Police officers are trained manipulators. They take classes to learn how to read people’s body language and how to ask open-ended and innocent-sounding questions in order to surreptitiously obtain information they can use against you.

They also have a knowledge of the laws that you don’t possess — and laws differ from State to State, and even from one jurisdiction in a State to another. Police have also been known to invent “laws,” place “evidence” that can be linked to you and twist your words into meaning something you did not intend.

For that reason you should never consent to a police search of your vehicle and never volunteer information when being questioned. Of course, not consenting doesn’t mean you won’t be subjected to an unConstitutional and illegal search, as Nancy Genovese learned.

read more at: http://personalliberty.com/2012/05/21/why-it-doesnt-pay-to-cooperate-with-police/

“Richard Hayes: I remember a senator once asked me. When we talk about “CIA” why we never use the word “the” in front of it. And I asked him, do you put the word “the” in front of “God”?”  -The Good Shepherd (2006). Director: Robert De Niro. Screenwriter: Eric Roth.

read more at: The Excavator Blog

The same Senate bill, 1813, known as MAP-21, that calls for the Secretary of State to revoke or deny a passport to any US citizen that the IRS Commissioner deems as having ’seriously delinquent tax debt’, also calls for, in section 31406 of the bill. the mandatory installation of ‘black box’ event recorders to be installed in every new passenger vehicle starting with model year 2015:

SEC. 31406. VEHICLE EVENT DATA RECORDERS.
(a) Mandatory Event Data Recorders-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part…

(d) Revised Requirements for Event Data Recorders- Based on the findings of the study under subsection (c), the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The rule–

(1) shall require event data recorders to capture and store data related to motor vehicle safety covering a reasonable time period before, during, and after a motor vehicle crash or airbag deployment, including a rollover;

(2) shall require that data stored on such event data recorders be accessible, regardless of vehicle manufacturer or model, with commercially available equipment in a specified data format;

(3) shall establish requirements for preventing unauthorized access to the data stored on an event data recorder in order to protect the security, integrity, and authenticity of the data; and

(4) may require an interoperable data access port to facilitate universal accessibility and analysis.

(e) Disclosure of Existence and Purpose of Event Data Recorder- The rule issued under subsection (d) shall require that any owner’s manual or similar documentation provided to the first purchaser of a passenger motor vehicle for purposes other than resale–

(1) disclose that the vehicle is equipped with such a data recorder…

(f) Access to Event Data Recorders in Agency Investigations- Section 30166(c)(3)(C) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘, including any electronic data contained within the vehicle’s diagnostic system or event data recorder’ after ‘equipment.’

source: blacklistednews

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/322396#ixzz1raq8oQ3c

On Oct. 3, a 20-year-old computer salesman and community college student—a U.S. citizen born in the San Francisco area—took his car for an oil change. His mechanic spotted an odd wire hanging from the undercarriage. The wire was attached to a magnetic device that puzzled the mechanic. The device was removed, images of it posted online, and help requested in identifying it.

Two days later, FBI agents arrived at the man’s Santa Clara, Calif. apartment, demanding the return of their property—a global positioning system tracking device now at the center of a raging legal debate over privacy rights.

AMERICAN FREE PRESS spoke with Zahra Billoo, the victim’s attorney. Billoo is the executive director of the California wing of CAIR, one of the nation’s largest civil rights advocacy groups.

The immediate question posed was: were they surprised that the FBI would just stick a tracking device on someone’s car who had not been accused of committing any crime in order to track his movement?

The attorney replied: “We were surprised more by the blatant disregard [by the FBI] for any attempt to cover it up . . . and that was probably the most appalling part of this story, not so much that my client found the device, but just the fact that they showed up at his home, no apologies, no nothing, just essentially, ‘It’s ours, give it back.’”

Asked why federal authorities would start tracking an American citizen with no regard for his rights, the man’s attorney offered several theories: that maybe there was an anonymous tip; that the defendant fit a certain profile associated with “terrorists”; or that maybe this is a test case of some sort.

Could other devices lurk under the cars of unsuspecting Americans the attorney was asked?

“Absolutely,” he replied, “and there’s no way of knowing whether or not you’re being tracked unless you find the tracking device.”

Unless this is immediately challenged, the FBI could keep placing tracking devices on vehicles in spots that are even harder to find. The attorney added that, so far, U.S. courts have usually sided with law enforcement on this issue.

“Very recently, there was a [U.S.] Ninth Circuit Court [of Appeals] decision that confirmed that law enforcement does not need a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on a car in a public place,” said Billoo.

“And I would assert that most people were not aware of that decision or the implications of that decision [which] really brings the issue home.”

Source: American Free Press

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Obama’s War on the Internet

Support Tyranny Or You’re A Terrorist

One Day Soon, We’ll All Be ‘Homegrown Terrorists’

The Ministry of Truth was how George Orwell described the mechanism used by government to control information in his seminal novel 1984. A recent trip to Europe has convinced me that the governments of the world have been rocked by the power of the internet and are seeking to gain control of it so that they will have a virtual monopoly on information that the public is able to access. In Italy, Germany, and Britain the anonymous internet that most Americans are still familiar with is slowly being modified. If one goes into an internet café it is now legally required in most countries in the European Union to present a government issued form of identification. When I used an internet connection at a Venice hotel, my passport was demanded as a precondition and the inner page, containing all my personal information, was scanned and a copy made for the Ministry of the Interior — which controls the police force. The copy is retained and linked to the transaction. For home computers, the IP address of the service used is similarly recorded for identification purposes. All records of each and every internet usage, to include credit information and keystrokes that register everything that is written or sent, is accessible to the government authorities on demand, not through the action of a court or an independent authority. That means that there is de facto no right to privacy and a government bureaucrat decides what can and cannot be “reviewed” by the authorities. Currently, the records are maintained for a period of six months but there is a drive to make the retention period even longer.

The excuses being given for the increasing government intervention into the internet are essentially two: first, that the anonymity of the internet has permitted criminal behavior, fraud, pornography, and libel. Second is the security argument, that managing the internet is an integral part of the “global war on terror” in that it is used by terrorists to plan their attacks requiring governments to control those who use it. The United States government takes the latter argument one step farther, claiming that the internet itself is a vulnerable “natural asset” that could be seized or damaged by terrorists and must be protected, making the case for a massive $100 billion program of cyberwarfare. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) argues that “violent Islamist extremists” rely on the internet to communicate and recruit and he has introduced a bill in the Senate that will empower the president to “kill” the internet in case of a national emergency.

But all of the arguments for intervention are essentially themselves fraudulent and are in reality being exploited by those who favor big government and state control. The anonymity and low cost nature of the internet means that it can be used to express views that are unpopular or unconventional, which is its strength. It is sometimes used for criminal behavior because it is a mechanism, not because there is something intrinsic in it that makes it a choice of wrongdoers. Before it existed, fraud was carried out through the postal service and over the telephone. Pornography circulated freely by other means. As for the security argument, the tiny number of actual terrorists who use the internet do so because it is there and it is accessible. If it did not exist, they would find other ways to communicate, just as they did in pre-internet days. In fact, intelligence sources report that internet use by terrorists is rare because of persistent government monitoring of the websites.

The real reason for controlling the internet is to restrict access to information, something every government seeks to do. If the American Departments of Defense and Homeland Security and Senator Lieberman have their way, new cybersecurity laws will enable Obama’s administration to take control of the internet in the event of a national crisis. How that national crisis might be defined would be up to the White House but there have been some precedents that suggest that the response would hardly be respectful of the Bill of Rights. Many countries already monitor and censor the internet on a regular basis, forbidding access to numerous sites that they consider to be subversive or immoral. During recent unrest, the governments of both Iran and China effectively shut down the internet by taking control of or blocking servers. Combined with switching off of cell phone transmitters, the steps proved effective in isolating dissidents. Could it happen here? Undoubtedly. Once the laws are in place a terrorist incident or something that could be plausibly described in those terms would be all that is needed to have government officials issue the order to bring the internet to a halt.

But the ability to control the internet technically is only part of the story. Laws are being passed that criminalize expressing one’s views on the internet, including both “hate crime” legislation and broadly drafted laws that make it a crime to support what the government describes loosely as terrorism in any way shape or form. Regular extra-legal government intrusion in the private lives of citizens is already a reality, particularly in the so-called Western Democracies that have the necessary technology and tech-savvy manpower to tap phones and invade computers. In Europe, draconian anti-terrorism laws enable security agencies to monitor phone calls and e-mails, in many cases without any judicial oversight. In Britain, the monitoring includes access to detailed internet records that are available for inspection by no less that 653 government agencies, most of which have nothing whatsoever to do with security or intelligence, all without any judicial review. In the United States, the Pentagon recently sought an internet and news “instant response capability” which it dubbed the Office of Strategic Influence and it has also seeded a number of retired military analysts into the major news networks to provide a pro-government slant on the war news. The State Department is also in the game, tasking young officers to engage presumed radicals in debate on their websites while the growing use of national security letters means that private communications sent through the internet can be accessed by Federal law enforcement agencies. The Patriot Act created national security letter does not require judicial oversight. More than 35,000 were issued by the FBI last year and the recipient of a letter commits a felony if he or she reveals the receipt of the document. In a recent case involving an internet provider in Philadelphia, a national security letter demanded all details of internet messages sent on a certain date, to include account information on clients with social security numbers and credit card references.

The danger is real. Most Americans who are critical of the actions of their own government rely on the internet for information that is uncensored and often provocative, including sites like Campaign for Liberty. As this article was being written, a story broke reporting that Wordpress host Blogetery had been shut down by United States authorities along with all 73,000 Blogetery-hosted blogs. The company’s ISP is claiming that it had to terminate Blogetery’s account immediately after being ordered to do so by law enforcement officials “due to material hosted on the server.” The extreme response implies a possible presumed terrorist connection, but it is important to note that no one was charged with any actual offense, revealing that the government can close down sites based only on suspicion. It is also likely only a matter of time before Obama’s internet warfare teams surface either at the Defense Department or at State. Deliberately overloading and attacking the internet to damage its credibility, witness the numerous sites that have been “hacked” and have had to cease or restrict their activities. But the moves afoot to create a legal framework to completely shut the internet down and thereby control the “message” are far more dangerous. American citizens who are concerned about maintaining their few remaining liberties should sound the alarm and tell the politicians that we don’t need more government abridgement of our First Amendment rights.

Source: Information Liberation

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

CNN Pushes Homegrown Terrorists, Blames Internet

One Day Soon, We’ll All Be ‘Homegrown Terrorists’

MSNBC Continues Propaganda Campaign Against Patriot Groups

Source: CNN

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Are Cameras the New Guns?

MSNBC Continues Propaganda Campaign Against Patriot Groups

Surveillance Drones To Zap Protesters Into Submission

The U.S. Federal Government under both the Bush and Obama administrations has made it perfectly clear that in the event of almost any major disaster scenario, including economic and environmental, they see the institution of Martial Law as not only viable, but inexorable. From legislative actions like the Patriot Act and the Enemy Belligerents Act (currently in committee) to continuity of government programs such as Rex 84 (formerly classified) and Presidential Directive PDD 51 (currently classified, even from Congress), all the “legal” precedents have been put into place to allow the Executive Branch to implement military oversight of civilian affairs, dissolution of Constitutional liberties, even the end of Miranda Rights and the right to a speedy impartial trial as protected under the Sixth Amendment. In some cases, government legislation allows for the rendition and torture of American citizens as combatants, all for the “greater good”, of course…

Some in this country dismiss such bills and directives as abstract novelties that don’t constitute any real threat to our freedoms or our daily life. People have a tendency to assume that the atmosphere we live in today will remain the same tomorrow and always. Many of us never consider that dramatic, even violent change in American domestic policy is possible on a moment’s notice. On the contrary, the continuity legislation now in place shows that our government under the direction of corporate globalists is not only prepared to implement a military lockdown of this country, they fully anticipate that such an event will occur in the near future.

In this article, we will examine how Martial Law will be presented to the citizens of the U.S., how it would likely evolve and progress, and what the ultimate end result will be if such action is not stopped by the Liberty Movement and the American public.

A “Reasonable” Tyranny

Tyranny does not always burst through your front door wearing body armor and brandishing an assault rifle. Sometimes, it waltzes through your living room and sweeps you off your feet. Sometimes it wears a glad mask that promises warmth and safety. Sometimes, tyranny invites you out to the party and makes you feel like you belong.

NEVER leave your drink unattended around tyranny…

Regardless of how apathetic the American public may seem at any given moment, the majority of them at their core hate false authority backed by thuggish jackboot mentality when directly faced with it, and will not capitulate to despotism easily. That’s just the way we are. Revolution is in our blood (though now slightly diluted), and it is an undeniable aspect of our national psyche. Widespread and immediate military control of U.S. streets would be met with a fury the world has never seen. If martial law were ever to be achieved by the Federal Government, it would have to be presented to Americans gradually, as absolutely reasonable and necessary to their personal well being not to mention that of their family. Globalists would have to twist the reality of martial law into a tapestry of fuzzy logic and two dimensional rationalizations, making the action appear almost mathematically evident. They would also need a crisis on a scale nearly beyond belief.

The U.S. is on the verge of many such crises. The economic health of this country is blatantly unstable, and even some mainstream analysts who called us “fear mongers” six months ago are now reluctantly admitting that some form of collapse is probable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html?hp

The financial life of America hangs by the thinnest of threads, and any moderate disaster at this stage will most definitely send it spiraling out of control.

Reports of U.S. warships positioning off the coast of Iran are now verified by the Department of Defense, and the media is beginning to spew WMD propaganda once again:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=131181&sectionid=351020205

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R0HD20100628

The likelihood of a U.S. or Israeli attack on the major oil producing nation has increased drastically. It is only a matter of time before Iran gives the West an excuse, or the West fabricates an excuse from thin air. Any new war, anywhere, would spell disaster for the world economy. Period.

And, perhaps the most devastating of all circumstances, BP’s act of eco-terrorism in the Gulf of Mexico has turned from a distraction that should have been disentangled immediately, into a slow motion catastrophe whose consequences could be so far reaching they might turn out downright biblical, not to mention, an ample pretext to call for a coastal evacuation and even martial law:

http://www.examiner.com/x-17299-Hernando-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m5d9-Gulf-Oil-Spill-2010-Plans-to-evacuate-Tampa-Bay-area-expected-to-be-announced

These scenarios do not include the ever present threat of government sponsored false flag terrorism, which could exacerbate social tensions one hundred fold. A 9/11 scale attack, perhaps even nuclear in origin, would assuredly be followed by a declaration of martial law.

Under circumstances like these, people tend to allow their fear to dictate what is “reasonable” at the moment. Principles often take a back seat to “moral relativity” in the face of misfortune, even though wisdom demands that principles be held as most important in the worst of times. Freedom and civilian control over government are vital not just when our wallets are stuffed, our stomachs are fed, and the weather is mild, but when the threat of national upheaval hangs in the sky like a sun-baked vulture. When an early and unpleasant demise becomes a distinct possibility for a significant majority of the citizenry, this is when liberty should take precedence over all things.

One argument is always presented by tyrants and their flock during the initial stages of social enslavement: “You can’t enjoy freedom if you are dead. It is always better to be alive, no matter the cost.”

However, what they fail to mention is that it is exceedingly difficult to enjoy being alive when you are a modern feudal peasant whose destiny is subject to the whim of power hungry corporatists and madmen. There is nothing meaningful in that kind of life, just as there is nothing meaningful in the life of a cog in a great machine except to turn around and around. You can’t enjoy freedom if you are dead, but you also can’t enjoy living if you’re not free.

At the beginning of any autocratic system, total authoritarian control is almost always presented as a panacea, a wonder-drug for the masses. When confronted with epic struggle, some people would rather defer responsibility for their survival to someone else rather than make the effort to save themselves, and thus, totalitarianism is born. Martial law in America would be no different. It will be presented to us as purely rational and absolutely necessary; an “extreme solution to extreme times”. Its success would rest solely on how many of us are willing to make the effort to determine our own destinies, and how many of us are too cowardly to do so.

Consequences Of Martial Law

Regardless of how well governments sugarcoat the prospect of martial law at its introduction, after it has been instituted, it doesn’t take very long for the people to realize they have been duped. The consequences of a militarized society cannot be hidden after the fact, nor does the establishment feel the need to hide those consequences after they have been handed unlimited power.

To peer into the future of what American martial law might look like, one need only research the history of martial law and dictatorships in general. From the Philippines to China to the Soviet Union, the stages of tyranny are pretty much the same no matter where you are in the world. Anyone who believes martial law in America will forgo any of these terrible steps, or that we will somehow maintain a sense of propriety and fairness, is going to be sorely disappointed.

Free Press Destroyed: The very first action of any government that has achieved military control of a country is to dominate the flow of information. The greatest threat to elitist domination is usually the people who they mean to rule over. Ending freedom of the press stalls chances that a view that opposes government control will gain footing. In America, the mainstream media is already under globalist control and would likely remain active during martial law, at least for a time. FOX, CNN, CNBC, etc, would change little, while the true free press (alternative web news which now dominates over the ratings of mainstream media) would be attacked, if not shut down completely. Government enforced web filters (like those in China and being legislated in Australia) could be put in place, and arrests of citizen journalists are liable to occur.

Dissolution Of Checks And Balances: In some cases, military rule allows for the dissolution of states rights and even of Congress itself. If Congress is allowed to remain, it would be in a ceremonial capacity only. Under martial law, all decision making is “streamlined” into the hands of the executive branch. The excuse given for this is often the same everywhere; the President (dictator) must not have his hands tied by checks and balances during a state of crisis, otherwise, his decisions are slowed, and more people could be hurt. Once the executive branch of a country removes checks and balances, they almost never put them back willingly, even after the so-called “crisis” has subsided.

Erasure Of Civil Liberties: Say goodbye to Habeas Corpus immediately. All tyrannies have abruptly suspended rights to fair trial, rights to legal representation, Miranda Rights, even the right to know what one has been charged with before being arrested. This process quickly devolves the justice system to the point where those who are detained simply disappear, and are never heard from again. The U.S. currently has many pieces of legislation that have passed or are pending which allow rendition and even torture of regular citizens, specifically in the event of a national emergency, which under current rules, the President can declare at his leisure.

Curfews, Checkpoints, Searches, Citizen Spies: Say goodbye to privacy. Expect ID checkpoints, and arrests for lack of ID. Expect nighttime curfews in cities enforced with extreme prejudice. Expect warrant-less searches of your home without cause, not to mention surveillance of web and phone traffic. Also count on the fact that some people, out of paranoia, or out of some twisted desire for petty influence, will start pointing an accusing finger at anyone who looks at them the wrong way, and the establishment will encourage this. Tyranny is much easier when the citizens police each other. We actually see some of this behavior today, however, under martial law, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of holding the authorities or anyone who supports them legally accountable for any wrongdoing. There is essentially no means to voice grievance. Martial law is like a free pass to law enforcement officials to do whatever they please, whenever they please.

Arrests Of Activists And Dissidents: Political opponents of the establishment, no matter how honorable and peaceful they may be, would likely be arrested. Those who have the capability to lead a movement in opposition of the current government or those who have the respect of a sizable percentage of the populace will become priority targets during martial law. All tyrants seek to quash other voices, especially strong voices, so that they can create an environment in which THEIR voice is the only one that can be heard. Activists are normally labeled as subversives, insurgents, or terrorists. They are arrested and treated as enemy combatants. The reigning government will claim that such people are “dangerous” to the stability of the country, and a threat to national security. Associating activists with terrorists also makes the idea of rendition and torture slightly more palatable to the fearful public.

Economic Feudalism: In an autocracy, everything becomes a matter of national security, even the state of the workforce. All jobs become state jobs. The very poor become a possible burden. The middle class and the very rich (if not already part of the establishment) become possible competition. This is why most tyrannies seek to establish “harmonization”, which is really just a flowery way of saying that everyone is made equally dependent on the system for their survival. It is hard to become a successful man in an oppressive society if you are not one of the elite. It is even harder to be a pauper in the same society because you are seen as a parasite feeding off the collective (though you are probably hurting no one). Martial law is always followed by an end to economic prosperity for the average citizen and the removal of the traditional middle class. In the end, this causes the public to subjugate themselves. It creates a system which rewards those who submit with a semblance of the status they once had. The alternative: barely eking out an existence while under constant fear that you could be labeled an impediment to social progress. Given this choice, many would choose to conform.

Food, Water, and Healthcare Rationing: Food and water are life. Control these two things in a culture, and you have the makings of a tyranny. One of the most notable aspects in the elitist quest for empire is the trail of hunger and starvation they leave in their wake. All methods are greenlighted. Burning of farmland, hording of grain, heavy taxation on livestock or harvests, government micromanagement of planting, everything is fair game. Food regulation can be taken to a whole other level in our modern age. With malicious corporations like Monsanto in operation, genetically modified crops can be created to control diet, ‘terminator seeds’ which yield only one crop can be used to keep the masses from replanting, and the pollen from these plants can be used to infect the genus of non-GMO crops birthing mutant strains which damage the food chain. By creating a food shortage, rationing then becomes inevitable, and with rationing comes greater influence. Healthcare rationing would be a natural extension, until every moment of ones life relies on the good graces of a centralized bureaucracy.

It is rare for a government to implement all of these actions in a single instant. Usually, they are introduced slowly over a period of years, and with each new decree a problem is preemptively engineered by the elites to give a “reasonable” cause, or generate a concrete fear. As time passes, people forget what life was like before, left only with the dreadful circumstances of the present, and a disquieting sensation in the pit of their stomachs, telling them that the world they have been presented is not the world we should have settled for.

Never Compromise Liberty

Tyrants prevail when they are able to fool the masses into compromising their ideals, and their conscience. They enjoy devising scenarios by which we are made to tread through a “grey area”, a place where the truth is supposedly a matter of perspective, and that which is right and balanced could become unbalanced and destructive. Once you choose to compromise a fundamental principle, they then use that moment to set precedence.

“If torture is tolerable in the chance that it could save some lives, then perhaps it is tolerable in other situations…” they say. “If some freedoms are expendable in the name of security, then perhaps others are as well.”

How do we stop elites from setting precedence in this way? We never compromise.

“Grey Area” scenarios are a charade. A rigged casino game in which there is only a single outcome and a single winner, and the winner is definitely not you. The crisis is usually one that the establishment created in the first place, i.e. the economic collapse, the BP oil spill, false flag terror, etc. And, the solution is always predetermined. No obstacle has only one solution, there are a myriad of answers to every dilemma, some far better than others. Yet, time and time again, we are offered only one way to resolve every disaster; greater centralization and extended government power.

Most disingenuous of all is the constant promise by government to keep us safe. No government has the power to offer security. Security provided by others is an illusion. The only true safety is that which one provides for himself. We accomplish this by becoming self reliant, self aware, and tough minded. We do not wait for some abstract ruling body to come to our aid, and we do not trade our freedom on the false promise that they will honor their agreement.

I have heard it argued that America is different, that we should not suspect our government capable of tyranny because “we are the government”. I find this assumption extraordinarily naïve. Our government has not represented the wishes of the people for decades. The leaderships of both major parties have supported almost identical legislative measures and extolled parallel globalist ideologies, making a mockery of our election process by giving us only one choice in the casting of our vote. We should be very suspect of such a government, for we are not the same, our goals are entirely opposed, and only one group can be allowed to endure; those who wish to dictate, or those who wish to be free.

I have also heard it said that freedom exists under the purview of government. That the liberties we enjoy are only possible because of the protections that government provides. Elitists often take advantage of our presumption that government is some kind of cultural obligation, one that we must bow to, and that by attrition, we must bow to them. In reality, government is a philosophical construct; a framework that only exists because we will it so, and that administrates freedoms only so far as we allow it to do so. WE are the source of our liberty, NOT government. It is we as individuals who ultimately must protect the freedoms we enjoy. Under no circumstance is any government more vital than our personal liberty. The choice is eternally simple; when asked to sacrifice one or the other, government must go.

The Constitution of the United States was drafted as a means to reign in government and force it to respect the freedoms of the people. It exists to deter the power hungry, for under the Constitution they are supposed to be denied the control they thirst for, not given unrestrained supremacy. Martial law is a tool by which the power hungry can remove the restraints of the Constitution and cast aside freedoms on a whim. This is unacceptable no matter the state of affairs. War, terrorism, economic collapse, environmental catastrophe, none of these events gives anyone the license to usurp our liberties. It cannot and will not be allowed. As the 4th of July approaches, we here in America should remember what it means to call ourselves a “sovereign people”. It is a title every man is born with but few men have the strength and fortitude to keep. “Independence” requires taxing vigilance, a persevering spirit, and the determination to see that neither is tread upon. Independence has a price. In the event that we are confronted with martial law in this country, it is a price we may have to pay all over again.

Source: Neithercorp Press

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Welcome To Our Hell: The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA)

Why Are Internment Camps Being Built?

One Day Soon, We’ll All Be ‘Homegrown Terrorists’

WESTLAKE, Ohio – Alyssa Thomas, 6, is a little girl who is already under the spotlight of the federal government. Her family recently discovered that Alyssa is on the “no fly” list maintained by U.S. Homeland Security.

“We were, like, puzzled,” said Dr. Santhosh Thomas. “I’m like, well, she’s kinda six-years-old and this is not something that should be typical.”

Dr. Thomas and his wife were made aware of the listing during a recent trip from Cleveland to Minneapolis. The ticket agent at the Continental counter at Hopkins Airport notified the family. “They said, well, she’s on the list. We’re like, okay, what’s the story? What do we have to do to get off the list? This isn’t exactly the list we want to be on,” said Dr. Thomas.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations in Cleveland will confirm that a list exists, but for national security reasons, no one will discuss who is on the list or why.

The Thomas family was allowed to make their trip but they were told to contact Homeland Security to clear-up the matter. Alyssa just received a letter from the government, notifying the six-year-old that nothing will be changed and they won’t confirm nor deny any information they have about her or someone else with the same name.

“She’s been flying since she was two-months old, so that has not been an issue,” said Alyssa’s dad. “In fact, we had traveled to Mexico in February and there were no issues at that time.”

According to the Transportation Security Administration, Alyssa never had any problems before because the Secure Flight Program just began in June for all domestic flights. A spokesperson will only say, “the watch lists are an important layer of security to prevent individuals with known or suspected ties to terrorism from flying.”

Right now, Alyssa has other priorities. “My Barbies, my magic mirror and jumping on my bed!” But her name will likely stay on the list and as for the next time she flies, the FBI says they’ll rely on the common sense of the security agents.

“She may have threatened her sister, but I don’t think that constitutes Homeland Security triggers,” said Dr. Thomas.

The Thomas family can still fly, but the check-in process will likely take much longer. They plan on making another appeal to U.S. Homeland Security.

Source:Information Liberation

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

More Surveillance Can Make Us Less Safe

Cop Caught On Camera Beating Special Education Student Marshawn Pitts

10-Year-Old Girl Busted For Lacking Lemonade Stand Permit

Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the pressure’s on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.

On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes. Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack. The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.

The obvious risks have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars’ license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing suspects.

Like many robots, the planes have advantages over humans for jobs that are dirty, dangerous or dull. And the planes often cost less than piloted aircraft and can stay aloft far longer.

“There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in (civilian) airspace,” Hank Krakowski, FAA’s head of air traffic operations, told European aviation officials recently. “We are having constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of vehicles.”

There are two types of unmanned planes: Drones, which are automated planes programmed to fly a particular mission, and aircraft that are remotely controlled by someone on the ground, sometimes from thousands of miles away.

Last year, the FAA promised defense officials it would have a plan this year. The agency, which has worked on this issue since 2006, has reams of safety regulations that govern every aspect of civilian aviation but is just beginning to write regulations for unmanned aircraft.

“I think industry and some of the operators are frustrated that we’re not moving fast enough, but safety is first,” Krakowski said in an interview. “This isn’t Afghanistan. This isn’t Iraq. This is a part of the world that has a lot of light airplanes flying around, a lot of business jets.”

One major concern is the prospect of lost communication between unmanned aircraft and the operators who remotely control them. Another is a lack of firm separation of aircraft at lower altitudes, away from major cities and airports. Planes entering these areas are not required to have collision warning systems or even transponders. Simply being able to see another plane and take action is the chief means of preventing accidents.

The Predator B, already in use for border patrol, can fly for 20 hours without refueling, compared with a helicopter’s average flight time of just over two hours. Homeland Security wants to expand their use along the borders of Mexico and Canada, and along coastlines for spotting smugglers of drugs and illegal aliens. The Coast Guard wants to use them for search and rescue.

The National Transportation Safety Board held a forum in 2008 on safety concerns associated with pilotless aircraft after a Predator crashed in Arizona. The board concluded the ground operator remotely controlling the plane had inadvertently cut off the plane’s fuel.

Texas officials, including Gov. Rick Perry, Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, and Rep. Henry Cuellar, have been leaning on the FAA to approve requests to use unmanned aircraft along the Texas-Mexico border.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has told lawmakers that safety concerns are behind the delays. Cornyn is blocking a Senate confirmation vote on President Barack Obama’s nominee for the No. 2 FAA job, Michael Huerta, to keep the pressure on.

Other lawmakers want an overall plan to speed up use of the planes beyond the border. A bill approved by the Senate gives FAA a year to come up with a plan; a House version extends the deadline until Sept. 30, 2013, but directs the transportation secretary to give unmanned aircraft permission to fly before the plan is complete, if that can be done safely.

Marion Blakey, a former FAA administrator and president of the Aerospace Industries Association, whose members include unmanned aircraft developers, said the agency has been granting approvals on a case by case basis but the pace is picking up.

Some concerns will be alleviated when the FAA moves from a radar-based air traffic control system to one based on GPS technology. Then, every aircraft will be able to advise controllers and other aircraft of their location continually. However, that’s a decade off.

Michael Barr, a University of Southern California aviation safety instructor, said the matter should not be rushed.

“All it takes is one catastrophe,” Barr said. “They’ll investigate, find they didn’t do it correctly, there’ll be an outcry and it will set them back years.”

Source: Federal Jack

Other stories at We Are Change Colorado Springs

Surveillance Drones To Zap Protesters Into Submission

Pentagon plans blimp to spy from new heights

Looking To Sell Balloons To Homeland Secerity