Shock Report: White House Immigration Details Leaked: Obama Policies Will Create A “Country Within A Country”
by Mac Slavo
The White House has finally unveiled it’s strategy with illegal immigration and according to well known radio host Mark Levin it is in its advanced stages after many years of scheming and implemntation. In the following interview Levin is joined by Sue Payne, a radio host in Baltimore, Maryland, who happened to be invited to a series of conference calls with Obama administration officials.
What you are about to hear is shocking.
As noted by Sue Payne, the administration is, in effect, establishing a new country within the borders of the United States, something confirmed by a high level Obama administration operative on the conference call.
In reality what he did was sign a memorandum that created the Task Force on New Americans which is going to implement his amnesty mill for the 5 million illegals, which I believe is going to be more than that… and on these conference calls it became clear he was looking at 13 to 15 million to give protection and move them on to citizenship.
What became clear is that once these illegals come out of the shadows so to speak, their communities that they’re living in now are going to be re-designated as “receiving communities.” And what this task force is designed to do is to create a welcoming feeling among these receiving communities to bring in these immigrants…bring them out in the open… and the receiving communities will then morph into what was established as an emerging immigrant community.
To do that, what they said was that we need to start looking at the immigrant as a seedling and for the seedling to grow the seedling needs to be in fertile soil…
Eventually the seedlings will take over the host… and the immigrants will come out of the shadows… and what I got from the meetings is that they would be pushing the citizens into the shadows… they would be taking over the country… In fact, one of the members of the task force actually said that we would be developing a “country within a country.”
The White House spokesman said that immigrants need to be aware of the benefits that they are entitled to… which led to another comment saying that this group Obama’s going to give amnesty to would not be interested in assimilating… they would navigate but not assimilate.
There were also a couple of other things that were very disturbing… one was that as soon as this decision is pushed through these immigrants need to be treated as refugees… they need to be given cash… they need medical care… they need to use credit cards to pay for any documents that they need… And also, we need to convince state and local governments to cut these people no interest loans with tax payer dollars so they can then then pay for their papers… as if we were funding our own destruction here.
The Executive Orders signed by President Obama last year are now coming to fruition. Millions of people who have illegally entered the United States will be given amnesty. New immigrants will be sent to “receiving communities” as explained by Before It’s News:
The “new Americans” are considered “seedlings” by the White House and the “receiving communities” are the “fertile ground” to nurture them, according to comments made during the meetings.
At the meetings, it was said that “immigrants need to be aware of benefits they are entitled to”.
Obama’s plan is to treat the “new Americans” as refugees as soon as amnesty is pushed through. Refugees are given an allowance, housing, food, medical care, education, and an immediate pathway to citizenship.
And where will all the money come from to feed, house, educate and provide health care?
The answer is simple. It will come from you and if President Obama has his way it will be forced upon you without congressional approval, as highlighted by Infowars just two days ago:
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is “very interested” in the idea of raising taxes through unitlateral executive action.
“The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.
“Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of,” Earnest continued. “But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally,” Earnest finished.
The pieces of the puzzle have now revealed the bigger picture and the ultimate goals of the Obama administration.
Moreover, it is clear that President Obama has completely trashed the founding document of the United States. First by ignoring his Constitutional duty to enforce the laws of the land by securing our borders. And second, by mandating forced taxation through executive actions that will further impoverish an already struggling American citizenry.
Creepy Tracking Tech Gone Too Far: “Police Surveillance Now Fully Automated and Integrated Into Wireless Networks”
by Mac Slavo
Welcome to 2015. We’re certainly not in Kansas anymore.
Not only is the police state here, but it is upgrading all the time.
While people are busy fighting an uphill battle with apparently rampant cases of abuse, excessive force and a misguided and failed War on Drugs, many are too far behind the times to keep up with these technologies – now being tested or used in police departments across the country.
While the use of technology in policing is nothing new, it might surprise you have far things have gone – with much of police surveillance now fully automated and integrated into wireless networks, and monitored by Homeland Security-funded fusion centers.
Reason.tv rounded up these examples of creepy, robot, privacy destroying police tactics (and it’s only just beginning):
• Smart street lights created a stir in the alternative media a few years ago, with news that Homeland Security grants were putting big brother funding on the streets quite literally. Now, they are being tested in Las Vegas. The intelligent street lights are equipped with two-way communication and monitoring devices, and may be used to record conversations on the streets, or to broadcast official messages from the authorities during an emergency, or in the midst of a crime. Apparently, they can also broadcast music. Maybe that will give them enough street cred to keep the creepy level off the radar. Paul Joseph Watson wrote:
The Intellistreets system comprises of a wireless digital infrastructure that allows street lights to be controlled remotely by means of a ubiquitous wi-fi link and a miniature computer housed inside each street light, allowing for “security, energy management, data harvesting and digital media,” according to the Illuminating Concepts website.
In terms of Homeland Security applications, each of the light poles contains a speaker system that can be used to broadcast emergency alerts, as well as a display that transmits “security levels” (presumably a similar system to the DHS’ much maligned color-coded terror alert designation), in addition to showing instructions by way of its LED video screen.
The lights also include proximity sensors that can record both pedestrian and road traffic. The video display and speaker system will also be used to transmit Minority Report-style advertising, as well as Amber Alerts and other “civic announcements”.
• Location tracking Wi-Fi is now being tested in Seattle and other locations as part of a wireless mesh network. Of course, most already know that their cell phones and computers share data with their providers, the NSA and a host of other data hungry watchers, but now the police are using boxes set up at numerous street intersections to ping and track cell phones in the area, logging location data for thousands of drivers, passengers and pedestrians that could be used to establish the whereabouts of a suspect, pursue criminals, as evidence in traffic disputes or perhaps for crowd control.
The Wi-Fi tracking devices appear as white boxes mounted on poles or street lights. The data interconnects through a wireless mesh network with existing traffic cameras, police squad vehicles, networks of cameras and other interfaces on the emerging fiber network, and a host of authorities in the region, including police, the Sheriff’s Department and the regional fusion center. Officially, the mesh network aides communication during emergency scenarios, but also functions as a roaming live-time surveillance network.
Reason.tv reports that Seattle residents been reporting wi-fi networks popping up on their cell service with the names of intersections (such as 3rd & Union) since 2013.
• Sting Ray cell phone interceptor / cell phone tower impersonator devices are now being secretly used by the FBI, local police departments and… probably other spy agencies, foreign and domestic, as well. The use of this technology remains less known than other techniques, in part because the Justice Department has pressured local law enforcement to keep hush hush about the use of this tool, even in the face of court testimony.
The best part, from a policing point of view, is the kid-in-a-candy store, fish-in-a-barrel opportunity for revealing data on everyone from suspects to innocent bystanders who may have data wanted by the authorities… now or later. No warrants need apply.
Melissa Melton writes:
According to the Associated Press, the Obama Administration has been actively advising police departments to refuse disclosure about certain cell phone surveillance technologies, including the widely used “StingRay” device, even in routine state records requests.
Evidently, the StingRay technology allows law enforcement to “trick” cell devices into sharing identifying personal and location data with them that would ordinary be sent to communications companies and require request procedures.
Instead, police are bypassing company assistance and collecting unique information on suspects, persons of interests, and – as the AP reports – they can even “sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods,” all without any court orders or oversight.
• See-through-radar, as used in such on the market technologies as the Range-R, allows police to see the location of all the people inside a building through the walls, again, without a warrant.
USA Today reports:
At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.
Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person’s house without first obtaining a search warrant.
• PoliceBots – Right now, the Knightscope K5 looks like an inept R2D2 unit, but soon people will see it as the early deployment prototype of the dangerous Robocop type units that science fiction has long warned us about.
They are scheduled to begin actual patrols in the Silicon Valley area sometime this year, and will principally be used to detect criminal activity and alert human officers… for now, of course. Later, they are supposed to be capable of crime prediction as well as prevention, but we already know that Minority Report is no-knocking at the door.
According to the Daily Mail, these bot-officers carry a number of advanced and perhaps troubling capabilities, including rapid license plate scanning and something referred to as ‘odor detection’:
The five foot tall robots have a combination of laser scanning, wheel encoders, inertial measurements, and GPS that allows fully autonomous operation and charging.
It also has odour detectors, and can even monitor air pollution as it travels around.
Using cameras they can also read up to 300 car number plates a minute, allowing them to monitor traffic.
• Drones – The use of drones is, unsurprisingly, also expanding, but the devices are become so cheap at the same time that their use is becoming accepted. Hence, police departments and law enforcement are snatching them up and making purchases that often fly under the radar of public controversy. Infinitely cheaper than helicopters and other aerial devices, drones are poised to be anywhere and everywhere that law enforcement wants eyes.
• “Eye in the Sky” – Reason.tv also included an “Eye in the Sky” HD camera mounted inside a Cessna-style aircraft that flies over a city locale for up to six hours, recording everything that takes place in the community – with options to zoom in on areas of interest in live-time and play back to review what officers weren’t focusing on.
The Atlantic reported on how the device was used secretly in Compton, California, and only revealed to the public years afterwards – kept hush hush by law enforcement to quell privacy concerns:
In a secret test of mass surveillance technology, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department sent a civilian aircraft* over Compton, California, capturing high-resolution video of everything that happened inside that 10-square-mile municipality.
Compton residents weren’t told about the spying, which happened in 2012. “We literally watched all of Compton during the times that we were flying, so we could zoom in anywhere within the city of Compton and follow cars and see people,” Ross McNutt of Persistence Surveillance Systems told the Center for Investigative Reporting, which unearthed and did the first reporting on this important story. The technology he’s trying to sell to police departments all over America can stay aloft for up to six hours. Like Google Earth, it enables police to zoom in on certain areas. And like TiVo, it permits them to rewind, so that they can look back and see what happened anywhere they weren’t watching in real time.
The question is, where does it all end?
Are there any limits to how far police or government authorities will go or can go?
The Fourth Amendment seems clear enough in its intent to protect people from unwarranted searches and seizure, but it has been all but trashed and scrapped in the wake of the paranoid War on Terrorism and unparalleled mass surveillance technologies.
The problem is that there may simply be no turning back. Expectation of privacy are now as low as a fat, bald, unemployed dude hoping for a date with a supermodel. Basically, freedom is dormant and privacy is, for the time being, now all but nonexistent.
by Wayne MADSEN
There was once a time when any criticism of any Israeli leader by an elected U.S. political leader was a taboo, an act that ensured a quick political death sentence. Those who even mildly criticized the actions of Israel or any Israeli prime minister were guaranteed a well-funded election opponent, courtesy of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
After Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu conspired with Republican U.S. House Speaker John Boehner for the Israeli prime minister to give an address to a joint session of Congress, his third — a distinction that Netanyahu shares only with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill — and without the knowledge of the Obama administration, all gloves are off. Never before in the history of the United States has a foreign leader been invited to denounce a sitting American president from the same pulpit where the American president delivers the traditional State of the Union address.
What Netanyahu called for before Congress was nothing less than total regime change in Iran. Netanyahu stressed he does not want any sort of nuclear deal with the current government in Tehran and wants sanctions increased not decreased. Netanyahu, who understands the hold that his Zionist friends who control Hollywood have over the American public, compared Iran to the «Game of Thrones», a reference to an HBO fantasy series about seven warring kingdoms. Netanyahu also said that as far as the Islamic State’s conflict with Iran was concerned, «the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.» He was referring to the United States and its current war with the Islamic State. Netanyahu mangled what every sane observer of the current state of Middle Eastern affairs say that the U.S. and Iran are natural allies against ISIL, the operative motto being «the enemy of your enemy is your friend.» Netanyahu laughingly tried to draw a comparison between the Islamic State and Iran because «Iran calls itself the Islamic Republic and ISIS calls itself the Islamic State.»
Netanyahu said Iran and ISIL are competing like the warring kingdoms in the «Game of Thrones» to see who would wear the crown. Netanyahu ignored the fact that the jihadist ISIL guerrillas claim to be Sunni while Iran is Shi’a. As far as Iran’s formal name is concerned, Netanyahu may have as well compared ISIS or ISIL to Mauritania, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, all of which use «Islamic Republic» in their names.
Netanyahu also outrageously suggested that it was more important to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon than in defeating the Islamic State. Netanyahu was relying on the same low-IQ sound-bytes that are commonplace on such propaganda networks as Fox News and on the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal.
As a number of Democratic senators and representatives announced they were going to avoid Netanyahu’s speech, another move that would have normally resulted in a cacophony of dissenting shouts from the Israel Lobby, President Obama told Reuters in an exclusive interview that Netanyahu’s speech was a mistake. Obama, in response to national security adviser Susan Rice’s earlier comment that Netanyahu’s speech was «destructive to the fabric» of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, agreed that Netanyahu’s speech to Congress two weeks before an Israeli election was a «distraction», in addition to being a mistake.
Obama’s rather diplomatic language hides a seething within the White House for the partisan activities of Israeli ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, a former U.S. citizen, and Boehner. The Netanyahu visit comes after senior White House officials were anonymously quoted in the media as calling the Israeli prime minister a «coward» and a «chickenshit.»
Perhaps no other U.S. administration has had a tenser relationship with Israel since John F. Kennedy warned Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in a 1963 letter that unless American inspectors were allowed into Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility, Israel would lose American aid and find itself diplomatically isolated. In 1961, Kennedy refused to allow Ben-Gurion to visit the White House but agreed to meet him in a rather unpublicized meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York.
A CNN poll showed that American public opinion is shifting on Israel, with 63 percent of Americans polled disagreeing with Boehner’s invitation for Netanyahu to address Congress. But to the tone deaf AIPAC, whose annual conference in Washington Netanyahu addressed on the eve of his speech to Congress, they wrongly believe they have the support of the American people when they only have the support of older Jews, so-called Christian Zionists, and neoconservative war hawks who are part of the U.S. military-industrial base. Even 31 percent of American Jews, according to the CNN poll cited earlier have no affinity to the goals of Israel.
Obama and Vice President Joe Biden decided not to speak to AIPAC this year. The White House, instead, sent Susan Rice and UN ambassador Samantha Power to address the very pro-Republican and right-wing group. In preparation for his congressional speech, Netanyahu told AIPAC «For 2,000 years, my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless.” Anyone familiar with the history of the financial system of the Roman Empire or the Rothschild barons of finance and industry in Europe would not claim that the Jewish were entirely «defenseless» or «voiceless» throughout the last 2000 years.
Many Jews in the United States and elsewhere resent Netanyahu’s repeated claims to represent the entirety of the Jewish people. Before Congress, Netanyahu shamelessly tried to compare today’s Iran with Nazi Germany and ancient Persia. In reference to Persia, Netanyahu said, «Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us.» Netanyahu was citing arcane Old Testament mythology contained in the pages of the Book of Esther.
Irking AIPAC even more was the fact that Secretary of State John Kerry turned down his invitation so he could meet with Iranian foreign minister Zavad Jarif in P5+1 nuclear discussions in Geneva. Kerry also pointedly warned Netanyahu against disclosing secret details of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations before the Congress. It became clear, however, that Netanyahu’s undermining of Obama and Kerry during the sensitive negotiations in Geneva, were aimed at scuttling a nuclear deal and preventing any weakening of sanctions on Iran. Netanyahu flatly told Congress that any nuclear deal by the P5+1 with Iran would «pave the way» for an Iranian nuclear weapons. Not only has the CIA dismissed any such current plans by Iran but several former Israeli intelligence officials have said the same thing: Iran has no capability of producing a nuclear weapon at the present time.
Netanyahu’s people managed to dredge up Czech president Milos Zeman, former Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar, and former Canadian foreign minister John Baird to applaud Netanyahu’s comments to AIPAC. The three foreign officials, by default, also showed their disrespect to the Obama administration by attending a partisan event on the eve of an even greater partisan event.
Although such Democratic senators as Patrick Leahy, Elizabeth Warren (a much-rumored 2016 presidential candidate), Brian Schatz, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tim Kaine, and Al Franken, and veteran Democratic Representatives John Lewis, Jim McDermott, and Jim Clyburn, as well as Republican Representative Walter Jones, announced their boycott of Netanyahu’s speech, other Democrats, including Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, were present. The empty seats in the House chamber will filled by pro-Netanyahu Republican staffers who, along with the attendees the nearby AIPAC conference managed to pack into the House Visitor’s Gallery, gave Netanyahu thunderous, if not misleading, applause and shouts of support.
Not surprisingly, Netanyahu’s speech was praised by the pro-Zionist CNN and its Washington bureau chief, Wolf Blitzer, who never admits in the interest of full disclosure that he was once the public affairs spokesman for AIPAC.
Netanyahu will now face off against Israel’s political opposition in the March 17 election. Although Netanyahu may have scored cheap political points with Israel’s right-wing and even farther-right settlers, the damage he has done to the U.S.-Israeli «special relationship» will far outlast the results of the forthcoming election.
“Corporate America is using police forces as their mercenaries.”—Ray Lewis, Retired Philadelphia Police Captain
It’s one thing to know and exercise your rights when a police officer pulls you over, but what rights do you have when a private cop—entrusted with all of the powers of a government cop but not held to the same legal standards—pulls you over and subjects you to a stop-and-frisk or, worse, causes you to “disappear” into a Gitmo-esque detention center not unlike the one employed by Chicago police at Homan Square?
For that matter, how do you even begin to know who you’re dealing with, given that these private cops often wear police uniforms, carry police-grade weapons, and perform many of the same duties as public cops, including carrying out SWAT team raids, issuing tickets and firing their weapons.
This is the growing dilemma we now face as private police officers outnumber public officers (more than two to one), and the corporate elite transforms the face of policing in America into a privatized affair that operates beyond the reach of the Fourth Amendment.
Mind you, it’s not as if we had many rights to speak of, anyhow.
Owing to the general complacency of the courts and legislatures, the Fourth Amendment has already been so watered down, battered and bruised as to provide little practical protection against police abuses. Indeed, as I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, we’re already operating in a police state in which police have carte blanche authority to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance. Expanding on these police powers, the U.S. Supreme Court recently gave law enforcement officials tacit approval to collect DNA from any person, at any time.
However, whatever scant protection the weakened Fourth Amendment provides us dissipates in the face of privatized police, who are paid by corporations working in partnership with the government. Talk about a diabolical end run around the Constitution.
We’ve been so busy worrying about militarized police, police who shoot citizens first and ask questions later, police who shoot unarmed people, etc., that we failed to take notice of the corporate army that was being assembled under our very noses. Looks like we’ve been outfoxed, outmaneuvered and we’re about to be out of luck.
Indeed, if militarized police have become the government’s standing army, privatized police are its private army—guns for hire, if you will. This phenomenon can be seen from California to New York, and in almost every state in between. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the private security industry is undergoing a boom right now, with most of the growth coming about due to private police doing the jobs once held by public police. For instance, Foley, Minnesota, population 2600, replaced its police force with private guards
Technically, a private police force is one that is owned or controlled by a non-governmental body such as a corporation. Those who advocate for privatized services and limited government hail the shift towards private police as a step in the right direction by getting the government out of the business of policing and allow market principles to dictate an officer’s success, i.e., if an officer abuses his authority, he can easily be fired.
Read the fine print, however, and you’ll find that these private police aka guns-for-hire a.k.a. private armies a.k.a. company police officers a.k.a. secret police a.k.a. conservators of the police a.k.a. rent-a-cops don’t exactly remove the government from the equation. Instead, they merely allow them to work behind the scenes, conveniently insulated from any accusations of wrongdoing or demands for transparency. Indeed, most private police officers are either working for private security firms that are contracted by the government or are government workers moonlighting on their time off.
What began as a job detail for wealthy communities and businesses looking to discourage burglaries has snowballed into a lucrative enterprise for private corporations. Today these private police can be found wherever extra security is “needed”: at hospitals, universities, banks, shopping malls, gated communities, you name it.
As historian Heather Ann Thompson notes, “private security firms have come substantially to supplement, if not completely to replace, the publicly-funded public safety presence of troubled inner cities ranging from Oakland, to New Orleans, to small towns in states such Minnesota, to entire neighborhoods—sometimes extremely rich, sometimes desperately poor—in urban centers such as Atlanta and Baltimore.”
For example, in New Orleans, a 50-person private police squad funded by a “voluntary” hotel tax is being charged with enforcing traffic, zoning and other non-emergency laws in the French Quarter.
In Seattle, off-duty Seattle Police officers moonlighting as a private security force patrol wealthy neighborhoods “approximately six nights/days a week for five hours each shift. Officers are in uniform, carry police radios and their police firearms and drive unmarked personal vehicles.”
In California, private mercenaries—many of them ex-U.S. Special Forces, Army Rangers and other combat veterans—equipped with AR-15 rifles use unmarked helicopters to police cannabis farms and cut down private gardens without a warrant.
Yet while these private police firms enjoy the trappings of government agencies—the weaponry, the arrest and shoot authority, even the ability to ticket and frisk— they’re often poorly trained, inadequately screened, poorly regulated and heavily armed. Now if that sounds a lot like public police officers, you wouldn’t be far wrong.
First off, the label of “private” is dubious at best. Mind you, this is a far cry from a privatization of police. These are guns for hire, answerable to corporations who are already in bed with the government. They are extensions of the government without even the pretense of public accountability. One security consultant likened the relationship between public and private police to public healthcare: “It’s basically, the government provides a certain base level. If you want more than that, you pay for it yourself.”
The University of Chicago’s police department (UCPD) is a prime example of how private security firms are being entrusted with the legal status of private police forces (which sets them beyond the reach of the rule of law) and the powers of public ones. With a jurisdiction that covers a six-square-mile area and is home to 65,000 individuals, the majority of whom are not students, UCPD is one of the largest private security forces in America.
The private police agency, modeled after the tactics of NYPD chief William Bratton, criminalizes nonviolent activities such as loitering, vandalism, smoking marijuana, and dancing “recklessly” and punishes minor infractions severely in order to “discourage” violent crime. To this end, the UCPD can search, ticket, arrest, and detain anyone they choose without being required to disclose to the public its reasons for doing so. Not surprisingly, the UCPD has been accused of using racial profiling to target individuals for stop-and-frisks.
Second, these private contractors are operating beyond the reach of the law. For example, although private police in Ohio are “authorized by the state to carry handguns, use deadly force and detain, search and arrest people,” they are permitted to keep their arrest and incident reports under wraps. Moreover, the public is not permitted to “check the officers’ background or conduct records, including their use-of-force and discipline histories.” As attorney Fred Gittes remarked, “There is no accountability. They have the greatest power that society can invest in people — the power to use deadly force and make arrests. Yet, the public and public entities have no practical access to information about their behavior, eluding the ability to hold anyone accountable.”
So what happens when the government hires out its dirty deeds to contractors who aren’t quite so discriminating about abiding by constitutional safeguards, especially as they relate to searches and heavy-handed tactics? If you think police abuses are worrisome, security expert Bruce Schneier warns that “abuses of power, brutality, and illegal behavior are much more common among private security guards than real police.”
As Schneier points out, “Many of the laws that protect us from police abuse do not apply to the private sector. Constitutional safeguards that regulate police conduct, interrogation and evidence collection do not apply to private individuals. Information that is illegal for the government to collect about you can be collected by commercial data brokers, then purchased by the police. We’ve all seen policemen ‘reading people their rights’ on television cop shows. If you’re detained by a private security guard, you don’t have nearly as many rights.”
Third, more often than not, the same individuals are serving in both capacities, first on the government payroll, then moonlighting for the corporations. Not surprisingly, given the demand for private police, you’ll find that police in most cities work privately while they are off-duty. Some private officers started off as public officers, then made the switch once they saw how lucrative the field could be.
This gives rise to another interesting phenomenon, a schism, if you will, between what is permissible in the private sector versus and what is allowed in the public sector, and how it affects those who travel between both worlds. We saw this played out in St. Louis, Missouri, when an off-duty police officer, working a secondary shift for a private security firm, shot and killed a teenager.
Fourth, what few realize is that these private police agencies are actually given their police powers by state courts and legislatures, which do not require them to act in accordance with the Constitution’s strictures or be accountable to “we the people.” As legal analyst Timothy Geigner observes, “They’re hiding from public scrutiny behind the veil of incorporation, which may rank right up there among the most cynical things a government organization has ever done. It’s a move one might find in the corporate republic of some dystopian novel. I say that because it’s truly not as though the police departments in question are attempting to claim some kind of exemption within public records law. They’re just putting up a stone wall.”
It’s not as if we have much in the way of local, publicly accountable police forces now; they all answer to the militarized agencies that provide their equipment and training. These private cops simply swell the government’s ranks and serve as the private arm of the law.
In fact, the Department of Justice has been one of the most vocal advocates for the benefits that private security—which has twice the budget and manpower as their government counterparts—can provide in partnership with public police. These so-called “benefits” are outlined in the DOJ’s guidebook entitled “Operation Partnership: Practices and Trends in Law Enforcement and Private Security Collaborations,” which focuses on how both sectors can share cutting-edge technology, information, and personnel resources. Sounds cozy, doesn’t it?
As history shows, we’re not forging a new path with these private police agencies, either. In fact, we’re simply following a model established long ago, not only by Hitler and Mussolini, who relied on private guards to do their bidding, but also by the likes of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, who relied on their own private police force, the Pinkertons, who had broad authority to “harass or hurt anyone their employers deemed a threat—be they a worker trying to get a fair wage or a poor person begging near the doorstep of a mansion.”
Nevertheless as historian Heather Ann Thompson points out, “despite countless historical accounts of why private policing of public spaces is a bad idea in a democracy, ordinary Americans have raised little ruckus today when, once again, only those Americans with money are assured access to security and protection.” Thompson continues:
Worse, astonishing faith has been expressed in the much-touted proposition that private police forces, in fact, act in the best interests of the public. Where is the concern, if not the outrage, that there is virtually no regulation when it comes to private policing in America’s inner cities? Not only can individuals with little if any training police public spaces, but in various locales they are even authorized to make arrests and wield firearms. What is more, unlike public police, private security officers are not required by law to read a suspect his or her Miranda Rights and, more incredibly, they are allowed to use force, in some circumstances even deadly force, if they deem it necessary to do so.
What we’re finding ourselves faced with is a government of mercenaries, bought and paid for with our tax dollars, all the while claiming to be beyond the reach of the Constitution’s dictates.
When all is said and done, privatization in the American police state amounts to little more than the corporate elite providing cover for government wrong-doing.
Either way, the American citizen loses.
The Economic Collapse
by Michael Snyder
In the past 40 years, we have never been closer to World War III than we are today. If you ask Americans to name what area of the globe they believe World War III will begin, the number one choice by a landslide would probably be the Middle East. And thanks to the stunning breakdown of U.S.-Israeli relations, we are now closer to that war than we have been in decades. Since the 1970s, the United States has served as the major buffer between Israel and her Islamic neighbors. Israel has trusted the United States to protect it, and Israel’s enemies have known that an all-out assault on Israel would be fruitless because the U.S. military would step in. When a minor conflict has erupted in the region, the United States has always rushed in diplomatically to settle things down. But now the relationship between the Israeli government and the Obama administration is near a breaking point, and tensions in the Middle East just continue to intensify. At this moment, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu no longer trusts Barack Obama to do what is right for Israel, and it is an open secret that Obama pretty much despises Netanyahu. And during his speech to Congress on Tuesday, Netanyahu once again made it abundantly clear that his government will never, ever allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel believes that Iran is even getting close, Israel will attack. But instead of trying to prevent this from happening, Barack Obama is negotiating a deal with Iran that would give the Iranians pretty much everything that they want and would allow them to build all the nukes they desire in about ten years. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that this is a “bad deal”, and he is right.
The U.S. relationship with Israel is one of the most touchy political topics in the country today, and it is going to become even more of a hot button issue as time goes by. There are millions of Americans that passionately love the nation of Israel, and there are also millions of Americans that are vehemently anti-Israel. It is amazing that a nation that is about the size of New Jersey and that only has a little bit more than one-tenth of one percent of the global population can perpetually be at the center of global controversy. Of course those of us that are Christians know that the Bible said that this would happen in the last days, so the truth is that none of us should be surprised. No matter how much effort global leaders put into achieving “peace in the Middle East”, it never seems to happen, and now things are poised to go to a dangerous new level.
On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out his case to Congress during a very forceful 40 minute speech…
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Tuesday that a proposed agreement between world powers and Iran was “a bad deal” that would not stop Tehran from getting nuclear weapons — but would rather pave its way to getting lots of them and leave the Jewish State in grave peril.
In a dramatic address to the U.S. Congress at what he said was a “fateful” crossroads of history, Netanyahu openly sided with President Barack Obama’s Republican critics and sparked an immediate and furious reaction from the White House, as relations between Washington and Israel spun into their deepest chasm for many years.
If Israel has lost all trust in the Obama administration, that makes it much more likely that it will choose to take unilateral military action against Iran.
With that in mind, consider the following quotes from Netanyahu’s speech…
-“The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.”
-“That is exactly what could happen if the deal being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal would not prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.”
-“I know this won’t come as a shock to many of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, but it also plays a pretty good game of ‘hide and cheat’ with them.”
-“The ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.”
-“If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs, and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.”
-“We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation, and terror.”
-“Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”
-“That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”
-“I can guarantee you this: The days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.”
And near the end of his speech, Netanyahu referred to the Holocaust when he spoke to Elie Wiesel who happened to be sitting in the audience…
Praising the presence in the audience of concentration camp survivor, author, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Nazi-hunter Elie Wiesel, the prime minister told him, “Your life and work gives meaning to the words, ‘Never again.’”
Does that sound like a man that is just going to sit by and watch Iran build nuclear weapons?
Reaction by members of Congress was mixed. Many Republicans were thrilled by Netanyahu’s address. But many Democrats were outraged, and Nancy Pelosi was nearly brought to tears…
“I was near tears throughout the prime minister’s speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations,” said Nancy Pelosi, the leader of Democrats in the House, referring to the group of world powers negotiation with Tehran, “and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.”
Most Americans don’t realize this, but an Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear facilities could be closer than almost any of us would dare to imagine.
In fact, just a few days ago there was a report that a planned strike in 2014 was aborted at the last minute after Barack Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli jets…
According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back.
The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.
But next time, it might be different. As I discussed in a previous article, there are reports coming out of the Middle East that indicate that Saudi Arabia plans to allow Israel to use their airspace to strike Iran.
In addition, new evidence of a secret nuclear facility near Tehran that Iran had not told anyone about has been revealed in recent days. If it turns out that Iran’s nuclear program is actually far more advanced that they have been admitting, that will send the probability of an Israeli strike absolutely soaring.
For years, Iran and Israel have been on a collision course, and now time is running out.
And when war does erupt in the Middle East, the death and destruction could be on a scale that is absolutely unimaginable.
So let us pray that peace prevails for as long as possible. Unfortunately, thanks to the foolishness of the Obama administration, the period of peace that we have been enjoying does not look like it is going to last too much longer.
by James E. Miller
Does a warning mean anything if nobody listens?
With the precarious case of Lake Mead, doomsayers never seem to break the surface. For years, reports of the lake’s declining levels have popped up in the news. Yet residents of the surrounding area still refuse to listen. The latest report from the Interior Department is very troublesome: there is a 20% chance of water shortages for Nevada and Arizona in 2016 if the lake maintains current levels.
Lake Mead, if you are unaware, provides 90% of the water to Las Vegas. It is also a crucial water source for Los Angeles and major cities in Arizona. Thus, it’s easy to see why residents of Nevada and surrounding states have an interest in the viability of the lake to sustain itself. News of drought or weakening levels should be cause for alarm. Often times, attention is roused with reports that water may become scarce in the immediate future. But that scare usually dissipates when rain comes, essentially washing away the fear of future paucity.
There is an assumption by people living in the southwestern United States that water shortages are a naturally-caused phenomenon. A coworker of mine who hails from the region recently informed me that most Nevada citizens don’t understand the underlying forces driving the water crisis. They ignore the fact that the present situation is unsustainable. Worse yet, they don’t see the real culprit behind a continual lack of H2O: the government.
Contrary to popular belief, the current state of the American southwest isn’t the norm. Rather, it’s an artificial creation that likely wouldn’t exist without government planning. What do I mean?
Without Lake Mead, Las Vegas wouldn’t have enough of a water supply to be the country’s leading tourist trap. The same goes for cities such as Los Angeles, San Diego, and Austin. An artificial lake created by the construction of the Hoover Dam, Lake Mead has the government’s fingertips all over it. And that means its filled with the hubris of a thousand engineers who thought they could thwart nature.
Lake Mead was created almost a century ago with the creation of the Hoover Dam. The dam was originally a make-work program pushed by President Hoover and later completed by Franklin Roosevelt. It was part of many economic recovery programs meant to mitigate the spike in unemployment brought on by the Great Depression. At the time of its completion, F.D.R. called the structure (then named the Boulder Dam) a “great feat of mankind” and “the greatest dam in the world.”
Little did he anticipate. Like all government projects, the unintended consequences wrought by the Hoover Dam are legion. According to historian Michael Hiltzik, the population of the southwest swelled upon completion of the dam. “Since that dedication year, the population of the seven states of the basin has swelled by about 45 million. Much of this growth has been fueled by the dam and its precious bounties of water and electrical power.”
The promise of water attracted farmers and developers from across the nation. The phony supply of water created an insatiable demand that was never viable over the long term. As Doug French writes, “government’s damming of the Colorado River attempted to cheat Mother Nature by bringing water to the desert southwest — water that just isn’t and never was there.”
The Hoover Dam boondoggle sprung to mind when I recently watched the classic film noir Chinatown. Starring a young Jack Nicholson, Chinatown is based on the seedy dealings of water rights in Los Angeles during the 1970s. Access to water, it turns out, has always been a topic of contention in the southern California area.
The film begins with private investigator J.J. Gittes being hired to investigate the husband of Evelyn Mulwray. Said husband is the owner of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. During his investigation, Gittes stumbles upon a nefarious scheme to rob the city of much-needed water and transfer it to a newly-cultivated valley. Mulwray ends up dead for discovering the plan. Gittes struggles to put the pieces together while protecting Mulwray’s widow from danger.
Chinatown is considered a classic of American cinema because it portrays the unsavory underbelly of black market activity. Government corruption is a prominent theme, but the state is also portrayed as a positive mechanism for distributing water rights. Mulwray is regarded as a hero for transferring the responsibility of water allocation “to the people” rather than keep it in private hands. The idea that government arrogance is to blame for water misappropriation is not an explored theme of the film.
Gittes finds out the hard way that passing the ownership of water from private to public doesn’t weed out the tendency for corruption of the former. Rather, it incentivizes misuse of the public trust by putting bureaucrats in charge of one of life’s necessity. A shady deal is hatched to annex a neighboring valley into Los Angeles, while using this insider knowledge to scoop up the land at discount prices.
This scheme, while fictional, is loosely based on the California water wars of the early 20th century. A century of government meddling has turned the issue of water rights on its head, and further centralized control of waterways in local, state, and federal governments. Just as the residents of Los Angeles fought over water with local farmers, the residents of Las Vegas will soon find themselves fighting with surrounding states over what’s left of Lake Mead. None of the power players seem to care that the current population settlements of the southwestern United States cannot last. One day the water will run out. The sooner this reality is confronted, the better.
Admittedly, the ownership of water and its various bodies is a difficult topic. Rivers and tributaries don’t flow by man’s commands. They can be directed, but never fully controlled. Privatization of water rights would be a good start for restoring sane usage of natural resources. Don’t expect as much to happen though. Government control is far too entrenched in the process to be removed easily.
Forget it Jake, it’s socialism.
Via Mises Canada