activistpost--2020-05-04--Federal Judge Cites “National Security” as Reason to Throw out Lawsuit over NSA Spying

People often say we shouldn ’ t worry about federal surveillance because the federal courts will protect our rights and ensure agencies like the NSA and FBI operate within the confines of the Fourth Amendment .
A recent opinion handed down by a federal judge reveals why this is a foolish strategy .
The case dates all the way back to 2008 and has been kicked back and forth between federal courts for more than a decade .
In a decision handed down on April 25 , U.S. District Judge Jeffery White declared that the feds can use its “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relating to mass surveillance .
As reported by Courthouse News , the Justice Department argued that “ revealing whether classified evidence it gave the court proves that the government collected five named plaintiffs ’ internet and phone data would in and of itself threaten national security.
” Therefore the case can not proceed .
In other words , the federal government gave the court evidence and then argued that the court couldn ’ t use that evidence to determine whether the NSA ’ s spy-program was legal because it would “ jeopardize national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this argument .
The Electronic Frontier Foundation represents the plaintiffs and called the case a “ Catch-22.
” No one can sue unless the court first determines that they were certainly touched by the vast surveillance mechanisms of the NSA .
But , the government argued successfully , the court can not decide whether any particular person ’ s email , web searches , social media or phone calls were touched by the surveillance unless the government admits it .
Which , of course , it will not do .
The EFF vowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the suit could not continue , the judge also rejected public evidence submitted by the plaintiffs to show the feds illegally spied on the defendants .
This included a 2003 document from a former AT & T technician detailing how the company routed internet traffic through a secret room controlled by the NSA .
The judge said the employee could only “ speculate ” about what went on in that room .
“ The underlying premise that AT & T worked in the capacity of an agent for defendants is without factual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
White also refused to consider a letter the government disclosed by mistake that revealed several big telecom companies including AT & T , Verizon and Sprint gave the NSA access to phone records .
The judge held that since the government accidentally disclosed the document and disputes its authenticity , it did not meet evidentiary standards .
And according to Courthouse News : In summation , the federal government investigated the federal government and determined there was no way for the federal government to determine if the federal government did anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s federally protected secrets .
This may not be the best way to fight unconstitutional , warrantless , dragnet surveillance .
But we can limit the federal surveillance state through state action .
If states refuse to participate in or support federal spying , it will become much more difficult for the NSA and other federal agencies to continue .
You can read more about that strategy HERE .
Michael Maharrey [ send him email ] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center .
He is from the original home of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and currently resides in northern Florida .
See his blog archive here and his article archive here .
He is the author of the book , Our Last Hope : Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty .
You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Michael Maharrey
People often say we shouldn’t worry about federal surveillance because the federal courts will protect our rights and ensure agencies like the NSA and FBI operate within the confines of the Fourth Amendment. A recent opinion handed down by a federal judge reveals why this is a foolish strategy.
The case dates all the way back to 2008 and has been kicked back and forth between federal courts for more than a decade.
In a decision handed down on April 25, U.S. District Judge Jeffery White declared that the feds can use its “state secret” privilege to block litigation relating to mass surveillance. As reported by Courthouse News, the Justice Department argued that “revealing whether classified evidence it gave the court proves that the government collected five named plaintiffs’ internet and phone data would in and of itself threaten national security.”
Therefore the case cannot proceed.
In other words, the federal government gave the court evidence and then argued that the court couldn’t use that evidence to determine whether the NSA’s spy-program was legal because it would “jeopardize national security.”
And the government judge affirmed this argument.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation represents the plaintiffs and called the case a “Catch-22.”
No one can sue unless the court first determines that they were certainly touched by the vast surveillance mechanisms of the NSA. But, the government argued successfully, the court cannot decide whether any particular person’s email, web searches, social media or phone calls were touched by the surveillance unless the government admits it. Which, of course, it will not do.
The EFF vowed to appeal the decision.
The American people deserve to know whether mass surveillance is legal and constitutional,” EFF Executive Director Cindy Cohen said in a statement. “Instead of proceeding to the legal merits of the government’s programs, the court deferred to the government’s state secrecy arguments. We look forward to seeking review in the Ninth Circuit.
In determining that the suit could not continue, the judge also rejected public evidence submitted by the plaintiffs to show the feds illegally spied on the defendants. This included a 2003 document from a former AT&T technician detailing how the company routed internet traffic through a secret room controlled by the NSA. The judge said the employee could only “speculate” about what went on in that room.
“The underlying premise that AT&T worked in the capacity of an agent for defendants is without factual or substantive evidentiary support,” White wrote.
White also refused to consider a letter the government disclosed by mistake that revealed several big telecom companies including AT&T, Verizon and Sprint gave the NSA access to phone records. The judge held that since the government accidentally disclosed the document and disputes its authenticity, it did not meet evidentiary standards.
And according to Courthouse News:
White also declined to rely on a 2009 NSA inspector general’s draft report describing another mass-surveillance program. Although former NSA contractor and fugitive Edward Snowden vouched for its legitimacy in a sworn declaration, White refused to consider it because the government would not authenticate it.
In summation, the federal government investigated the federal government and determined there was no way for the federal government to determine if the federal government did anything wrong without jeopardizing the federal government’s federally protected secrets.
This may not be the best way to fight unconstitutional, warrantless, dragnet surveillance.
But we can limit the federal surveillance state through state action. If states refuse to participate in or support federal spying, it will become much more difficult for the NSA and other federal agencies to continue. You can read more about that strategy HERE.
Source: Tenth Amendment Center
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He is from the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky and currently resides in northern Florida. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-05-04--Don’t Want Cell Towers In Your Community? Free Online Event May 7 to “Ask the Lawyers!” What You Can

Don’t Want Cell Towers In Your Community? Free Online Event May 7 to “Ask the Lawyers!” What You Can Do

For many years already , health experts – including the World Health Organization – have warned ( and continue to warn ) that we should be reducing our exposure to cell phone and WiFi radiation as well as other sources of “ Electrosmog ” NOT INCREASING IT .
This includes exposure to cell towers and other wireless infrastructure .
However , outdated and ineffective guidelines and regulations have made it legal for companies to continue to installing more .
MUCH MORE .
The insidious “ Race to 5G ” even includes launching satellites to blast 5G and WiFi back at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 , 3 ) .
Wireless proponents include the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) which is supposed to protect the public by regulating the telecom industry .
Argh .
They ’ ve been horrible since before the Trump administration and now Americans are really fighting back ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
If you ’ re ready to fight back and want to know how – this online meeting is free to attend : General Action Meeting for May , 2020 will again be held online , so feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wide !
We have an exciting panel of speakers lined up !
Bring your questions on how to stop the 5G roll-out and limit new wireless infrastructure locally , nationally , and in space .
Scott McCollough , winning Attorney of The Irregulators lawsuit against the FCC Andrew Campanelli , winning Attorney against big Telecom companies , stopping deployment of many cell towers Mark Pollock , Attorney , Telecom plus Ariel Strauss , Attorney , many Telecom cases Local updates at 7 pm , Ask the Lawyers Q & A 7:30 – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to join us for local updates , or get on the call at 7:30 pm to Ask The Lawyers… Click here to register for the webinar : https : //us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_-GUEQyozRRqrWqsUyAOWZA Since 2017 doctors and scientists have been requesting moratoriums on 5G deployment ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals getting sick where it ’ s been turned on ( see 1 .
2 , 3 , 4 ) .
There are many reasons to NOT want 5G in addition to biological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and countries have already taken action against it including banning it , passing ordinances ( see 1 , 2 ) , etc .
Unfortunately , many still have not including the U.S. despite opposition from the military .
Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology .
For more information visit our archives and the following websites .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
For many years already, health experts – including the World Health Organization – have warned (and continue to warn) that we should be reducing our exposure to cell phone and WiFi radiation as well as other sources of “Electrosmog” NOT INCREASING IT. This includes exposure to cell towers and other wireless infrastructure.
However, outdated and ineffective guidelines and regulations have made it legal for companies to continue to installing more. MUCH MORE. The insidious “Race to 5G” even includes launching satellites to blast 5G and WiFi back at us from space (see 1, 2, 3). Wireless proponents include the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which is supposed to protect the public by regulating the telecom industry. Argh. They’ve been horrible since before the Trump administration and now Americans are really fighting back (see 1, 2, 3).
If you’re ready to fight back and want to know how – this online meeting is free to attend:
General Action Meeting for May, 2020 will again be held online, so feel free to invite friends and family far and wide! We have an exciting panel of speakers lined up! Bring your questions on how to stop the 5G roll-out and limit new wireless infrastructure locally, nationally, and in space. Scott McCollough, winning Attorney of The Irregulators lawsuit against the FCC
Andrew Campanelli, winning Attorney against big Telecom companies, stopping deployment of many cell towers
Mark Pollock, Attorney, Telecom plus
Ariel Strauss, Attorney, many Telecom cases
Local updates at 7 pm, Ask the Lawyers Q&A 7:30 – 9:15 pm. Note: Feel free to join us for local updates, or get on the call at 7:30 pm to Ask The Lawyers…
Click here to register for the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_-GUEQyozRRqrWqsUyAOWZA
Since 2017 doctors and scientists have been requesting moratoriums on 5G deployment (see 1, 2, 3). Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals getting sick where it’s been turned on (see 1. 2, 3, 4). There are many reasons to NOT want 5G in addition to biological and environmental health risks. Some cities and countries have already taken action against it including banning it, passing ordinances (see 1, 2), etc. Unfortunately, many still have not including the U.S. despite opposition from the military.
Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology. For more information visit our archives and the following websites.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-05-04--City Passes Ominous Ordinance that Could Land People in Jail for Filming the Police

Frequent readers of the Free Thought Project know that filming the cops is not a crime .
Despite this being a widely known provision — held up with multiple court precedents — cops continue to violate the First Amendment protected right of citizens to film the police .
Now , an entire city is going after people who wish to film police and it is nothing short of tyrannical .
A report from Tuscon.com claims a new ordinance was passed to deter “ cop-haters ” but in reality tramples the First Amendment .
According to the new legislation , ORDINANCE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers or Community Service Officers conducting enforcement activity , investigations , and other police-related activities may restrict 2 individuals from physically entering crime scenes or areas immediately surrounding where such enforcement activity , investigations , and other police-related activities are taking place .
Police Officers or Community Service Officers may establish the boundaries of a restricted area by using physical barriers , placing visual markers like caution tape , or expressly communicating that an area is temporarily restricted for police activity .
B .
If a Police Officer or Community Service Officer has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be unlawful for any person to enter the restricted area without a Police Officer ’ s or Community Service Officer ’ s express permission to enter ; or to refuse to comply with a Police Officer ’ s or Community Service Officer ’ s request or direction to leave the restricted area .
While section A sounds reasonable : not allowing people to film inside crime scenes , that is already the case , which is why crime scene tape exists .
However , it is section B that sounds particularly worrisome .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish a restricted area ” in order to claim a person has violated it before charging them with a crime .
Violations of this ordinance are considered a Class 2 misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $ 750 fine and arrest .
According to the Tuscon.com report : The City Council took action last week on a distinctly 21st century problem : people showing up at crime scenes with cellphones in hand , looking to create conflicts they can post online for profit .
It ’ s a trend seen by law enforcers around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Arizona Daily Star found in a review of court records and related documentation .
The provocateurs are part of a loose network of people who call themselves “ First Amendment auditors ” and claim they ’ re protecting the public ’ s right to monitor government activities .
About a dozen such people are operating in Arizona , a former participant told the Star .
It is important to point out that it is already illegal to interfere in police investigations .
Yelling at cops or heckling them while they do their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and if it reaches a certain level to where it endangers the officers , it should probably not be tolerated .
That being said , this ordinance and subsequent report completely ignore that fact that “ First Amendment auditors ” exist for the sole reason that cops continuously violate the First Amendment .
It is that simple .
The report and ordinance also fails to mention that in nearly all of these videos in which the auditors interact with police , it is the police who initiate the confrontation by questioning the auditor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No one here is attempting to claim that assholes don ’ t exist and deliberately attempt to provoke cops , but the overwhelming majority of First Amendment auditors do not do this .
They remain silent , assert their rights , and it is the officer who is all too often the aggressor .
Instead of simply allowing a person to film without trampling their rights , in case after case , we see cops assault , arrest , and even threaten to kill people for filming them .
The bottom line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s law enforcement have never liked public accountability and have consistently objected to laws that make it easier to hold them accountable .
From keeping body camera footage secret to passing ordinances like this one , cops will do everything in their power to make sure you can ’ t see what they don ’ t want you to see — even if it takes place in public spaces and directly affects you .
This law will undoubtedly be used by police to further oppress those who attempt to assert their right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accountable .
It is shameful and needs to be overturned immediately .
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA .
This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state .
Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world .
Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project .
Follow @ MattAgorist on Twitter , Steemit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Matt Agorist
Frequent readers of the Free Thought Project know that filming the cops is not a crime. Despite this being a widely known provision — held up with multiple court precedents — cops continue to violate the First Amendment protected right of citizens to film the police. Now, an entire city is going after people who wish to film police and it is nothing short of tyrannical.
A report from Tuscon.com claims a new ordinance was passed to deter “cop-haters” but in reality tramples the First Amendment. According to the new legislation, ORDINANCE NO. _11746:
A. Police officers or Community Service Officers conducting enforcement activity, investigations, and other police-related activities may restrict 2 individuals from physically entering crime scenes or areas immediately surrounding where such enforcement activity, investigations, and other police-related activities are taking place. Police Officers or Community Service Officers may establish the boundaries of a restricted area by using physical barriers, placing visual markers like caution tape, or expressly communicating that an area is temporarily restricted for police activity. B. If a Police Officer or Community Service Officer has established a restricted area, it shall be unlawful for any person to enter the restricted area without a Police Officer’s or Community Service Officer’s express permission to enter; or to refuse to comply with a Police Officer’s or Community Service Officer’s request or direction to leave the restricted area.
While section A sounds reasonable: not allowing people to film inside crime scenes, that is already the case, which is why crime scene tape exists. However, it is section B that sounds particularly worrisome. A police officer merely needs to “establish a restricted area” in order to claim a person has violated it before charging them with a crime. Violations of this ordinance are considered a Class 2 misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $750 fine and arrest.
According to the Tuscon.com report:
The City Council took action last week on a distinctly 21st century problem: people showing up at crime scenes with cellphones in hand, looking to create conflicts they can post online for profit. It’s a trend seen by law enforcers around the country and around the state, the Arizona Daily Star found in a review of court records and related documentation. The provocateurs are part of a loose network of people who call themselves “First Amendment auditors” and claim they’re protecting the public’s right to monitor government activities. About a dozen such people are operating in Arizona, a former participant told the Star.
It is important to point out that it is already illegal to interfere in police investigations. Yelling at cops or heckling them while they do their job can be construed as interfering; and if it reaches a certain level to where it endangers the officers, it should probably not be tolerated.
That being said, this ordinance and subsequent report completely ignore that fact that “First Amendment auditors” exist for the sole reason that cops continuously violate the First Amendment. It is that simple.
The report and ordinance also fails to mention that in nearly all of these videos in which the auditors interact with police, it is the police who initiate the confrontation by questioning the auditor’s right to film in public.
No one here is attempting to claim that assholes don’t exist and deliberately attempt to provoke cops, but the overwhelming majority of First Amendment auditors do not do this. They remain silent, assert their rights, and it is the officer who is all too often the aggressor.
Instead of simply allowing a person to film without trampling their rights, in case after case, we see cops assault, arrest, and even threaten to kill people for filming them.
The bottom line here is this: much of America’s law enforcement have never liked public accountability and have consistently objected to laws that make it easier to hold them accountable. From keeping body camera footage secret to passing ordinances like this one, cops will do everything in their power to make sure you can’t see what they don’t want you to see — even if it takes place in public spaces and directly affects you.
This law will undoubtedly be used by police to further oppress those who attempt to assert their right to film the police and hold them accountable. It is shameful and needs to be overturned immediately.
Source: The Free Thought Project
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-05-05--After Cuomo, Clintons And Newsom Call For “Army Of Contact Tracers” To Monitor Citizens, DC Posts Jo

After Cuomo, Clintons And Newsom Call For “Army Of Contact Tracers” To Monitor Citizens, DC Posts Job Openings For “Trace Force”

After former President Clinton , NY Governor Cuomo , Chelsea Clinton and CA Governor Newsom called for an “ army of contact tracers ” to monitor citizens who have tested positive for COVID-19 and their contacts , Washington DC posted job openings to become an investigator with “ Trace Force.
” Operating under the Department of Health ( DC Health ) , Trace Force investigators will interview those who have tested positive for the virus – collecting “ demographic , clinical , social and historical data , ” while “ conducting an assessment to determine whether safe isolation can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 13-month appointment .
Those who have been in contact with a positive case will be contacted to assess whether they have symptoms and require quarantine – “ Leads in case investigations and related contact tracing , escalating questions or issues appropriately.
” Investigators will also use “ data management systems ” to log interactions .
Entry level investigators will earn between $ 51,059 and 65,747 per year , while lead investigators will make between $ 76,126 and $ 97,375 .
The program manager , who will provide “ management oversight and direction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will earn between $ 119,706 and $ 167,586 per year .
DC currently employs 65 contact tracers according to Mayor Muriel Bowser , who said last week that the district will add 135 more workers , and will eventually need 900 .
“ The goal of contact tracing is to identify nearly all cases of COVID-19 , isolate infected individuals , find and alert their contacts , and then quarantine all the contacts , ” said Bowser , adding “ How we identify [ the sick ] , isolate them , reach their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determine how successful we are in reopening ” the city .
According to DC Health contact tracer Malachi Stewart , contact tracers will call people to let them know they may have been in an area where coronavirus was detected , reports WUSA9 .
Beyond that , “ [ We ’ ll ask ] what health equipment did you have on ?
” adding “ Were you wearing a mask ?
Were you staying 6 feet away from people ?
” Activist Post Recommended Book : Snitch Culture : How Citizens Are Turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State During a recent Clinton Global Initiative University livestream , former President Bill Clinton spoke of the need to track people “ who are positive ” with COVID-19 , and described the need for an “ army ” of young people , according to DC Dirty Laundry .
California Governor Gavin Newsom agreed , responding that “ The predicate for getting back to some semblance of normalcy is our ability to identify individuals through testing ; to be able to trace their contacts ; to isolate individuals that have either been exposed or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This can only be accomplished if people “ allow for their privacy to be impacted by that kind of acuity of attention based upon where they ’ ve been and who they talked to.
” Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue @ @ @ @ @

By Tyler Durden
After former President Clinton, NY Governor Cuomo, Chelsea Clinton and CA Governor Newsom called for an “army of contact tracers” to monitor citizens who have tested positive for COVID-19 and their contacts, Washington DC posted job openings to become an investigator with “Trace Force.”
Operating under the Department of Health (DC Health), Trace Force investigators will interview those who have tested positive for the virus – collecting “demographic, clinical, social and historical data,” while “conducting an assessment to determine whether safe isolation can be achieved at home.” The program is a 13-month appointment.
Those who have been in contact with a positive case will be contacted to assess whether they have symptoms and require quarantine – “Leads in case investigations and related contact tracing, escalating questions or issues appropriately.” Investigators will also use “data management systems” to log interactions.
Entry level investigators will earn between $51,059 and 65,747 per year, while lead investigators will make between $76,126 and $97,375. The program manager, who will provide “management oversight and direction” to multiple contact tracing units, will earn between $119,706 and $167,586 per year.
Trace Force is the new Space Force https://t.co/pVQeEmx20M — Kayla Tausche (@kaylatausche) May 5, 2020
DC currently employs 65 contact tracers according to Mayor Muriel Bowser, who said last week that the district will add 135 more workers, and will eventually need 900.
“The goal of contact tracing is to identify nearly all cases of COVID-19, isolate infected individuals, find and alert their contacts, and then quarantine all the contacts,” said Bowser, adding “How we identify [the sick], isolate them, reach their contacts, and quarantine them, will determine how successful we are in reopening” the city.
According to DC Health contact tracer Malachi Stewart, contact tracers will call people to let them know they may have been in an area where coronavirus was detected, reports WUSA9. Beyond that, “[We’ll ask] what health equipment did you have on?” adding “Were you wearing a mask? Were you staying 6 feet away from people?”
Activist Post Recommended Book: Snitch Culture: How Citizens Are Turned Into The Eyes And Ears Of The State
During a recent Clinton Global Initiative University livestream, former President Bill Clinton spoke of the need to track people “who are positive” with COVID-19, and described the need for an “army” of young people, according to DC Dirty Laundry.
California Governor Gavin Newsom agreed, responding that “The predicate for getting back to some semblance of normalcy is our ability to identify individuals through testing; to be able to trace their contacts; to isolate individuals that have either been exposed or quarantine people that are testing positive.”
This can only be accomplished if people “allow for their privacy to be impacted by that kind of acuity of attention based upon where they’ve been and who they talked to.”
Source: ZeroHedge
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-05-04--5G Antenna Installed On Mt. Everest Using Yaks to Transport Equipment. Seriously.

Thanks to 5G Crisis for posting this bizarre and tragic reality on their blog : Even the world ’ s greatest natural treasures are being disrupted by the telecommunications industry .
According to new reports , yaks lugged eight tonnes of equipment up Mount Everest to install the world ’ s highest 5G antenna at an altitude of 6,500 meters ( ~21,325 feet ) .
The mobile carriers responsible for the 5G installation are China Mobile Hong Kong and Huawei .
Read the news here .
China Mobile Hong Kong ( CMHK ) announced completion of the joint installation on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successfully built more 5G base stations , including 6,500 meters above sea level on the highest peak , Mount Everest ” .
The firm said that it would help improve communication for “ mountaineering friends ” for whom it was no longer “ a dream to reach 8K live broadcasts with relatives and friends on 5G network “ .
Huawei said the extremely compact technology it has developed for 5G made it particularly suitable for deployment in the extreme environment found on Mount Everest , where it could be carried on the backs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they are already widely used in the Himalayas due to their thick fur and layers of fat , as well as large lungs and heart to tackle the high elevation .
5G opposition continues to increase worldwide because of risks to biological health ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ) , cybersecurity ( see 1 , 2 ) , environmental health ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) , privacy ( see 1 , 2 ) , and more .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ EVIDENCE that 5G is safe and continue to install it and other wireless sources wherever they are permitted ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
Tens of thousands of satellites are also being launched to blast 5G and WiFi from space ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
Since 2017 doctors and scientists have been requesting moratoriums on 5G ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals getting sick after it was “ unleashed ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 ) .
Some cities and countries have already taken action including banning it , passing ordinances ( see 1 , 2 ) , etc .
Unfortunately , many still have not including the U.S. despite opposition from the military and other highly respected sources .
As noted by 5G Crisis – other natural treasures have also been targeted by telecom companies including in the U.S. ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) despite known environmental harm caused by wireless installation and operation .
Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the following websites .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
Thanks to 5G Crisis for posting this bizarre and tragic reality on their blog:
Controversial 5G Antenna Installed on Mount Everest at 21,325 Feet Even the world’s greatest natural treasures are being disrupted by the telecommunications industry. According to new reports, yaks lugged eight tonnes of equipment up Mount Everest to install the world’s highest 5G antenna at an altitude of 6,500 meters (~21,325 feet). The mobile carriers responsible for the 5G installation are China Mobile Hong Kong and Huawei. Read the news here.
From TheSunUK:
China Mobile Hong Kong (CMHK) announced completion of the joint installation on Facebook, saying that it had “successfully built more 5G base stations, including 6,500 meters above sea level on the highest peak, Mount Everest”. The firm said that it would help improve communication for “mountaineering friends” for whom it was no longer “a dream to reach 8K live broadcasts with relatives and friends on 5G network“. Huawei said the extremely compact technology it has developed for 5G made it particularly suitable for deployment in the extreme environment found on Mount Everest, where it could be carried on the backs of the yaks. Yaks provided transport as they are already widely used in the Himalayas due to their thick fur and layers of fat, as well as large lungs and heart to tackle the high elevation. Read full article
5G opposition continues to increase worldwide because of risks to biological health (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), cybersecurity (see 1, 2), environmental health (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), privacy (see 1, 2), and more. Telecom companies have still offered NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that 5G is safe and continue to install it and other wireless sources wherever they are permitted (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Tens of thousands of satellites are also being launched to blast 5G and WiFi from space (see 1, 2, 3).
Since 2017 doctors and scientists have been requesting moratoriums on 5G (see 1, 2, 3). Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals getting sick after it was “unleashed” (see 1. 2, 3, 4). Some cities and countries have already taken action including banning it, passing ordinances (see 1, 2), etc. Unfortunately, many still have not including the U.S. despite opposition from the military and other highly respected sources.
As noted by 5G Crisis – other natural treasures have also been targeted by telecom companies including in the U.S. (see 1, 2, 3) despite known environmental harm caused by wireless installation and operation.
Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology. For more information visit our archives and the following websites.
Image: Pixabay
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-05-05--Courts Issue Rulings in Two Cases Challenging Law Enforcement Searches of License Plate Databases

This week , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in United States v. Yang , a case challenging the search of an automated license plate reader database under the Fourth Amendment .
Although the court , citing EFF ’ s amicus brief , recognized ALPRs capture massive amounts of data on Americans across the country , it decided not to reach the search issue .
Instead it held that because Yang was driving a rental car after his rental agreement ended when the search occurred , he didn ’ t have the right to challenge the search @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follows an April opinion from Massachusetts ’ s highest court in another ALPR case , Commonwealth v. McCarthy .
In McCarthy , the court held that , although ALPRs raise clear privacy issues under the Fourth Amendment and Massachusetts ’ s Article 14 , McCarthy hadn ’ t introduced sufficient facts to show that the search at issue in his case rose to the level of a constitutional violation .
ALPRs are high-speed , computer-controlled camera systems that are attached to vehicles , such as police cars , or can be mounted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mobile trailers .
Some models can photograph up to 1,800 license plates every minute ; and every week , law enforcement agencies across the country use these cameras to collect data on millions of vehicles .
The plate numbers , together with location , date , and time information , are uploaded to central servers , and made instantly available to other agencies .
The location data generated by ALPRs is so precise it can place a vehicle in front of a specific home or business , as was the case in Yang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bridge , as in McCarthy .
Law enforcement agencies may maintain their own databases of ALPR data or store their data with private companies .
In the Yang case , the law enforcement agency didn ’ t collect its own ALPR data but instead accessed a commercial database that advertises it contains 6.5 billion plates collected both by law enforcement and by private contractors .
EFF , along with the ACLU and several other organizations , filed amicus briefs in both Yang and McCarthy last year , as well as in another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California Court of Appeal , People v. Gonzales .
In each of these cases , we argued the Supreme Court ’ s 2018 opinion in Carpenter v. United States—where the Court held law enforcement must get a warrant to access historical cell site location information ( CSLI ) —should apply to ALPRs .
Like CSLI , the aggregation of ALPR data can paint a picture of where a vehicle and its occupants have traveled , including to sensitive and private places like homes , doctors ’ offices , and places of worship .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; anyone who drives is likely to have their past locations logged in a database available to police .
And , like CSLI databases , ALPR databases facilitate retrospective searches of cars whose drivers were not under suspicion when the plates were scanned .
The McCarthy court adopted many of our arguments .
Although the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ultimately ruled against the defendant , the court indicated it might have ruled differently if he had introduced more facts on how Massachusetts collects , stores , and shares license plate data .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the California Supreme Court ’ s opinion in our 2017 ALPR case and clearly understood the privacy implications of ALPR data collection .
It noted that ALPRs placed near sensitive locations “ can reveal information about an individual ’ s life and associations ” and “ allow the police to reconstruct people ’ s past movements without knowing in advance who police are looking for , thus granting police access to a category of information otherwise and previously unknowable.
” The court also noted that , “ [ w ] ith enough cameras @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data from an ALPR system in Massachusetts would invade a reasonable expectation of privacy and would constitute a search for constitutional purposes.
” Frustratingly , the Yang court declined to address the application of the Fourth Amendment to ALPR searches , finding instead that Yang lacked standing to challenge the search in the first place .
The plate scans at issue were of a rental vehicle that Yang failed to return once his rental period expired .
Relying on some minimal evidence that the car rental company may not generally authorize renters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is up , the court held that Yang had no expectation of privacy related to the vehicle .
But it ’ s hard to square that conclusion with another recent Supreme Court case , Byrd v. United States .
In Byrd , the Court found that a driver who was not authorized to drive a rental car under the terms of the rental agreement could nevertheless challenge a law enforcement search of the car .
Despite the obvious relevance of Byrd , the Ninth Circuit in Yang did not even cite the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts .
This might be grounds for the defendant to ask the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its ruling .
While we ’ re disappointed that neither court clearly held ALPR database searches violate the Constitution , we ’ re heartened that Massachusetts ’ s highest court left the door open for future cases challenging searches of ALPR databases where the defendant can show evidence that the databases draw on an extensive network of cameras .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Jennifer Lynch
This week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in United States v. Yang, a case challenging the search of an automated license plate reader database under the Fourth Amendment. Although the court, citing EFF’s amicus brief, recognized ALPRs capture massive amounts of data on Americans across the country, it decided not to reach the search issue. Instead it held that because Yang was driving a rental car after his rental agreement ended when the search occurred, he didn’t have the right to challenge the search.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision follows an April opinion from Massachusetts’s highest court in another ALPR case, Commonwealth v. McCarthy. In McCarthy, the court held that, although ALPRs raise clear privacy issues under the Fourth Amendment and Massachusetts’s Article 14, McCarthy hadn’t introduced sufficient facts to show that the search at issue in his case rose to the level of a constitutional violation.
ALPRs are high-speed, computer-controlled camera systems that are attached to vehicles, such as police cars, or can be mounted on street poles, highway overpasses, or mobile trailers. Some models can photograph up to 1,800 license plates every minute; and every week, law enforcement agencies across the country use these cameras to collect data on millions of vehicles. The plate numbers, together with location, date, and time information, are uploaded to central servers, and made instantly available to other agencies. The location data generated by ALPRs is so precise it can place a vehicle in front of a specific home or business, as was the case in Yang, or within a specific lane on a bridge, as in McCarthy. Law enforcement agencies may maintain their own databases of ALPR data or store their data with private companies. In the Yang case, the law enforcement agency didn’t collect its own ALPR data but instead accessed a commercial database that advertises it contains 6.5 billion plates collected both by law enforcement and by private contractors.
EFF, along with the ACLU and several other organizations, filed amicus briefs in both Yang and McCarthy last year, as well as in another case decided on different grounds in the California Court of Appeal, People v. Gonzales. In each of these cases, we argued the Supreme Court’s 2018 opinion in Carpenter v. United States—where the Court held law enforcement must get a warrant to access historical cell site location information (CSLI)—should apply to ALPRs. Like CSLI, the aggregation of ALPR data can paint a picture of where a vehicle and its occupants have traveled, including to sensitive and private places like homes, doctors’ offices, and places of worship. ALPR data collection is detailed and indiscriminate; anyone who drives is likely to have their past locations logged in a database available to police. And, like CSLI databases, ALPR databases facilitate retrospective searches of cars whose drivers were not under suspicion when the plates were scanned.
The McCarthy court adopted many of our arguments. Although the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ultimately ruled against the defendant, the court indicated it might have ruled differently if he had introduced more facts on how Massachusetts collects, stores, and shares license plate data. The court cited both our amicus brief and the California Supreme Court’s opinion in our 2017 ALPR case and clearly understood the privacy implications of ALPR data collection. It noted that ALPRs placed near sensitive locations “can reveal information about an individual’s life and associations” and “allow the police to reconstruct people’s past movements without knowing in advance who police are looking for, thus granting police access to a category of information otherwise and previously unknowable.” The court also noted that, “[w]ith enough cameras in enough locations, the historic location data from an ALPR system in Massachusetts would invade a reasonable expectation of privacy and would constitute a search for constitutional purposes.”
Frustratingly, the Yang court declined to address the application of the Fourth Amendment to ALPR searches, finding instead that Yang lacked standing to challenge the search in the first place. The plate scans at issue were of a rental vehicle that Yang failed to return once his rental period expired. Relying on some minimal evidence that the car rental company may not generally authorize renters to hold onto cars after their rental period is up, the court held that Yang had no expectation of privacy related to the vehicle. But it’s hard to square that conclusion with another recent Supreme Court case, Byrd v. United States. In Byrd, the Court found that a driver who was not authorized to drive a rental car under the terms of the rental agreement could nevertheless challenge a law enforcement search of the car. Despite the obvious relevance of Byrd, the Ninth Circuit in Yang did not even cite the case, let alone try to distinguish its facts. This might be grounds for the defendant to ask the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its ruling.
While we’re disappointed that neither court clearly held ALPR database searches violate the Constitution, we’re heartened that Massachusetts’s highest court left the door open for future cases challenging searches of ALPR databases where the defendant can show evidence that the databases draw on an extensive network of cameras.
Source: EFF.org
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-05-05--Technofascism: Digital Book Burning in a Totalitarian Age

We are fast becoming a nation—nay , a world—of book burners .
While on paper , we are technically free to speak—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—in reality , however , we are only as free to speak as the government and its corporate partners such as Facebook , Google or YouTube may allow .
That ’ s not a whole lot of freedom .
Especially if you ’ re inclined to voice opinions that may be construed as conspiratorial or dangerous .
Take David Icke , for example .
Icke , a popular commentator and author often labeled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently had his Facebook page and YouTube channel ( owned by Google ) deleted for violating site policies by “ spreading coronavirus disinformation.
” The Centre for Countering Digital Hate , which has been vocal about calling for Icke ’ s de-platforming , is also pushing for the removal of all other sites and individuals who promote Icke ’ s content in an effort to supposedly “ save lives.
” Translation : the CCDH evidently believes the public is too dumb to think for itself and must be protected from dangerous ideas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect us from ourselves .
In the long run , this “ safety ” control ( the censorship and shadowbanning of anyone who challenges a mainstream narrative ) will be far worse than merely allowing people to think for themselves .
Journalist Matt Taibbi gets its : “ The people who want to add a censorship regime to a health crisis are more dangerous and more stupid by leaps and bounds than a president who tells people to inject disinfectant.
” These internet censors are not acting in our best interests to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about COVID-19 , a virus whose source and behavior continue to elude medical officials .
They ’ re laying the groundwork now , with Icke as an easy target , to preempt any “ dangerous ” ideas that might challenge the power elite ’ s stranglehold over our lives .
This is how freedom dies .
It doesn ’ t matter what disinformation Icke may or may not have been spreading about COVID-19 .
That ’ s not the issue .
As commentator Caitlin Johnstone recognizes , the censorship of David Icke by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with Icke : Welcome to the age of technofascism .
Technofascism , clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness , is powered by technological behemoths ( both corporate and governmental ) working in tandem .
As journalist Chet Bowers explains , “ Technofascism ’ s level of efficiency and totalitarian potential can easily lead to repressive systems that will not tolerate dissent.
” The internet , hailed as a super-information highway , is increasingly becoming the police state ’ s secret weapon .
This “ policing of the mind : is exactly the danger author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ information and communication sources are gradually being linked together into a single computerized network , providing an opportunity for unheralded control of hat will be broadcast , what will be said , and ultimately what will be thought.
” Eventually , as George Orwell predicted , telling the truth will become a revolutionary act .
We ’ re almost at that point now .
What you are witnessing is the modern-day equivalent of book burning which involves doing away with dangerous ideas—legitimate or not—and the people who espouse them .
Today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working in conjunction with corporate and government agencies , have managed to replace actual book burning with intellectual book burning .
“ Free speech for me but not for thee ” is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard .
This is about much more than free speech , however .
This is about repression and control .
With every passing day , we ’ re being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship , violence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security , tolerance and so-called “ government speech.
” The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness , safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remains the same : the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “ principal pillar of a free government.
” The upshot of all of this editing , parsing , banning and silencing is the emergence of a new language , what George Orwell referred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to control language in the hands of the totalitarian state .
Under such a system , language becomes a weapon to change the way people think by changing the words they use .
In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a .
police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun , the government dictates what words can and can not be used .
In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance , the citizens censor themselves , policing their words and thoughts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind lest they find themselves ostracized or placed under surveillance .
Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism , condemning violence , denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably , the end result is the same : intolerance , indoctrination and infantilism .
It ’ s political correctness disguised as tolerance , civility and love , but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite .
The police state could not ask for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out its own censorship , spying and policing : this is how you turn a nation of free people into extensions of the omniscient , omnipotent , omnipresent police state , and in the process turn a citizenry against each other .
Tread cautiously : Orwell ’ s 1984 , which depicts the ominous rise of ubiquitous technology , fascism and totalitarianism , has become an operation manual for the omnipresent , modern-day surveillance state .
1984 portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate state .
There is no personal freedom , and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven society .
Snitches and cameras are everywhere .
People are subject to the Thought Police , who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes .
The government , or “ Party , ” is headed by Big Brother who appears on posters everywhere with the words : “ Big Brother is watching you.
” We have arrived , way ahead of schedule , into the dystopian future dreamed up by not only Orwell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Huxley , Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick .
Much like Orwell ’ s Big Brother in 1984 , the government and its corporate spies now watch our every move .
Much like Huxley ’ s A Brave New World , we are churning out a society of watchers who “ have their liberties taken away from them , but … rather enjoy it , because they [ are ] distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing.
” Much like Atwood ’ s The Handmaid ’ s Tale , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their place and their duties , to understand that they have no real rights but will be protected up to a point if they conform , and to think so poorly of themselves that they will accept their assigned fate and not rebel or run away.
” And in keeping with Philip K. Dick ’ s darkly prophetic vision of a dystopian police state—which became the basis for Steven Spielberg ’ s futuristic thriller Minority Report—we are now trapped in a world in which the government is all-seeing , all-knowing and all-powerful , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of line , dark-clad police SWAT teams and pre-crime units will crack a few skulls to bring the populace under control .
What once seemed futuristic no longer occupies the realm of science fiction .
Incredibly , as the various nascent technologies employed and shared by the government and corporations alike—facial recognition , iris scanners , massive databases , behavior prediction software , and so on—are incorporated into a complex , interwoven cyber network aimed at tracking our movements , predicting our thoughts and controlling our behavior , the dystopian visions of past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , our world is characterized by widespread surveillance , behavior prediction technologies , data mining , fusion centers , driverless cars , voice-controlled homes , facial recognition systems , cybugs and drones , and predictive policing ( pre-crime ) aimed at capturing would-be criminals before they can do any damage .
Surveillance cameras are everywhere .
Government agents listen in on our telephone calls and read our emails .
And privacy and bodily integrity have been utterly eviscerated .
We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government is not operating alone .
It can not .
Thus , the increasingly complex security needs of the massive federal government , especially in the areas of defense , surveillance and data management , have been met within the corporate sector , which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental overreach .
In fact , Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother , and we are now ruled by the Corporate Elite whose tentacles have spread worldwide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disposal technological arsenals so sophisticated and invasive as to render any constitutional protections null and void .
Spearheaded by the NSA , which has shown itself to care little to nothing for constitutional limits or privacy , the “ security/industrial complex ” —a marriage of government , military and corporate interests aimed at keeping Americans under constant surveillance—has come to dominate the government and our lives .
There is no shortage of motives fueling the convergence of mega-corporations and government .
But who is paying the price ?
“ We the people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans , but people the world over .
We have entered into a global state of tyranny .
Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak ( where words have meanings , and ideas can be dangerous ) and Newspeak ( where only that which is “ safe ” and “ accepted ” by the majority is permitted ) .
The power elite has made their intentions clear : they will pursue and prosecute any and all words , thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority .
This is the final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans have been conditioned to accept routine incursions on their privacy rights .
In fact , the addiction to screen devices—especially cell phones—has created a hive effect where the populace not only watched but is controlled by AI bots .
However , at one time , the idea of a total surveillance state tracking one ’ s every move would have been abhorrent to most Americans .
That all changed with the 9/11 attacks .
As professor Jeffrey Rosen observes , “ Before Sept. 11 , the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a network of biometric surveillance cameras , peering at them in government buildings , shopping malls , subways and stadiums , would have seemed unthinkable , a dystopian fantasy of a society that had surrendered privacy and anonymity.
” Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us , helpless in the face of police brutality , powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield , and naked in the face of government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nowhere left to go .
We have , so to speak , gone from being a nation where privacy is king to one where nothing is safe from the prying eyes of government .
In search of so-called terrorists and extremists hiding amongst us—the proverbial “ needle in a haystack , ” as one official termed it—the Corporate State has taken to monitoring all aspects of our lives , from cell phone calls and emails to Internet activity and credit card transactions .
This data is being fed through fusion centers across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Homeland Security to make threat assessments on every citizen , including school children .
Wherever you go and whatever you do , you are now being watched , especially if you leave behind an electronic footprint .
When you use your cell phone , you leave a record of when the call was placed , who you called , how long it lasted and even where you were at the time .
When you use your ATM card , you leave a record of where and when you used the card .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most locations equipped with facial recognition software .
When you use a cell phone or drive a car enabled with GPS , you can be tracked by satellite .
Such information is shared with government agents , including local police .
And all of this once-private information about your consumer habits , your whereabouts and your activities is now being fed to the U.S. government .
The government has nearly inexhaustible resources when it comes to tracking our movements , from electronic wiretapping devices , traffic cameras and biometrics to radio-frequency identification cards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognition technology now makes it possible for the government to carry out massive eavesdropping by way of sophisticated computer systems .
Phone calls can be monitored , the audio converted to text files and stored in computer databases indefinitely .
And if any “ threatening ” words are detected—no matter how inane or silly—the record can be flagged and assigned to a government agent for further investigation .
Federal and state governments , again working with private corporations , monitor your Internet content .
Users are profiled and tracked in order to identify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In such a climate , everyone is a suspect .
And you ’ re guilty until you can prove yourself innocent .
Here ’ s what a lot of people fail to understand , however : it ’ s not just what you say or do that is being monitored , but how you think that is being tracked and targeted .
We ’ ve already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime legislation that cracks down on so-called “ hateful ” thoughts and expression , encourages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject matter .
Say hello to the new Thought Police .
Total Internet surveillance by the Corporate State , as omnipresent as God , is used by the government to predict and , more importantly , control the populace , and it ’ s not as far-fetched as you might think .
For example , the NSA has designed an artificial intelligence system that can anticipate your every move .
In a nutshell , the NSA feeds vast amounts of the information it collects to a computer system known as Aquaint ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ INTelligence ) , which the computer then uses to detect patterns and predict behavior .
No information is sacred or spared .
Everything from cell phone recordings and logs , to emails , to text messages , to personal information posted on social networking sites , to credit card statements , to library circulation records , to credit card histories , etc.
, is collected by the NSA and shared freely with its agents .
Thus , what we are witnessing , in the so-called name of security and efficiency , is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the watched ( average Americans such as you and me ) and the watchers ( government bureaucrats , technicians and private corporations ) .
Clearly , the age of privacy is at an end .
So where does that leave us ?
We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored , managed and controlled by our technology , which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers .
This is the fact-is-stranger-than-fiction lesson that is being pounded into us on a daily basis .
It won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ourselves looking back on the past with longing , back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted , buy what we wanted , think what we wanted without those thoughts , words and activities being tracked , processed and stored by corporate giants such as Google , sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA , and used against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies .
To be an individual today , to not conform , to have even a shred of privacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the government ’ s roaming eyes and technological spies , one must not only be a rebel but rebel .
Even when you rebel and take your stand , there is rarely a happy ending awaiting you .
You are rendered an outlaw .
So how do you survive this global surveillance state ?
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America : The War on the American People , we ’ re running out of options .
We ’ ll soon have to choose between self-indulgence ( the bread-and-circus distractions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians , sports conglomerates , entertainment industry , etc . )
and self-preservation in the form of renewed vigilance about threats to our freedoms and active engagement in self-governance .
Yet as Aldous Huxley acknowledged in Brave New World Revisited : Which brings me back to this technofascist tyranny being meted out on David Icke and all those like him who dare to voice ideas that diverge from what the government and its corporate controllers deem to be acceptable .
The problem as I see it is that we ’ ve allowed ourselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else to think and speak for us .
And we ’ ve allowed ourselves to become so timid in the face of offensive words and ideas that we ’ ve bought into the idea that we need the government to shield us from that which is ugly or upsetting or mean .
The result is a society in which we ’ ve stopped debating among ourselves , stopped thinking for ourselves , and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences .
In short , we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passive , polarized populace incapable of working through our own problems and reliant on the government to protect us from our fears .
In this way , we have become our worst enemy .
You want to reclaim some of the ground we ’ re fast losing to the techno-tyrants ?
Start by thinking for yourself .
If that means reading the “ dangerous ” ideas being floated out there by the David Ickes of the world—or the John Whiteheads for that matter—and then deciding for yourself what is true , so be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Freedom is the right to say two plus two make four.
” Also Read from Activist Post : Book Burnings in the Digital Age : Facebook , Twitter , YouTube and now….Poetry ?

By John W. Whitehead
“Those who created this country chose freedom. With all of its dangers. And do you know the riskiest part of that choice they made? They actually believed that we could be trusted to make up our own minds in the whirl of differing ideas. That we could be trusted to remain free, even when there were very, very seductive voices—taking advantage of our freedom of speech—who were trying to turn this country into the kind of place where the government could tell you what you can and cannot do.”—Nat Hentoff
We are fast becoming a nation—nay, a world—of book burners.
While on paper, we are technically free to speak—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—in reality, however, we are only as free to speak as the government and its corporate partners such as Facebook, Google or YouTube may allow.
That’s not a whole lot of freedom. Especially if you’re inclined to voice opinions that may be construed as conspiratorial or dangerous.
Take David Icke, for example.
Icke, a popular commentator and author often labeled a conspiracy theorist by his detractors, recently had his Facebook page and YouTube channel (owned by Google) deleted for violating site policies by “spreading coronavirus disinformation.”
The Centre for Countering Digital Hate, which has been vocal about calling for Icke’s de-platforming, is also pushing for the removal of all other sites and individuals who promote Icke’s content in an effort to supposedly “save lives.”
Translation: the CCDH evidently believes the public is too dumb to think for itself and must be protected from dangerous ideas.
This is the goosestepping Nanny State trying to protect us from ourselves.
In the long run, this “safety” control (the censorship and shadowbanning of anyone who challenges a mainstream narrative) will be far worse than merely allowing people to think for themselves.
Journalist Matt Taibbi gets its: “The people who want to add a censorship regime to a health crisis are more dangerous and more stupid by leaps and bounds than a president who tells people to inject disinfectant.”
Don’t fall for the propaganda.
These internet censors are not acting in our best interests to protect us from dangerous, disinformation campaigns about COVID-19, a virus whose source and behavior continue to elude medical officials. They’re laying the groundwork now, with Icke as an easy target, to preempt any “dangerous” ideas that might challenge the power elite’s stranglehold over our lives.
This is how freedom dies.
It doesn’t matter what disinformation Icke may or may not have been spreading about COVID-19. That’s not the issue.
As commentator Caitlin Johnstone recognizes, the censorship of David Icke by these internet media giants has nothing to do with Icke:
What matters is that we’re seeing a consistent and accelerating pattern of powerful plutocratic institutions collaborating with the US-centralized empire to control what ideas people around the world are permitted to share with each other, and it’s a very unsafe trajectory.
Welcome to the age of technofascism.
Technofascism, clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness, is powered by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) working in tandem. As journalist Chet Bowers explains, “Technofascism’s level of efficiency and totalitarian potential can easily lead to repressive systems that will not tolerate dissent.”
The internet, hailed as a super-information highway, is increasingly becoming the police state’s secret weapon. This “policing of the mind: is exactly the danger author Jim Keith warned about when he predicted that “information and communication sources are gradually being linked together into a single computerized network, providing an opportunity for unheralded control of hat will be broadcast, what will be said, and ultimately what will be thought.”
It’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth.
Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.
We’re almost at that point now.
What you are witnessing is the modern-day equivalent of book burning which involves doing away with dangerous ideas—legitimate or not—and the people who espouse them.
Today, the forces of political correctness, working in conjunction with corporate and government agencies, have managed to replace actual book burning with intellectual book burning.
“Free speech for me but not for thee” is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard.
This is about much more than free speech, however. This is about repression and control.
With every passing day, we’re being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called “government speech.”
The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remains the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.”
The upshot of all of this editing, parsing, banning and silencing is the emergence of a new language, what George Orwell referred to as Newspeak, which places the power to control language in the hands of the totalitarian state.
Under such a system, language becomes a weapon to change the way people think by changing the words they use.
The end result is control.
In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used.
In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind lest they find themselves ostracized or placed under surveillance.
Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.
It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.
The police state could not ask for a better citizenry than one that carries out its own censorship, spying and policing: this is how you turn a nation of free people into extensions of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent police state, and in the process turn a citizenry against each other.
Tread cautiously: Orwell’s 1984, which depicts the ominous rise of ubiquitous technology, fascism and totalitarianism, has become an operation manual for the omnipresent, modern-day surveillance state.
1984 portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. People are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes. The government, or “Party,” is headed by Big Brother who appears on posters everywhere with the words: “Big Brother is watching you.”
We have arrived, way ahead of schedule, into the dystopian future dreamed up by not only Orwell but also such fiction writers as Aldous Huxley, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick.
Much like Orwell’s Big Brother in 1984, the government and its corporate spies now watch our every move. Much like Huxley’s A Brave New World, we are churning out a society of watchers who “have their liberties taken away from them, but … rather enjoy it, because they [are] distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing.” Much like Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, the populace is now taught to “know their place and their duties, to understand that they have no real rights but will be protected up to a point if they conform, and to think so poorly of themselves that they will accept their assigned fate and not rebel or run away.”
And in keeping with Philip K. Dick’s darkly prophetic vision of a dystopian police state—which became the basis for Steven Spielberg’s futuristic thriller Minority Report—we are now trapped in a world in which the government is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful, and if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams and pre-crime units will crack a few skulls to bring the populace under control.
What once seemed futuristic no longer occupies the realm of science fiction.
Incredibly, as the various nascent technologies employed and shared by the government and corporations alike—facial recognition, iris scanners, massive databases, behavior prediction software, and so on—are incorporated into a complex, interwoven cyber network aimed at tracking our movements, predicting our thoughts and controlling our behavior, the dystopian visions of past writers is fast becoming our reality.
In fact, our world is characterized by widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, fusion centers, driverless cars, voice-controlled homes, facial recognition systems, cybugs and drones, and predictive policing (pre-crime) aimed at capturing would-be criminals before they can do any damage. Surveillance cameras are everywhere. Government agents listen in on our telephone calls and read our emails. And privacy and bodily integrity have been utterly eviscerated.
We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state.
What many fail to realize is that the government is not operating alone. It cannot.
The government requires an accomplice.
Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of the massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental overreach.
In fact, Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother, and we are now ruled by the Corporate Elite whose tentacles have spread worldwide.
The government now has at its disposal technological arsenals so sophisticated and invasive as to render any constitutional protections null and void. Spearheaded by the NSA, which has shown itself to care little to nothing for constitutional limits or privacy, the “security/industrial complex”—a marriage of government, military and corporate interests aimed at keeping Americans under constant surveillance—has come to dominate the government and our lives.
Money, power, control.
There is no shortage of motives fueling the convergence of mega-corporations and government. But who is paying the price?
“We the people,” of course. Not just we Americans, but people the world over.
We have entered into a global state of tyranny.
Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.
This is the final link in the police state chain.
Americans have been conditioned to accept routine incursions on their privacy rights. In fact, the addiction to screen devices—especially cell phones—has created a hive effect where the populace not only watched but is controlled by AI bots. However, at one time, the idea of a total surveillance state tracking one’s every move would have been abhorrent to most Americans. That all changed with the 9/11 attacks. As professor Jeffrey Rosen observes, “Before Sept. 11, the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree to live their lives under the gaze of a network of biometric surveillance cameras, peering at them in government buildings, shopping malls, subways and stadiums, would have seemed unthinkable, a dystopian fantasy of a society that had surrendered privacy and anonymity.”
Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go.
We have, so to speak, gone from being a nation where privacy is king to one where nothing is safe from the prying eyes of government.
In search of so-called terrorists and extremists hiding amongst us—the proverbial “needle in a haystack,” as one official termed it—the Corporate State has taken to monitoring all aspects of our lives, from cell phone calls and emails to Internet activity and credit card transactions. This data is being fed through fusion centers across the country, which work with the Department of Homeland Security to make threat assessments on every citizen, including school children.
Wherever you go and whatever you do, you are now being watched, especially if you leave behind an electronic footprint.
When you use your cell phone, you leave a record of when the call was placed, who you called, how long it lasted and even where you were at the time. When you use your ATM card, you leave a record of where and when you used the card. There is even a video camera at most locations equipped with facial recognition software. When you use a cell phone or drive a car enabled with GPS, you can be tracked by satellite. Such information is shared with government agents, including local police. And all of this once-private information about your consumer habits, your whereabouts and your activities is now being fed to the U.S. government.
The government has nearly inexhaustible resources when it comes to tracking our movements, from electronic wiretapping devices, traffic cameras and biometrics to radio-frequency identification cards, satellites and Internet surveillance.
Speech recognition technology now makes it possible for the government to carry out massive eavesdropping by way of sophisticated computer systems. Phone calls can be monitored, the audio converted to text files and stored in computer databases indefinitely. And if any “threatening” words are detected—no matter how inane or silly—the record can be flagged and assigned to a government agent for further investigation. Federal and state governments, again working with private corporations, monitor your Internet content. Users are profiled and tracked in order to identify, target and even prosecute them.
In such a climate, everyone is a suspect. And you’re guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.
Here’s what a lot of people fail to understand, however: it’s not just what you say or do that is being monitored, but how you think that is being tracked and targeted.
We’ve already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime legislation that cracks down on so-called “hateful” thoughts and expression, encourages self-censoring and reduces free debate on various subject matter.
Say hello to the new Thought Police.
Total Internet surveillance by the Corporate State, as omnipresent as God, is used by the government to predict and, more importantly, control the populace, and it’s not as far-fetched as you might think. For example, the NSA has designed an artificial intelligence system that can anticipate your every move. In a nutshell, the NSA feeds vast amounts of the information it collects to a computer system known as Aquaint (the acronym stands for Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence), which the computer then uses to detect patterns and predict behavior.
No information is sacred or spared.
Everything from cell phone recordings and logs, to emails, to text messages, to personal information posted on social networking sites, to credit card statements, to library circulation records, to credit card histories, etc., is collected by the NSA and shared freely with its agents.
Thus, what we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations).
Clearly, the age of privacy is at an end.
So where does that leave us?
We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers. This is the fact-is-stranger-than-fiction lesson that is being pounded into us on a daily basis.
It won’t be long before we find ourselves looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted without those thoughts, words and activities being tracked, processed and stored by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies.
To be an individual today, to not conform, to have even a shred of privacy, and to live beyond the reach of the government’s roaming eyes and technological spies, one must not only be a rebel but rebel.
Even when you rebel and take your stand, there is rarely a happy ending awaiting you. You are rendered an outlaw.
So how do you survive this global surveillance state?
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we’re running out of options.
We’ll soon have to choose between self-indulgence (the bread-and-circus distractions offered up by the news media, politicians, sports conglomerates, entertainment industry, etc.) and self-preservation in the form of renewed vigilance about threats to our freedoms and active engagement in self-governance.
Yet as Aldous Huxley acknowledged in Brave New World Revisited:
Only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern themselves effectively by democratic procedures. A society, most of whose members spend a great part of their time, not on the spot, not here and now and in their calculable future, but somewhere else, in the irrelevant other worlds of sport and soap opera, of mythology and metaphysical fantasy, will find it hard to resist the encroachments of those would manipulate and control it.
Which brings me back to this technofascist tyranny being meted out on David Icke and all those like him who dare to voice ideas that diverge from what the government and its corporate controllers deem to be acceptable.
The problem as I see it is that we’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. And we’ve allowed ourselves to become so timid in the face of offensive words and ideas that we’ve bought into the idea that we need the government to shield us from that which is ugly or upsetting or mean.
The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.
In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive, polarized populace incapable of working through our own problems and reliant on the government to protect us from our fears.
In this way, we have become our worst enemy.
You want to reclaim some of the ground we’re fast losing to the techno-tyrants?
Start by thinking for yourself. If that means reading the “dangerous” ideas being floated out there by the David Ickes of the world—or the John Whiteheads for that matter—and then deciding for yourself what is true, so be it.
As Orwell concluded, “Freedom is the right to say two plus two make four.”


activistpost--2020-05-05--Clinton Foundation Wants To Use AmeriCorps To Create A “National Contact Tracing Corps”

The Co-Chair of AmeriCorps and the creator of AmeriCorps , former President Bill Clinton , wants to create a national contact tracing force using AmeriCorps volunteers .
The Co-Chair of the AmeriCorps , Congressman John Garamendi , recently introduced a bill that would “ expand volunteer opportunities within AmeriCorps and the Federal Emergency Management Agency ” ( FEMA ) .
The bill “ Undertaking National Initiatives to Tackle Epidemic Act ” ( UNITE Act ) would allow AmeriCorps and FEMA to create a national contact-tracing corps .
( see page 10 ) The bicameral legislation ensures that existing national and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to assist in testing and contact tracing .
The bill would also ensure that Peace Corps volunteers , whose service involuntarily ended in March due to the global pandemic , will receive benefits and priority placement in these domestic programs so they can continue to use their skills by facilitating testing and contact tracing .
Six years ago , USA Today called “ AmeriCorps a wasteful flop ” saying many members are serving as recess referees .
The article also asked the question , do we really need playground monitors ?
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AmeriCorps programs , are rife with sexual misconduct and failed to meet federal standards and requirements .
The CBS News investigation also revealed that AmeriCorps and FEMA have a long history of working with young adults .
Activist Post Recommended Book : Snitch Culture : How Citizens Are Turned Into The Eyes And Ears Of The State But none of that matters to our politicians , who hope you will forget that a national contact tracing corps would be run by a group that , since its inception , has been mismanaged and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic has put an unprecedented strain on our society , and our nation requires a significant scaling of testing and contact tracing in order to flatten the curve and lift stay-at-home orders .
The UNITE Act empowers America ’ s service organizations to perform testing and contact tracing across the country and deliver the aid and support our communities require during the pandemic .
As Co-Chair of the Congressional Peace Corps Caucus and as a returned Peace Corps volunteer , I understand how capable America ’ s service organizations are to expand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracing to meet the needs of our country ’ s pandemic response .
I thank Senators Markey and Van Hollen for sponsoring the companion bill in the Senate , and I will work to ensure the UNITE Act becomes law , ” said Congressman Garamendi .
Should we allow AmeriCorps and FEMA , two agencies with known issues , to undertake this process and have access to our homes , lives , and children ?
Giving them access would be mistake .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By MassPrivateI
The Co-Chair of AmeriCorps and the creator of AmeriCorps, former President Bill Clinton, wants to create a national contact tracing force using AmeriCorps volunteers.
The Co-Chair of the AmeriCorps, Congressman John Garamendi, recently introduced a bill that would “expand volunteer opportunities within AmeriCorps and the Federal Emergency Management Agency” (FEMA).
The bill “Undertaking National Initiatives to Tackle Epidemic Act” (UNITE Act) would allow AmeriCorps and FEMA to create a national contact-tracing corps. (see page 10)
The bicameral legislation ensures that existing national and community service programs are fully mobilized in order to assist in testing and contact tracing. The bill would also ensure that Peace Corps volunteers, whose service involuntarily ended in March due to the global pandemic, will receive benefits and priority placement in these domestic programs so they can continue to use their skills by facilitating testing and contact tracing.
Six years ago, USA Today called “AmeriCorps a wasteful flop” saying many members are serving as recess referees. The article also asked the question, do we really need playground monitors?
In 2018 a CBS News investigation revealed that AmeriCorps programs, are rife with sexual misconduct and failed to meet federal standards and requirements.
Conservative critics say AmeriCorps is a waste of money and promotes liberal causes. The Government Accountability Office found last year that CNCS has fallen short in monitoring whether the organizations it grants money to meet federal standards and requirements.
The CBS News investigation also revealed that AmeriCorps and FEMA have a long history of working with young adults.
AmeriCorps does directly oversee and manage NCCC, often in partnership with FEMA, where young adults travel together to work on projects like rebuilding areas affected by disasters.
Activist Post Recommended Book: Snitch Culture: How Citizens Are Turned Into The Eyes And Ears Of The State
But none of that matters to our politicians, who hope you will forget that a national contact tracing corps would be run by a group that, since its inception, has been mismanaged and filled with sexual harassment cases.
The coronavirus pandemic has put an unprecedented strain on our society, and our nation requires a significant scaling of testing and contact tracing in order to flatten the curve and lift stay-at-home orders. The UNITE Act empowers America’s service organizations to perform testing and contact tracing across the country and deliver the aid and support our communities require during the pandemic. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Peace Corps Caucus and as a returned Peace Corps volunteer, I understand how capable America’s service organizations are to expand our nation’s testing and contact tracing to meet the needs of our country’s pandemic response. I thank Senators Markey and Van Hollen for sponsoring the companion bill in the Senate, and I will work to ensure the UNITE Act becomes law,” said Congressman Garamendi.
Clinton uses Massachusetts contact-tracing as a national model.
Should we allow AmeriCorps and FEMA, two agencies with known issues, to undertake this process and have access to our homes, lives, and children? Giving them access would be mistake.
Source: MassPrivateI Blog
Image: Pixabay
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.