislation will protect women across the country.

Are you interested in joining G. Edward Griffins online coalition? Are you interested in earning while educating those around you of the realties that are being rewritten or lied about? Become an affiliate today! Register Here!

 

“We are fed up with headlines about women losing their lives or becoming victims of assailants who trespassed into our country illegally under the Biden-Harris border crisis,” Mace said. “This legislation sends a strong message: If you are an illegal who has committed acts of violence against women, you will not find sanctuary here.”

She said those opposing the bill “voted against deporting rapists, pedophiles and murderers of women and kids.”

Opponents of the bill said it was demonizing immigrants.

Representative Pramila Jayapal said the bill would hurt survivors of domestic violence, whom she said are often arrested, charged and convicted along with their abusers.

“Here we are again, debating another partisan bill that fearmongers about immigrants, instead of working together to fix the immigration system,” Jayapal said during a debate on the bill.

“I probably shouldn’t be too surprised. Scapegoating immigrants and attempting to weaponize the crime of domestic violence is appearing to be a time-honored tradition for Republicans.”

The 158 Democrats who voted against the bill are:

  • Alma Adams, North Carolina
  • Pete Aguilar, California
  • Gabe Amo, Rhode Island
  • Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts
  • Becca Balint, Vermont
  • Nanette Barragán, California
  • Joyce Beatty, Ohio
  • Ami Bera, California
  • Donald Beyer, Virginia
  • Sanford D. Bishop Jr., Georgia
  • Earl Blumenauer, Oregon
  • Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
  • Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware
  • Jamaal Bowman, New York
  • Shontel Brown, Ohio
  • Julia Brownley, California
  • Cori Bush, Missouri
  • Salud Carbajal, California
  • Tony Cárdenas, California
  • André Carson, Indiana
  • Troy Carter, Louisiana
  • Greg Casar, Texas
  • Ed Case, Hawaii
  • Sean Casten, Illinois
  • Kathy Castor, Florida
  • Joaquin Castro, Texas
  • Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, Florida
  • Judy Chu, California
  • Katherine Clark, Massachusetts
  • Yvette Clarke, New York
  • Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
  • James Clyburn, South Carolina
  • Steve Cohen, Tennessee
  • Gerald Connolly, Virginia
  • Luis Correa, California
  • Jim Costa, California
  • Jasmine Crockett, Texas
  • Jason Crow, Colorado
  • Danny Davis, Illinois
  • Madeleine Dean, Pennsylvania
  • Diana DeGette, Colorado
  • Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut
  • Suzan DelBene, Washington
  • Mark DeSaulnier, California
  • Debbie Dingell, Michigan
  • Lloyd Doggett, Texas
  • Veronica Escobar, Texas
  • Anna Eshoo, California
  • Adriano Espaillat, New York
  • Lizzie Fletcher, Texas
  • Bill Foster, Illinois
  • Valerie Foushee, North Carolina
  • Lois Frankel, Florida
  • Maxwell Frost, Florida
  • John Garamendi, California
  • Jesús “Chuy” Garcia, Illinois
  • Robert Garcia, California
  • Sylvia Garcia, Texas
  • Dan Goldman, New York
  • Jimmy Gomez, California
  • Al Green, Texas
  • James Himes, Connecticut
  • Steny Hoyer, Maryland
  • Valerie Hoyle, Oregon
  • Jared Huffman, California
  • Glenn Ivey, Maryland
  • Jonathan Jackson, Illinois
  • Sara Jacobs, California
  • Pramila Jayapal, Washington
  • Hakeem Jeffries, New York
  • Henry “Hank” Johnson, Georgia
  • Sydney Kamlager-Dove, California
  • Bill Keating, Massachusetts
  • Robin Kelly, Illinois
  • Ro Khanna, California
  • Dan Kildee, Michigan
  • Derek Kilmer, Washington
  • Andy Kim, New Jersey
  • Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
  • Ann Kuster, New Hampshire
  • Greg Landsman, Ohio
  • Rick Larsen, Washington
  • John Larson, Connecticut
  • Barbara Lee, California
  • Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
  • Teresa Leger Fernandez, New Mexico
  • Ted Lieu, California
  • Zoe Lofgren, California
  • Doris Matsui, California
  • Lucy McBath, Georgia
  • Jennifer McClellan, Virginia
  • Betty McCollum, Minnesota
  • Morgan McGarvey, Kentucky
  • James McGovern, Massachusetts
  • Gregory Meeks, New York
  • Rob Menendez, New Jersey
  • Grace Meng, New York
  • Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
  • Gwen Moore, Wisconsin
  • Joseph Morelle, New York
  • Seth Moulton, Massachusetts
  • Kevin Mullin, California
  • Jerrold Nadler, New York
  • Grace Napolitano, California
  • Richard Neal, Massachusetts
  • Joe Neguse, Colorado
  • Donald Norcross, New Jersey
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
  • Ilhan Omar, Minnesota
  • Frank Pallone, New Jersey
  • Nancy Pelosi, California
  • Scott Peters, California
  • Brittany Pettersen, Colorado
  • Dean Phillips, Minnesota
  • Chellie Pingree, Maine
  • Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
  • Katie Porter, California
  • Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
  • Mike Quigley, Illinois
  • Delia Ramirez, Illinois
  • Jamie Raskin, Maryland
  • Deborah Ross, North Carolina
  • Raul Ruiz, California
  • C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Maryland
  • Linda Sánchez, California
  • John Sarbanes, Maryland
  • Mary Scanlon, Pennsylvania
  • Janice Schakowsky, Illinois
  • Adam Schiff, California
  • Bradley Schneider, Illinois
  • Robert “Bobby” Scott, Virginia
  • David Scott, Georgia
  • Terri Sewell, Alabama
  • Brad Sherman, California
  • Darren Soto, Florida
  • Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
  • Haley Stevens, Michigan
  • Marilyn Strickland, Washington
  • Mark Takano, California
  • Shri Thanedar, Michigan
  • Mike Thompson, California
  • Bennie Thompson, Mississippi
  • Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
  • Jill Tokuda, Hawaii
  • Paul Tonko, New York
  • Norma Torres, California
  • Ritchie Torres, New York
  • Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
  • David Trone, Maryland
  • Lauren Underwood, Illinois
  • Juan Vargas, California
  • Marc Veasey, Texas
  • Nydia Velázquez, New York
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida
  • Maxine Waters, California
  • Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
  • Nikema Williams, Georgia
  • Frederica Wilson, Florida.

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/09/list-of-158-democrats-who-voted-against-the-deportation-of-migrant-rapists-and-sex-abusers/

Skimming Your MOney & ID — USE CASH!!!!

Posted on by

How to Detect ATM and Credit Card Skimmers that Can Gain Access Your Money

September 17, 2024 GMA, KTLA and ABC 5

]’Skimming’ is a crime that involves a device that is placed over an ATM/ credit card payment machine that collects data from people who pay for items with a card and allows the thieves to access their data to create a counterfeit card. Skimming costs banks and financial institutions over $1 billion per year and is on the rise. The videos below show how to avoid the scam. 48 people affiliated with a Romanian crime ring were arrested in Orange County, California in January for skimming crimes with EBT cards. Two months ago, six illegal aliens were arrested in Los Angeles for skimming. [/su_note]

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/09/how-to-detect-atm-and-credit-card-skimmers-that-can-gain-access-your-money/

Coming Soon — Ads in Your Cars

Posted on by

Driven by Ads: Ford’s Patent Paves the Way for Eavesdropping on the Road

by Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The NetSeptember 13th, 2024 3:00 AM

And the cherry on top: “Determining user preferences for advertisements from any one or more of audio signals within the vehicle and/or historical user data, selecting a number of the advertisements to present to the user during the trip, and providing the advertisements to the user during the trip through a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle.”

Driven by Ads: Ford’s Patent Paves the Way for Eavesdropping on the RoadImage Credit: Wirestock / Getty
SHARE
LIVE
gab

Ford has filed a patent that is supposed to provide what the car manufacturer calls “in-vehicle advertising.” The solution is to eavesdrop on what’s being said in the vehicle, correlate that with location and other data, and serve “bespoke” ads.

The patent reveals systems and methods that would achieve the goal of targeting ads to car occupants, using their conversations.

Cars have long since become yet another common place where people’s privacy is being slowly eroded – but some observers are now wondering if the latest idea out of Ford may be “crossing the line.”

Whether or not Ford’s patent, which takes intrusive advertising practices to another level, would face any type of backlash from buyers of their machines remains to be seen; but even some advertising professionals are worried things may be getting out of hand at this point.

Diagram of a vehicle's dashboard with a steering wheel and a screen displaying a selected advertisement, connected through a network to a service provider. The vehicle's subsystems include a controller with processor and memory, a sensor platform, a voice command system, an HMI, and a communications interface.

What makes this scenario significantly different from users acquiescing to having their personal data hoovered up by large online platforms and enduring (even when “targeted” often irrelevant) ads in order to use those platforms “for free” – is that they have already paid for their car.

But now they are expected to subject themselves to a new level of surveillance, and keep paying – and with some very dear currency. Namely, extensive information about their communications, locations, direction – and intentions.

The patent indicates where the automotive industry would like to be heading – tapping into the vast amounts of money swirling around the murky ad industry while disregarding their customers’ basic interests.

Determining vehicle information for a trip 502 Determining user information that can comprise any one or more of a route prediction for the trip, a speed prediction for the trip, and/or a destination 504 Determining user preferences for advertisements from any one or more of audio signals within the vehicle and/or historical user data 506 Selecting a number of the advertisements to present to the user during the trip 508 Providing the advertisements to the user during the trip through a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle 510

But, Ford made sure to point out that applying for a patent doesn’t mean it will be implemented, nor, according to a spokesperson, should this one be viewed as “an indication of our business or product plans.” (Shouldn’t it, though?)

Another point Ford tries to make is that this is also about building an intellectual property portfolio. But that just reaffirms suspicions that the car industry may indeed be moving in the radically dystopian direction outlined in the patent.

Just in case it does become a feature in Ford cars, here’s what it would take to determine “vehicle information”: location, speed, drive mode, user data such as route prediction, destination, etc.

And the cherry on top: “Determining user preferences for advertisements from any one or more of audio signals within the vehicle and/or historical user data, selecting a number of the advertisements to present to the user during the trip, and providing the advertisements to the user during the trip through a human-machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle.”

from:    https://www.infowars.com/posts/driven-by-ads-fords-patent-paves-the-way-for-eavesdropping-on-the-road

What’s in Your Soda?

Posted on by

Fluorescent nanoparticles present in Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola: physiochemical properties, cytotoxicity, biodistribution and digestion studies

Shen Li 1, Chengkun Jiang 2, Haitao Wang 2 3, Shuang Cong 2 3, Mingqian Tan 2 3
Affiliations

. 2018 Feb;12(1):49-62.

doi: 10.1080/17435390.2017.1418443. Epub 2017 Dec 20

Abstract

Foodborne nanoparticles (NPs) have drawn great attention due to human health concerns. This study reports the detection of the presence of fluorescent NPs, about 5 nm, in two of the most popular beverages, Coca-Cola (Coke) and Pepsi-Cola (Pepsi). The NPs contain H, C and O, three elements with a tunable emission and with a quantum yield of 3.3 and 4.3% for Coke and Pepsi, respectively. The presence of sp3-hybridized carbon atoms of alcohols and ethers bonds was confirmed by NMR analysis. The NPs can be taken up by living cells and accumulate within cell membrane and cytoplasm. Evaluation of the acute toxicity of the NPs revealed that the BALB/c mice appeared healthy after administration of a single dose of 2 g kg-1 body weight. Analysis of glutamate pyruvate transaminase (GPT), glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (GOT), urea and creatinine showed that there were statistically, but not biologically, significant differences in some of these biochemical parameters between the test and control groups. No obvious organ damage or apparent histopathological abnormality was observed in the tested mice. The biodistribution study in major organs indicated that the NPs were easily accumulated in the digestive tract, and they were able to cross the blood-brain barrier and dispersed in the brain. In vitro digestion of the NPs showed a significant fluorescence quenching of the NPs. This work represents the first report of foodborne fluorescent NPs present in Coke and Pepsi, and provides valuable insights into physicochemical properties of these NPs and their toxicity characteristics both in vitro and in vivo.

from:    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29261040/

Gang Violence in Denver

Posted on by

Shock Videos: Venezuelan Gangs with Guns Takeover Apartment Complexes in Colorado

August 30, 2024 BizPac Review and InfoWars 8

Large groups of armed Venezuelan men, believed to be members of the Tren de Aragua (TDA) prison gang, have invaded entire apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado, which is less than 10 miles from Denver. Denver is a Democrat-run ‘sanctuary city’ that has a population of 710,000 people. Denver has welcomed over 44,000 illegal aliens over the past two years and many are spilling over into neighboring cities and towns. The armed Venezuelan men have been alleged to have committed kidnapping, human trafficking, sex trafficking, home invasion robberies, carjackings and armed robberies of stores, including 3 gun shops. A 99-unit apartment house was shut down. A shootout reportedly left one man with life-threatening injuries.While Denver Police said that they were “not aware” of any apartment complexes being taken over by TDA, there are reports that a gang leader from TDA has given the “green light” to shoot police officers.

 

 

 

 

 

Video footage has emerged of armed criminal alien gang members freely moving about in a Colorado apartment complex in Aurora.

The footage, seen below, adds to the evidence that a violent Venezuelan prison gang even more hardcore than MS-13 has taken over in the Denver metropolitan area, including in Aurora.

The armed gang members seen above are believed to be part of the Tren de Aragua (TDA) gang, which, as previously reported, has seized several apartment complexes in the Aurora area.

Speaking with Fox News, Aurora City Councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky said that “without a doubt that there is sex trafficking now going on” in the area thanks to the gang’s presence.

“This is organized,” one former apartment dweller added. “They patrol the property with guns visibly, like they’re not trying to hide them. There’s no repercussion. These are ghosts.”

The former apartment dweller, a woman, just made it out of her overtaken apartment building on Wednesday thanks to help from Jurinsky and congressional candidate John Fabbricatore.

“I literally had to borrow from everybody I know to get into a new place,” she said. “And it’s every bit of money I had.”

Below is a video of a local resident complaining about how criminal aliens have taken over the Denver metropolitan area:

 

 

Part of the problem is that the police appear to be missing in action. When questioned by the New York Post, Denver police union boss Marc Sears claimed it’s “absolutely inaccurate” to say the gang is taking over the city.

“They’re not any different than any other documented gang that we have,” he claimed. “I can tell you that the officers, is there a concern about this quote-unquote ‘green light’ that they have on officers. Sure, there’s a concern about it, but in my opinion, as the union president, I feel that we have been green-lighted since 2020.”

By the “green light,” he meant reports that TDA members have been given a “green light” to open fire on the police.

Speaking with a local Fox News affiliate, the Denver Police added on Wednesday that they were “not aware” of any apartment complexes being taken over by TDA.

The female resident wasn’t surprised by this denial of reality.

“There’s no safety net for you because the police are not coming,” she said. “They say, ‘Stay inside and lock your doors.’ I have to work! I was paying rent. These people haven’t been paying rent at all. I’ve been paying rent every month for years.”

“I hope [the police] do something because they could have helped me get out. Literally. Their answer for me was, ‘You ever think about moving?’ That’s what they told me when I was like, and I started crying. There’s no help coming for any of us. The police have checked out. They’re not on our side,” she added.

Even Jurinsky wasn’t surprised by the police’s attitude.

“In the entire Denver metro area, it has been like pulling teeth to get anyone, the media, other elected officials, to get anyone to acknowledge the presence of this trend and to acknowledge that there is even a problem,” she said.

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/08/shock-videos-venezuelan-gangs-with-guns-takeover-apartment-complexes-in-colorado/

What is Happening to the Children?

Posted on by

DHS: Nearly 300,000 Children Missing Under Biden/ Harris. The Minors May Have Been Trafficked

August 28, 2024 Lifesite News 3

A new report from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reveals that as of May 2024, ICE has not served a Notice to Appear in immigration court to more than 291,000 unaccompanied migrant children (UCs). Nor has ICE followed up on UCs who did not appear in court as ICE says it has “resource limitations” and “limited” oversight capabilities. The report admitted that without the ability to monitor the children, they are at risk for trafficking, exploitation, or forced labor.

Kamala Harris was officially tasked with stemming the migration to our southern border by President Joe Biden on March 24, 2021. Since that time, Customs and Border Protection has recorded about 10 million encounters with illegal immigrants across the country..

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report issued last week reveals that nearly 300,000 illegal immigrant children are unaccounted for under the Biden administration’s immigration enforcement, which has been headed by now-presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

The DHS report explains that as of May 2024, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) has not served a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court to more than 291,000 unaccompanied migrant children (UCs). Nor has ICE “developed a formal policy or process to follow up on UCs who did not appear in court,” the report notes, adding that ICE has “resource limitations” and “limited” oversight capabilities.

“Without an ability to monitor the location and status of UCs, ICE has no assurance UCs are safe from trafficking, exploitation, or forced labor,” the report admits.

 

 

The report has raised concerns about Harris’ role in the effort to “ste[m]” migration to the U.S. southern border, a goal she was officially tasked with by President Joe Biden on March 24, 2021. Under Harris, Customs and Border Protection has recorded about 10 million encounters with illegal immigrants across the country and more than 8 million encounters at the southwestern border alone.

In addition, “Encounters at official ports of entry have exploded, from just under 20,000 in January 2021 to more than 117,000 in June 2024” under Harris, the New York Post reported. The news outlet considered the numbers to be unsurprising considering that in 2015, Harris declared, “[a]n undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.”

ICE has not made progress in tracking unaccompanied children despite new guidance issued in December 2023 aimed at confirming the location of children who did not show up to their court hearings. This month’s DHS report found that “ICE often neither followed this guidance nor issued corresponding guidance for its officers in the field.”

The immigration enforcement arm is reportedly still short-staffed and suffers from resource constraints that “can limit officers’ time and ability to check the location or immigration case status of migrants.”

“ICE must take immediate action to ensure the safety of UCs residing in the United States,” the DHS report concludes, noting that “UCs who do not appear for court are considered at higher risk for trafficking, exploitation, or forced labor.”

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/08/dhs-nearly-300000-children-missing-under-biden-harris-the-minors-may-have-been-trafficked/

The Problem of De-Banking

Posted on by

Pushing Back Against ‘De-Banking’ Due to Discrimination by Banks of Certain Viewpoints

August 14, 2024 Real Clear Markets 2

Large national banks lead a trend of ‘de-banking’ business and individual accounts due to discrimination against certain viewpoints, with little warning, and virtually no explanation. In response, Florida and Tennessee enacted consumer protection laws that prohibit big banks from canceling customer accounts based on their constitutionally protected speech and religious exercise. The Tennessee law applies to banks with at least $100 billion in assets—which includes both Regions and Bank of America. Bank of America was exposed for working with the US Department of Treasury to profile people and label them domestic terrorists when they made purchases from Bass Pro Shops or buying “religious texts”. The US Treasury has now spoken out in opposition to these state-level attempts to protect the God-given freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Treasury cannot profile half of America as domestic terrorists, institute Orwellian financial surveillance, and then hide behind the fig leaf of national security when the states push back.

On paper, Zulfat Suara and Steve Happ don’t have much in common.

One, a Muslim woman, immigrated to the U.S. from Nigeria in the 1990s and now serves on the Nashville City Council. The other, a Christian man, is a Memphis native with a background in software who began a ministry partnering with Ugandan non-profit charities that care for orphaned and at-risk children in 2015.

But they do have at least one thing in common: Both were canceled by large national banks with little warning and virtually no explanation.

Suara, who like Happ, is also involved in non-profit work, received a vaguely worded notice of cancelation from Regions Bank earlier this year, giving her 30 days to find a new bank. Happ’s cancelation by Bank of America came in 2023 shortly before he made a trip overseas—forcing him to scramble for solutions and delay hard-earned paychecks to Ugandans.

Happ’s notice said he was operating in the wrong “business type.” As we reported in this year’s report for our Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index, which measures corporate respect for free speech and religious liberty, these problematic policies are present in at least 69% of the country’s largest financial institutions.

Incidents like these are a small sample of a larger trend of viewpoint-based discrimination in financial services—known as “de-banking”— which has also affected firearms and fossil fuels because of radical net zero emissions commitments and government initiatives like Operation Choke Point. It has also garnered the attention of both sides of the political aisle.

These incidents propelled Tennessee lawmakers to adopt a landmark legislative solution aimed at curbing this dangerous weaponization of the financial system. Like a similar law that recently went into effect in Florida, the legislation is a first-of-its-kind consumer protection bill that prohibits big banks from canceling customer accounts based on their constitutionally protected speech and religious exercise.

The Tennessee law applies to banks with at least $100 billion in assets—which includes both Regions and Bank of America—the latter of which has also been exposed by U.S. House oversight as working hand-in-hand with the U.S. Department of Treasury to profile as domestic terrorist threats my organization, Alliance Defending Freedom, and everyday Americans who committed the sin of shopping at Bass Pro Shops or buying “religious texts.” It should come as no surprise that this same government entity has now spoken out in opposition to these state-level attempts to protect the God-given freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In a recent letter lauded in these pages by Hispanic Leadership Fund president Mario H. Lopez, the Treasury makes a series of false assertions about Tennessee and Florida’s laws. Chief among these specious claims is that the laws prevent Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) from dealing with money launderers and terrorist threats.

There’s no need to provide a nuanced answer to this accusation. It’s simply untrue. Twenty state attorneys general recently responded to this letter and rightly observed that the standards the Treasury is attacking in the state laws are the exact same standards the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposed—and the Treasury did not object to—only a few years ago.

Likewise, Lopez’s reactionary appeal to free market principles fails. Banks don’t operate in a free market. ESG is avowedly anti-free market. And the market is not free if access depends on your political and religious views.

First, banks are highly regulated. But in exchange for those regulations, they benefit from a wide spectrum of government subsidies. Those include bailouts, tax credits, property tax abatements, and grants at the state and federal levels. Since 1998, for example, JPMorgan Chase has received over $1.7 trillion from American taxpayers in the form of subsidies.

Second, ESG activists, and even government regulators, are introducing non-financial and subjective factors into decision-making by classifying groups like mine as domestic terrorist threats and denying service to ministries that support orphans and widows for being the wrong “business type.” Someone should explain how these groups, or those of Christian broadcaster Lance Wallnau or U.S. Ambassador Sam Brownback, present national security threats. Of course, one of the features of the state laws is that customers like Wallnau and Ambassador Brownback can demand a written explanation from the banks.

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/08/pushing-back-against-de-banking-due-to-discrimination-by-banks-of-certain-viewpoints/