Showing posts with label police state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police state. Show all posts

Saturday, October 24, 2015

From Helmand to Homan: Empire Abroad & The Domestic Police State

Staff Writer, R. Patrick Chapman
Watching the Hawks / News
__________________________________


On this episode of “Watching the Hawks” Tyrel Ventura, Tabetha Wallace, & Sean Stone discuss President Obama’s latest extension of the never-ending war in Afghanistan. The team brings you the story of one man in San Francisco who blew the whistle on the agency charged with protecting whistleblowers! A drone captures a breathtaking tightrope walk in China. Tabetha provides in-depth coverage of the Homan detention site in Chicago and its tactics of control and terror over the underrepresented in the city. The DHS kicks off cyber-security awareness month! An interesting time capsule from a 1950 mental hospital reveals some secrets from the past! 

Source: Watching the Hawks 

Monday, October 27, 2014

Ebola Conspiracies, ISIS Funding, 9/11 Secrets and Canada Shootings with Patrick Henningsen

Staff Writer, DB Holmes
News / Government 
___________________________________

Investigative journalist and founder of 21st Century Wire.com Patrick Henningsen discusses his belief that the recent shootings in Ottawa could have been coordinated by the Canadian government, plus he outlines the current state of ISIS and addresses the growing number of Ebola conspiracy theories.

Henningsen said while looking into the background of the alleged shooter, he found that he’d been convicted of multiple felonies, and also violated parole twice. “That would put him into the potential ‘recruit for informant’ status. This is kind of how it’s done, especially with people maybe who have mental issues – this sort of disturbed young people.”

He says people like this are often pressured by members of the security services to become informants to go into mosques and to try to radicalize other young people who might also be disturbed, and inform authorities about the activities going on.

Henningsen believes the background of the Canadian shooter seems to fit this type of profile and he believes the man was a victim of mind control. “Often these are such controlled operations that it could be viewed as a type of entrapment. Then they go into the field and carry out something.”

He adds: “We have this very bizarre event… and watching the video footage – it looks like a drill to us. We had over 100 armed officers, within minutes, converging on the Canadian Parliament. One has to ask, are they able to mobilize so many armed officers that quickly and put the city on lockdown.

“It had all the hallmarks of a kind of citywide drill – and this was all for one person with a shotgun. And of course he was in Parliament, allegedly, and he had shot and killed, we’re told, a soldier at a war memorial before he went to the Parliament.”

He said he finds it highly unusual that the police would chase the shooter from the park where the original crime occurred to the Parliament building. “This may be the worst police work you’ve ever seen.’

Turning to the surge of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Henningsen said he considers the group a brand that is good at publicizing its cause. “ISIS is a brand, that’s all it is. It’s a brand like al-Qaeda was a brand, and it’s not a brand so much for those fighters that you see in YouTube videos, those are all propaganda videos.

Henningsen said ISIS could have never bought the kind of PR they’re now getting – which he points out is probably worth millions of dollars – free PR they’ve been given by the major news networks, which have shown their propaganda beheading videos.

“I won’t even call them the Islamic State because they are not a state – that’s just dignifying them too much. It’s a paramilitary gang, it’s a confab of many different gangs and factions, but in the West, it’s branded as ISIS.”

He also gives his opinion that ISIS might disband at some point with continued military options exercised against it, but he predicts the factions would then likely just spread out, while still remaining part of a more loosely organized group.

The conversation then turns to the Ebola hysteria that’s hit the U.S. media, as well as some bizarre conspiracy theories being thrown around regarding the deadly virus. “There’s a huge, kind of a staged outbreak hype, which has gone on in America. On one hand it’s a hype, on the other hand, they could not be telling us the full extent or danger involved with this particular pathogen.”

It is pointed out that while thousands have already died of Ebola in West Africa, the United States has only seen a few cases, so there is no pandemic yet in the United States despite the saturated news coverage.

Henningsen also cites some of the “bombastic” news stories being put out by FOX News and other right-wing media sources. “They’re trying to link Ebola to ISIS.”

He gives the example of Albert Shimkus – a professor and retired colonel who teaches intelligence at the U.S. Navy Academy – who first floated the ISIS-Ebola danger. “He said ISIS terrorists could go to West Africa, intentionally infect themselves with Ebola, and then get on a plane to the United States and fly around to as many cities as they can to spread Ebola around America.

“The wildest conspiracy theories right now are not coming from the mainstream media, they’re coming from official sources now, and that’s the incredible paradigm shift that I’ve witnessed in the past year.”

He notes that former U.S. senator Scott Brown suggested the same thing, that ISIS fighters could go over to West Africa and get infected with Ebola and then enter the United States via Mexico to spread the disease throughout the country.

Watch the full interview to also hear Henningsen comment on the continued top secret status of certain pages in the 9/11 report that purportedly suggest that Saudi Arabia played a role in the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Source: Buzzsaw 

Sunday, March 23, 2014

There's Always Free Cheese in the Mousetrap

Staff Writer, R. Patrick Chapman
Police State / Militarization of Police
_____________________________________

Think for a moment about what the police men and women looked and acted like when your grand/parents were youth. Strange how much different than it is now. Slowly, the federal government has pushed for the militarization of local police forces through "grant programs."

But why?

Retired Marine Colonel Pete Martino sought to answer this question during a Concord City Council in New Hampshire:


Grants are the public's money. So the next time you see your local police act and look like they belong in a war zone, ask yourself some simple questions: why? when? how? what? and who?

Because only a government, federal or local, that creates a militarized police force isn't doing so for the public's protection. It's to protect themselves from the public.

Isn't misappropriating your tax money great?


Source: Youtube,

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Supreme Court Supports Police State and You Are No Longer Secure Anywhere

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Bill of Rights / Supreme Court
___________________________________________

The Supreme Court yet again has shown the American People how irrelevant it has become.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices have decided that the the Fourth Amendment allows for warrantless searches and seizures because you are not at home to refuse the police, have been arrested, or your roommate can approve such a search without your consent. 
"We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason," Alito said.
As well in this case the Supreme Court went back on its decision of when two occupants disagree about letting the police in are present, the objecting occupant prevails. The justices ruled in 2006 in a 5-3 decision. That decision is now null and void. 

The case that changed the definition of the Fourth Amendment is as follows:
Police found a shotgun, ammunition and a knife when they searched the Los Angeles apartment that Walter Fernandez shared with his girlfriend, Roxanne Rojas.

Fernandez told police they could not enter. But shortly after his arrest, officers returned to the apartment and persuaded Rojas to let them in.

Fernandez is serving a 14-year prison term on robbery and guns charges.

When Rojas first answered the door for police, she was crying and holding her 2-month-old baby. She had a fresh bump on her nose, and blood on her hands and shirt. She said she had been in a fight.

At that point Fernandez appeared and ordered the police to get out, telling them he knew his constitutional rights. The police believed the couple had just been in a fight and removed Fernandez from the apartment in handcuffs. An officer noticed a tattoo on Fernandez' shaved head that matched the description of a robbery suspect. Fernandez soon was arrested.

California maintained in its argument at the court that police had enough evidence at that point to get a warrant. But they said one was unnecessary because Rojas had the authority to let them in, despite Fernandez's earlier objection.

The court agreed with that proposition Tuesday.

The case is Fernandez v. California, 12-7822.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting argument that "Fernandez's objection to the search did not become null upon his arrest and removal from the scene." A person being arrested for anything including domestic violence has not given up their rights. It's called due process, innocent before proven guilty, but the High Court no longer views Americans in this light.   

To refresh the memories of the Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Supreme Court keeps introducing new decisions that vacate our rights and freedoms for the growth of the police state. This behavior of not providing checks and balances on the Executive Branch but encouraging such inequalities is inappropriate. It appears the Supreme Court wants the police, government, and military to be lawless within our own borders.

In this decision, is the Supreme Court sanctioning future edicts for martial law?


Source: AP, FindLaw,