activistpost--2020-01-15--Petition Launched to Probe FDA’s Conflict of Interest in Health Risks from Cell Phone and WiFi Radia

Petition Launched to Probe FDA’s Conflict of Interest in Health Risks from Cell Phone and WiFi Radiation

If there weren ’ t countless examples of the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) not protecting the American people , there wouldn ’ t be countless ads on TV for class action lawsuits against products they originally approved .
Whistleblowers and other experts have even blamed them for igniting The Opioid Crisis .
They continue to turn a blind eye to research that proves biological harm from exposure to cell phone and WiFi radiation .
Thanks to 5G Crisis for creating a petition against this conflict of interest : SIGN THE PETITION : Wireless Radiation + Conflict of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned a blind eye to some of the most significant and alarming research on wireless radiation health effects , including the U.S. National Toxicology Program ’ s $ 30 million-dollar study that found “ clear evidence ” of cancer linked to chronic exposure to wireless radiation .
So this week we are starting a petition to Abiy Desta , the Ombudsman for the FDA ’ s Center for Devices and Radiological Health ( CDRH ) , demanding that he investigate the FDA ’ s decision to ignore its own study results and clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Director of the CDRH , and the wireless industry .
For more videos of congressional testimony : Activist Post reports regularly about biological and environmental harm caused by all sources of Electromagnetic Radiation aka “ Electrosmog ” ( see 1 , 2 ) .
For more information , visit our archives .
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 , Flote , Minds , Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
If there weren’t countless examples of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) not protecting the American people, there wouldn’t be countless ads on TV for class action lawsuits against products they originally approved. Whistleblowers and other experts have even blamed them for igniting The Opioid Crisis. They continue to turn a blind eye to research that proves biological harm from exposure to cell phone and WiFi radiation.
Thanks to 5G Crisis for creating a petition against this conflict of interest:
SIGN THE PETITION: Wireless Radiation + Conflict of Interest at the FDA The FDA has turned a blind eye to some of the most significant and alarming research on wireless radiation health effects, including the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s $30 million-dollar study that found “clear evidence” of cancer linked to chronic exposure to wireless radiation. So this week we are starting a petition to Abiy Desta, the Ombudsman for the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), demanding that he investigate the FDA’s decision to ignore its own study results and clear conflicts of interest between Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, the Director of the CDRH, and the wireless industry. SIGN THE PETITION NOW
For more videos of congressional testimony:
Activist Post reports regularly about biological and environmental harm caused by all sources of Electromagnetic Radiation aka “Electrosmog” (see 1, 2). For more information, visit our archives.
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, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-15--The European Green Deal Is Every Bit as Bad as Expected

The European Commission has unveiled its “ European Green Deal , ” after taking hints on denomination from its American counterpart , the “ Green New Deal.
” While the legislation introduced in the US Congress remains fiction under a Republican executive and senate , the Brussels initiative will become law unless there is considerable opposition from EU member states .
Back in May , I had the pleasure to be a guest at an Austrian Economic Center event in Vienna , in which we discussed the policy outlook prior to the European elections .
My prediction back then : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come .
The newly elected commission president Ursula von der Leyen has attempted to appease green forces in the European Parliament by dedicating herself to the environmentalist agenda , and as a result is now pursuing ambitious policy goals that she laid out in her candidature speech in Strasbourg .
The European Green Deal contains major implications for industry and consumers , including higher energy taxation , higher levies on shipping and aviation , higher road emissions duties , forcing companies to rethink recycling and repairing electronics , and making free trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures all deserve op-eds of their own , but for the sake of this one , let ’ s narrow it down .
Three takeaways from the proposed package of executive and legislative measures are important : • The Commission wants to introduce a carbon border tax .
• The Commission wants to update the emissions targets for 2030 .
• The Commission wants to spend more money in an effort to “ reinvest ” ( or to buy off member states ) .
The main objective of this “ border adjustment ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ production to non-EU countries , a problem known as “ carbon leakage.
” When companies outsource production to avoid carbon costs , they shift their emissions abroad .
That , claims the EU , reduces the effectiveness of EU climate policies .
This is of exceptional concern to Brussels , as non-EU countries , such as those in the Balkans , as well as Moldova , Belarus , and Ukraine , could come to rival EU producers as a result .
The logic is very European : first we curb our own business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries unfair competitors .
This is hardly the first time that European leaders have restricted trade due to environmental concerns .
It was the most notable reason why the Obama-era free trade agreement , the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ( TTIP ) , was laid on ice , and why the bloc still does not have a free trade relationship with China .
French president Emmanuel Macron is even threatening to block a trade arrangement with South American countries ( called Mercosur ) in the case that Brazil leaves the 2015 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its trade deals , von der Leyen will now extend its climate policy to non-EU members , effectively bullying the entire continent into zealous emissions targets .
Especially for eastern European countries such as Ukraine , this is a true nightmare .
As expected , Europe ’ s journalists are sticking with the Commission ’ s rhetoric by calling it a carbon border tax .
For my part , I call it politicized European protectionism .
Brussels is reportedly looking at a climate law that would set a target date of 2050 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to boost the bloc ’ s 2030 target for emissions cuts from a reduction of at least 40 percent to between 50 and 55 percent compared to 1990 levels .
The Commission plans to present it by March 2020 .
The target update is only an argument for legitimizing harsher legislative measures .
Once passed , you ’ ll the European Parliament say that new and costly emissions restrictions are “ in line with EU climate targets.
” The good news for the Commission is that its climate law will not require unanimity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a qualified majority .
That said , Poland , Hungary , and the Czech Republic are currently withholding their consent .
Increasing ambitions to a 55 percent emissions cut will likely find a majority in the Parliament , and in the Council eight countries have said they support that target .
The question is whether opponents can rally a workable opposition .
That leads us to the crux of the issue .
Commission president von der Leyen has already proposed a financial package called the Just Transition Fund , which will support regions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , the current climate targets already necessitate €260 billion in additional annual investment , meaning that the updated targets will need even more funding .
At the moment , the Just Transition Fund is rumored to be included in the EU budget for 2021–27 and is expected to raise €100 billion in investments .
It remains a mystery who exactly will privately invest ( at their own risk ) in inefficient windmills and solar panels .
One thing is certain : a cash grab of this size can certainly attract the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently hesitant to join in .
That said , Germany and the Netherlands are favoring limited budgetary ambitions .
It is the ultimate mix of climate ideology and spending extravaganza .
Since Brussels has a tendency to get the answer wrong every time , I am confident that we ’ ll get the worst of both .
Also Read from Activist Post : Fake-Green Zero Carbon Fraud — “ Destroying The World to Save It ” Bill Wirtz is a political commentator from Luxembourg .
His works have been published in The Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newsweek , Die Welt , and Le Monde .

By Bill Wirtz
The European Commission has unveiled its “European Green Deal,” after taking hints on denomination from its American counterpart, the “Green New Deal.” While the legislation introduced in the US Congress remains fiction under a Republican executive and senate, the Brussels initiative will become law unless there is considerable opposition from EU member states.
Back in May, I had the pleasure to be a guest at an Austrian Economic Center event in Vienna, in which we discussed the policy outlook prior to the European elections. My prediction back then: more greens, more ecstatic green policies to come. The newly elected commission president Ursula von der Leyen has attempted to appease green forces in the European Parliament by dedicating herself to the environmentalist agenda, and as a result is now pursuing ambitious policy goals that she laid out in her candidature speech in Strasbourg.
The European Green Deal contains major implications for industry and consumers, including higher energy taxation, higher levies on shipping and aviation, higher road emissions duties, forcing companies to rethink recycling and repairing electronics, and making free trade deals more difficult to conclude. These measures all deserve op-eds of their own, but for the sake of this one, let’s narrow it down.
Three takeaways from the proposed package of executive and legislative measures are important:
The Commission wants to introduce a carbon border tax. The Commission wants to update the emissions targets for 2030. The Commission wants to spend more money in an effort to “reinvest” (or to buy off member states).
The Carbon Border Tax
The main objective of this “border adjustment” is to prevent the relocation of carbon-intensive production to non-EU countries, a problem known as “carbon leakage.” When companies outsource production to avoid carbon costs, they shift their emissions abroad. That, claims the EU, reduces the effectiveness of EU climate policies. This is of exceptional concern to Brussels, as non-EU countries, such as those in the Balkans, as well as Moldova, Belarus, and Ukraine, could come to rival EU producers as a result. The logic is very European: first we curb our own business efficiency through regulation, then we call other countries unfair competitors.
This is hardly the first time that European leaders have restricted trade due to environmental concerns. It was the most notable reason why the Obama-era free trade agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), was laid on ice, and why the bloc still does not have a free trade relationship with China. French president Emmanuel Macron is even threatening to block a trade arrangement with South American countries (called Mercosur) in the case that Brazil leaves the 2015 Paris Climate Accord.
Worse than politicizing its trade deals, von der Leyen will now extend its climate policy to non-EU members, effectively bullying the entire continent into zealous emissions targets. Especially for eastern European countries such as Ukraine, this is a true nightmare.
As expected, Europe’s journalists are sticking with the Commission’s rhetoric by calling it a carbon border tax. For my part, I call it politicized European protectionism.
Target Update
Brussels is reportedly looking at a climate law that would set a target date of 2050 to achieve net-zero emissions, and a plan to boost the bloc’s 2030 target for emissions cuts from a reduction of at least 40 percent to between 50 and 55 percent compared to 1990 levels. The Commission plans to present it by March 2020. The target update is only an argument for legitimizing harsher legislative measures. Once passed, you’ll the European Parliament say that new and costly emissions restrictions are “in line with EU climate targets.”
The good news for the Commission is that its climate law will not require unanimity voting in the European Council but only a qualified majority. That said, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are currently withholding their consent.
Increasing ambitions to a 55 percent emissions cut will likely find a majority in the Parliament, and in the Council eight countries have said they support that target. The question is whether opponents can rally a workable opposition.
That leads us to the crux of the issue.
The Climate Cash Grab
Commission president von der Leyen has already proposed a financial package called the Just Transition Fund, which will support regions in their transition away from fossil fuels. However, the current climate targets already necessitate €260 billion in additional annual investment, meaning that the updated targets will need even more funding. At the moment, the Just Transition Fund is rumored to be included in the EU budget for 2021–27 and is expected to raise €100 billion in investments. It remains a mystery who exactly will privately invest (at their own risk) in inefficient windmills and solar panels.
One thing is certain: a cash grab of this size can certainly attract the interests of central European nations that are currently hesitant to join in. That said, Germany and the Netherlands are favoring limited budgetary ambitions.
It is the ultimate mix of climate ideology and spending extravaganza. Since Brussels has a tendency to get the answer wrong every time, I am confident that we’ll get the worst of both.
Originally published by the Austrian Economics Center.
Bill Wirtz is a political commentator from Luxembourg. His works have been published in The Times of London, the Washington Examiner, Newsweek, Die Welt, and Le Monde.


activistpost--2020-01-15--Video Shows TWO Missiles Bringing Down Iran 737, Second Plane Reported & Iraq And Syria Under Attack

By The Last American Vagabond Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up , a concise show dedicated to bringing you the @ @ @ @ @ as we see it , from the last 24 hours ( 1/14/19 ) .
As @ @ @ @ @ discussed in the video below and research it for yourself , and come to your @ @ @ @ @ you what the truth is , or claiming they have the answer , is likely @ @ @ @ @ one reason or another .
Stay Vigilant .
Visit TheLastAmericanVagabond.com .
Subscribe to TLAV ’ @ @ @ @ @ YouTube or iTunes .
Follow on Facebook , Twitter , and Minds .
Support at @ @ @ @ @ to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist @ @ @ @ @ as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , @ @ @ @ @ Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a @ @ @ @ @ today .

By The Last American Vagabond
Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (1/14/19).
As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant.
Visit TheLastAmericanVagabond.com. Subscribe to TLAV’s independent news broadcast on YouTube or iTunes. Follow on Facebook, Twitter, and Minds. Support at Patreon or PayPal.
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, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-16--Seven and Counting: Cambridge, Massachusetts Passes Facial Recognition Ban

Last Monday night , the Cambridge City Council passed a measure banning facial recognition technology in the city .
The growing movement to prohibit the use of facial recognition at the state and local levels could hinder the operation of a growing national facial recognition network .
Cambridge Mayor McGovern , along with Councilors Craig Kelley and Sumbul Siddiqui , proposed the ban last summer in a resolution .
The amendment to the Surveillance Technology Ordinance passed last year prohibits any city department from intentionally accessing or using face recognition technology .
It also bars the use of any information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the passage to the measure in a tweet .
Cambridge became the fourth Massachusetts city to pass a ban on facial recognition technology , joining Northampton , Brookline and Somerville .
The city of Springfield is considering a similar ban , and there are also bills moving through the Massachusetts state legislature to place a statewide moratorium on facial recognition technology .
Efforts in Massachusetts make up part of a broader nationwide movement to limit this invasive surveillance technology at the local and state level .
San Francisco , Oakland , and Berkeley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facial recognition technology , The California governor recently signed a bill that imposes a 3-year ban on the use of the tech in conjunction with police body-worn cameras , leading to the shutdown of one of the biggest facial recognition programs in the country .
The New York Assembly is considering a bill to ban facial recognition in schools and on police body cameras .
A recent report revealed that the federal government has turned state drivers ’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database , putting virtually every driver in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The revelations generated widespread outrage , but this story isn ’ t new .
The federal government has been developing a massive , nationwide facial recognition system for years .
The FBI rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program in the fall of 2014 , with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends .
In 2016 , the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “ The Perpetual Lineup , ” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complete report at perpetuallineup.org .
The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests .
The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government , and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database .
There are many technical and legal problems with facial recognition , including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology , particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations .
During a test run by the ACLU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 26 members of the California legislature as people in a database of arrest photos .
With facial recognition technology , police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time .
These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by .
According to the report , several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking .
Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities , including Los Angeles , either claimed to run real-time face recognition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the capability , or expressed written interest in buying it .
In all likelihood , the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology .
The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear , including ALPRs , stingray devices and drones .
The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment ( ISE ) .
Fusion centers were sold as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is not how they are being used .
The ACLU pointed to a bipartisan congressional report to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers : “ They haven ’ t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts .
Instead , they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention : Black and brown people , immigrants , dissidents , and the poor.
” Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE .
According to its website , the ISE “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with information needed to enhance national security .
These analysts , operators , and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.
” In other words , ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant .
Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations , including the NSA .
ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras equipped to surveil a “ free speech ” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance .
In a nutshell , without state and local cooperation , the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information .
Passage of local ordinances banning facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data .
Simply put , data that doesn ’ t exist can not be entered into federal databases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center , where this article first appeared .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Michael Maharrey
Last Monday night, the Cambridge City Council passed a measure banning facial recognition technology in the city. The growing movement to prohibit the use of facial recognition at the state and local levels could hinder the operation of a growing national facial recognition network.
Cambridge Mayor McGovern, along with Councilors Craig Kelley and Sumbul Siddiqui, proposed the ban last summer in a resolution. The amendment to the Surveillance Technology Ordinance passed last year prohibits any city department from intentionally accessing or using face recognition technology. It also bars the use of any information obtained from such technology.
The amendment passed 9-0.
McGovern announced the passage to the measure in a tweet.
“Cambridge joins a small but growing number of cities who are stepping up to protect residents from intrusive and undemocratic technology.”
Cambridge became the fourth Massachusetts city to pass a ban on facial recognition technology, joining Northampton, Brookline and Somerville. The city of Springfield is considering a similar ban, and there are also bills moving through the Massachusetts state legislature to place a statewide moratorium on facial recognition technology.
Efforts in Massachusetts make up part of a broader nationwide movement to limit this invasive surveillance technology at the local and state level. San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley. have all prohibited government use of facial recognition technology, The California governor recently signed a bill that imposes a 3-year ban on the use of the tech in conjunction with police body-worn cameras, leading to the shutdown of one of the biggest facial recognition programs in the country. The New York Assembly is considering a bill to ban facial recognition in schools and on police body cameras.
IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS
A recent report revealed that the federal government has turned state drivers’ license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but this story isn’t new. The federal government has been developing a massive, nationwide facial recognition system for years.
The FBI rolled out a nationwide facial-recognition program in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.
In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at perpetuallineup.org. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.
“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author Clare Garvie said. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”
There are many technical and legal problems with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature as people in a database of arrest photos.
With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real-time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.
In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).
Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a bipartisan congressional report to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”
Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.
Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.
In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of local ordinances banning facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. 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, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-16--The United Nations Job Application That Should Alarm EVERYONE!

Why is the United Nations looking for “ Disarmament Officers ” in the U.S. ?
Jason takes a look at @ @ @ @ @ the language is extremely concerning .
Also Read : The UN Is Hiring English-Speaking DISARMAMENT @ @ @ @ @ to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist @ @ @ @ @ as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , @ @ @ @ @ Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a @ @ @ @ @ today .

By Jason Bermas
Why is the United Nations looking for “Disarmament Officers” in the U.S.?
Jason takes a look at the job listing and why the language is extremely concerning.

Support Jason:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/bermasbrig…
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
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, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-16--Red Flag Nation: Anti-Gun Laws, Sanctuary Cities and the Second Amendment

In the right ( or wrong ) hands , benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes .
Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted , corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation .
The war on terror , the war on drugs , the war on illegal immigration , asset forfeiture schemes , road safety schemes , school safety schemes , eminent domain : all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands .
Mark my words : gun control legislation , especially in the form of red flag gun laws , which allow the police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats , will only add to the government ’ s power .
These laws , growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others , are yet another Trojan Horse , a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flag laws on their books .
As The Washington Post reports , these laws “ allow a family member , roommate , beau , law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [ with a court ] asking that a person ’ s home be temporarily cleared of firearms .
It doesn ’ t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.
” In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings ( the statistics suggest otherwise ) , these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer .
Of course , it doesn ’ t always work that way .
Anything—knives , vehicles , planes , pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions .
With these red flag gun laws , the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “ stop dangerous people before they act.
” While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves or others , where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies , the courts and the police .
We ’ ve been down this road before .
Remember , this is the same government that uses the words “ anti-government , ” “ extremist ” and “ terrorist ” interchangeably .
This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments , behavioral sensing warnings , flagged “ words , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyes and ears , social media , behavior sensing software , and citizen spies to identify potential threats .
This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) , which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends , family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat .
This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies , behaviors , affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labeled potential enemies of the state .
For instance , if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution ( namely , your right to speak freely , worship freely , associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views , criticize the government , own a weapon , demand a warrant before being questioned or searched , or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government , racist , bigoted , anarchic or sovereign ) , you could be at the top of the government ’ s terrorism watch list .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorial warns , you may be an anti-government extremist ( a.k.a .
domestic terrorist ) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms , if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law , or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car .
Let that sink in a moment .
Now consider what happened in Maryland after a police officer attempted to “ enforce ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after it went into effect in 2018 .
At 5 am on a Monday , two police officers showed up at 61-year-old Gary Willis ’ house to serve him with a court order requiring that he surrender his guns .
Willis answered the door holding a gun .
Mind you , in some states , merely answering the door holding a gun is enough to get you killed by police who have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later .
Willis initially set his gun aside while he spoke with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police attempted to serve him with the gun confiscation order , Willis reportedly became “ irate ” and picked up his gun again .
At that point , a struggle ensued , causing the gun to go off .
Although no one was harmed , one of the cops shot and killed Willis .
According to the Anne Arundel County police chief , the shooting was a sign that the red flag law is needed .
What the police can ’ t say with any certainty is what they prevented by shooting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these red flag laws , specifically , and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent .
Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless .
Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or detention .
In fact , U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “ threats , ” violent or otherwise , before they can become actual threats for some time now .
In fact , all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words ( like cloud , pork and pirates ) , surf the internet , communicate using a cell phone , limp or stutter , drive a car , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political rally , express yourself on social media , appear mentally ill , serve in the military , disagree with a law enforcement official , call in sick to work , purchase materials at a hardware store , take flying or boating lessons , appear suspicious , appear confused or nervous , fidget or whistle or smell bad , be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun ( such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane ) , stare at a police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be pro-gun or pro-freedom , or generally live in the United States .
Be warned : once you get on such a government watch list—whether it ’ s a terrorist watch list , a mental health watch list , a dissident watch list , or a red flag gun watch list—there ’ s no clear-cut way to get off , whether or not you should actually be on there .
You will be tracked wherever you go .
You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s been a long time coming .
The government has been building its pre-crime , surveillance network in concert with fusion centers ( of which there are 78 nationwide , with partners in the private sector and globally ) , data collection agencies , behavioral scientists , corporations , social media , and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance , facial recognition , predictive policing , biometrics , and behavioral epigenetics ( in which life experiences alter one ’ s genetic makeup ) .
To that noxious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered by the Trump Administration for a new government agency HARPA ( a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon ’ s research and development arm DARPA ) that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “ signs ” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches , Fitbits , Amazon Echo and Google Home .
It ’ s the American police state ’ s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell , Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime package .
If you ’ re not scared yet , you should be .
Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act , note the government ’ s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “ extremist , ” then add in the government ’ s detention powers under NDAA , the National Security Agency ’ s far-reaching surveillance networks , and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local , state and federal police agencies .
To that , add tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will soon blanket American skies , facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do .
And then to complete the picture , toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country , which will be attempting to “ predict ” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance , complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs .
Hopefully you ’ re starting to understand how easy we ’ ve made it for the government to identify , label , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government ’ s list of persona non grata .
This brings me back to those red flag gun laws .
In the short term , these gun confiscation laws may serve to temporarily delay or discourage those wishing to inflict violence on others , but it will not resolve whatever madness or hate or instability therein that causes someone to pull a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence on another .
Nor will these laws save us from government-instigated and directed violence at the hands of the American police state or the blowback from the war-drenched , violence-imbued , profit-driven military industrial complex , both of which remain largely overlooked and underestimated pieces of the discussion on gun violence in America .
In the long term , all these gun confiscation laws will do is ensure that when the police state finally cracks down , “ we the people ” are defenseless in the face of the government ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives .
Those who want to see government as a benevolent parent looking out for our best interests tend to interpret the Second Amendment ’ s “ militia ” reference as applying only to the military .
To those who see the government as inherently corrupt , the Second Amendment is a means of ensuring that the populace will always have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their freedoms .
And then there are those who view the government as neither good nor evil , but merely a powerful entity that , as Thomas Jefferson recognized , must be bound “ down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
” To this group , the right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution , to be safeguarded , exercised prudently and maintained .
Unfortunately , while these three divergent viewpoints continue to jockey for supremacy , the U.S. government has adopted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what I do ” mindset when it comes to Americans ’ rights overall .
Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the government ’ s attempts to arm itself to the teeth , all the while treating anyone who dares to legally own a gun , let alone use one , as suspicious and/or on the road to being an outlaw .
In Virginia , for instance , legislation has been introduced that would “ require background checks on all firearms purchases , allow law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others , let localities ban weapons from certain events and government buildings , and cap handgun purchases at one per month.
” To those who subscribe to George Orwell ’ s views about gun ownership ( “ That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer ’ s cottage is the symbol of democracy .
It is our job to see that it stays there ” ) , these legislative attempts to regulate and control gun usage among the citizenry is nothing short of tyranny .
Not surprisingly , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of states across the country , momentum is building for 2A “ sanctuary ” cities that adopt resolutions opposing any “ unconstitutional restrictions ” on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms .
Personally , I ’ m all for any attempt by the citizenry to nullify government actions that run afoul of the Constitution .
Certainly , there ’ s no denying that there is a huge double standard at play when it comes to the debate over guns in America : while the government continues to crack down on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bear arms ( merely owning a gun can now get you treated as a suspect , searched , arrested , subjected to all manner of surveillance , shot at and killed despite ever having committed a crime ) , the government ’ s own efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees has reached epic proportions .
Ironically , while various state and federal agencies continue to adopt gun control legislation that includes bans on military-style assault weapons , high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets , expanded background checks , and tougher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being “ gifted ” military-grade weaponry and equipment designed for the battlefield .
“ We the people ” have been so focused on debating who or what is responsible for gun violence—the guns , the gun owners , or our violent culture—and whether the Second Amendment “ allows ” us to own guns that we ’ ve overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution : the fact that it is not merely an enumeration of our rights but was intended to be a clear shackle on the government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ context of prohibitions against the government , the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry ’ s gun ownership .
As such , it is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights , especially the right to freedom of speech , assembly , press , petition , security , and due process .
“ The Constitution is not neutral , ” Douglas remarked , “ It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backs of people.
” In this way , the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand as a bulwark against a police state .
To our detriment , these rights have been steadily weakened , eroded and undermined in recent years .
Yet without any one of them , including the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms , we are that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of out-of-control policemen , benevolent dictators , genuflecting politicians , and overly ambitious bureaucrats .
You can eliminate all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessarily eliminate violence .
Those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can and do wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives .
It ’ s also not even a question of whether Americans need weapons to defend themselves against any overt threats to their safety or well-being , although a study by a Quinnipiac University economist indicates that less restrictive concealed gun-carry laws save lives , while gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , journalist Kevin Carson , writing for CounterPunch , suggests that prohibiting Americans from owning weapons would be as dangerously ineffective as Prohibition and the War on the Drugs : Truly , the debate over gun ownership in America is really a debate over who gets to call the shots and control the game .
In other words , it ’ s that same tug-of-war that keeps getting played out in every confrontation between the government and the citizenry over who gets to be the master and who is relegated to the part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear on this particular point , with its multitude of prohibitions on government overreach .
As author Edmund A. Opitz observed in 1964 : In a nutshell , then , the Second Amendment ’ s right to bear arms reflects not only a concern for one ’ s personal defense but serves as a check on the political power of the ruling authorities .
It represents an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one ’ s freedoms , the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that necessary balance in the citizen-state relationship .
Certainly , dictators in past regimes have understood this principle only too well .
As Adolf Hitler noted , “ The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms .
History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
” It should come as no surprise , then , that starting in December 1935 , Jews in Germany were prevented from obtaining shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow them to do so would “ endanger the German population.
” In late 1938 , special orders were delivered barring Jews from owning firearms , with the punishment for arms possession being twenty years in a concentration camp .
The rest , as they say , is history .
Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America : The War on the American People , it is a history that we should be wary of repeating .

By John W. Whitehead
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” – The Second Amendment to the US Constitution
We never learn.
In the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes.
Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.
The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.
Mark my words: gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats, will only add to the government’s power.
These laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are yet another Trojan Horse, a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.
Seventeen states now have red flag laws on their books.
That number is growing.
As The Washington Post reports, these laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.”
In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings (the statistics suggest otherwise), these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.
Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.
Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.
With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”
While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.
We’ve been down this road before.
Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.
This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.
This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.
For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.
Let that sink in a moment.
Now consider what happened in Maryland after a police officer attempted to “enforce” the state’s new red flag law, after it went into effect in 2018.
At 5 am on a Monday, two police officers showed up at 61-year-old Gary Willis’ house to serve him with a court order requiring that he surrender his guns. Willis answered the door holding a gun.
Mind you, in some states, merely answering the door holding a gun is enough to get you killed by police who have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later.
Willis initially set his gun aside while he spoke with the police. However, when the police attempted to serve him with the gun confiscation order, Willis reportedly became “irate” and picked up his gun again. At that point, a struggle ensued, causing the gun to go off. Although no one was harmed, one of the cops shot and killed Willis.
According to the Anne Arundel County police chief, the shooting was a sign that the red flag law is needed.
What the police can’t say with any certainty is what they prevented by shooting and killing Willis.
Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.
Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.
Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.
In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.
In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States.
Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.
You will be tracked wherever you go.
You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.
This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.
The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).
To that noxious mix, add in a proposal being considered by the Trump Administration for a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.
It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.
If you’re not scared yet, you should be.
Connect the dots.
Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.
To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.
Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata.
This brings me back to those red flag gun laws.
In the short term, these gun confiscation laws may serve to temporarily delay or discourage those wishing to inflict violence on others, but it will not resolve whatever madness or hate or instability therein that causes someone to pull a trigger or launch a bomb or unleash violence on another.
Nor will these laws save us from government-instigated and directed violence at the hands of the American police state or the blowback from the war-drenched, violence-imbued, profit-driven military industrial complex, both of which remain largely overlooked and underestimated pieces of the discussion on gun violence in America.
In the long term, all these gun confiscation laws will do is ensure that when the police state finally cracks down, “we the people” are defenseless in the face of the government’s arsenal of weapons.
Now you can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.
Those who want to see government as a benevolent parent looking out for our best interests tend to interpret the Second Amendment’s “militia” reference as applying only to the military.
To those who see the government as inherently corrupt, the Second Amendment is a means of ensuring that the populace will always have a way of defending themselves against threats to their freedoms.
And then there are those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound “down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” To this group, the right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution, to be safeguarded, exercised prudently and maintained.
Unfortunately, while these three divergent viewpoints continue to jockey for supremacy, the U.S. government has adopted a “do what I say, not what I do” mindset when it comes to Americans’ rights overall.
Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the government’s attempts to arm itself to the teeth, all the while treating anyone who dares to legally own a gun, let alone use one, as suspicious and/or on the road to being an outlaw.
In Virginia, for instance, legislation has been introduced that would “require background checks on all firearms purchases, allow law enforcement to temporarily remove guns from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others, let localities ban weapons from certain events and government buildings, and cap handgun purchases at one per month.”
To those who subscribe to George Orwell’s views about gun ownership (“That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there”), these legislative attempts to regulate and control gun usage among the citizenry is nothing short of tyranny.
Not surprisingly, then, in Virginia and a growing number of states across the country, momentum is building for 2A “sanctuary” cities that adopt resolutions opposing any “unconstitutional restrictions” on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Personally, I’m all for any attempt by the citizenry to nullify government actions that run afoul of the Constitution.
Certainly, there’s no denying that there is a huge double standard at play when it comes to the debate over guns in America: while the government continues to crack down on the citizenry’s right to own and bear arms (merely owning a gun can now get you treated as a suspect, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, shot at and killed despite ever having committed a crime), the government’s own efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees has reached epic proportions.
Ironically, while various state and federal agencies continue to adopt gun control legislation that includes bans on military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets, expanded background checks, and tougher gun-trafficking laws, local police agencies are being “gifted” military-grade weaponry and equipment designed for the battlefield.
“We the people” have been so focused on debating who or what is responsible for gun violence—the guns, the gun owners, or our violent culture—and whether the Second Amendment “allows” us to own guns that we’ve overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution: the fact that it is not merely an enumeration of our rights but was intended to be a clear shackle on the government’s powers.
When considered in the context of prohibitions against the government, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry’s gun ownership.
As such, it is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process.
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood this tension well.
“The Constitution is not neutral,” Douglas remarked, “It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.”
In this way, the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand as a bulwark against a police state.
To our detriment, these rights have been steadily weakened, eroded and undermined in recent years. Yet without any one of them, including the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, we are that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of out-of-control policemen, benevolent dictators, genuflecting politicians, and overly ambitious bureaucrats.
You can eliminate all of the guns, but it will not necessarily eliminate violence. Those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can and do wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives.
It’s also not even a question of whether Americans need weapons to defend themselves against any overt threats to their safety or well-being, although a study by a Quinnipiac University economist indicates that less restrictive concealed gun-carry laws save lives, while gun control can endanger lives.
In fact, journalist Kevin Carson, writing for CounterPunch, suggests that prohibiting Americans from owning weapons would be as dangerously ineffective as Prohibition and the War on the Drugs:
[W]hat strict gun laws will do is take the level of police statism, lawlessness and general social pathology up a notch in the same way Prohibition and the Drug War have done. I’d expect a War on Guns to expand the volume of organized crime, and to empower criminal gangs fighting over control over the black market, in exactly the same way Prohibition did in the 1920s and strict drug laws have done since the 1980s. I’d expect it to lead to further erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure, further militarization of local police via SWAT teams, and further expansion of the squalid empire of civil forfeiture, perjured jailhouse snitch testimony, entrapment, planted evidence, and plea deal blackmail.
Truly, the debate over gun ownership in America is really a debate over who gets to call the shots and control the game.
In other words, it’s that same tug-of-war that keeps getting played out in every confrontation between the government and the citizenry over who gets to be the master and who is relegated to the part of the servant.
The Constitution is clear on this particular point, with its multitude of prohibitions on government overreach. As author Edmund A. Opitz observed in 1964:
No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words “no” and “not” employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.
In a nutshell, then, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms reflects not only a concern for one’s personal defense but serves as a check on the political power of the ruling authorities. It represents an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one’s freedoms, the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or property. As such, it reinforces that necessary balance in the citizen-state relationship.
Certainly, dictators in past regimes have understood this principle only too well. As Adolf Hitler noted, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
It should come as no surprise, then, that starting in December 1935, Jews in Germany were prevented from obtaining shooting licenses, because authorities believed that to allow them to do so would “endanger the German population.”
In late 1938, special orders were delivered barring Jews from owning firearms, with the punishment for arms possession being twenty years in a concentration camp.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it is a history that we should be wary of repeating.


activistpost--2020-01-16--Northam Declares State of Emergency in Virginia Because “armed militia groups plan to storm the Capi

Northam Declares State of Emergency in Virginia Because “armed militia groups plan to storm the Capitol”

The drama in Virginia has escalated again as Governor Ralph Northam declares an official State of Emergency before January 20th ’ s “ Lobby Day ” protests .
Citing violence that erupted in Charlottesville during a Unite the Right rally in 2017 , Northam said that there are credible threats that “ armed militia groups plan to storm the Capitol ” during Monday ’ s rally .
In an executive order , he announced he is banning all weapons from Capitol Square for the day .
Credible intelligence gathered by Virginia ’ s law enforcement agencies indicates that tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol Square for events culminating on January 20 , 2020 .
Available information suggests that a substantial number of these demonstrators are expected to come from outside the Commonwealth , may be armed , and have as their purpose not peaceful assembly but violence , rioting , and insurrection .
Assuring that Virginia ’ s Capitol Square and surrounding public areas are sheltered safe places for those who come to participate in the democratic process , as well as those who work on or near Capitol Square , is my greatest priority .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of tens of thousands of demonstrators on Capitol Square , some of whom may not come to assemble peacefully , constitutes an emergency as described in § 44-146.16 of the Code of Virginia ( Code ) .
Therefore , by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution of Virginia , by §§ 2.2-103 and 44-146.13 et seq .
of the Code , as Governor and Director of Emergency Management and Commander-in-Chief of the Commonwealth ’ s armed forces , I proclaim that a state of emergency will exist starting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 .
Accordingly , I direct state and local governments to render appropriate assistance to prepare for this event , to alleviate any conditions resulting from the situation , and to implement recovery and mitigation operations and activities so as to return impacted areas to pre-event conditions as much as possible .
Emergency services shall be conducted in accordance with § 44-146.13 et seq .
of the Code .
( source ) The Executive Order doesn ’ t only ban guns , but also includes helmets , shields , and more .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ open carry event and the turnout is expected to be massive .
Monday , the state ’ s congress is expected to vote on a number of incredibly unpopular anti-gun laws , discussed here and here .
While one of the most alarming bills has been pulled due to overwhelming opposition , there are plenty more to take its place .
What are these threats ?
When you push a population to the brink , threatening them with gun confiscation at the hands of the National Guard and telling them that their lawful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to expect that population to push back .
Particularly a rural , gun-loving population that makes up most of the counties in Virginia .
According to a press release from Northam ’ s office , “ credible intelligence gathered by Virginia ’ s law enforcement agencies indicates that tens of thousands of advocates plan to converge on Capitol Square for events culminating on January 20 , 2020 .
Available information suggests that a substantial number of these demonstrators are expected to come from outside the Commonwealth , may be armed , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but violence , rioting , and insurrection.
” Specifically , Northam said they ’ ve received threats including people detailing plans to storm the Capitol Building , use weaponized drones , and more .
A state official cited one posting that included a photo of an AR-15 with a caption that said there are “ great sight angles from certain buildings ” near Capitol Square .
( source ) Who is sponsoring the rally ?
It ’ s interesting to note that throughout nearly every article on the mainstream media about this topic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ white nationalists , ” making it seem as though the event is being hosted by white supremacists instead of law-abiding gun owners who have no intention of kowtowing to unconstitutional mandates .
It ’ s particularly interesting that it ’ s Governor Northam making most of these references , given his part in a recent “ blackface ” scandal .
Here are some examples : • From NBC : “ Northam ’ s declaration will also ban items like helmets and shields , items that some white nationalists carried in Charlottesville @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Northam said the decision was a response to threats , some of them made online in forums hosted by hate groups and white nationalists .
The governor called on rally organizers to dissuade out-of-state groups from coming to the rally and encouraged a “ peaceful day ” for Virginians.
” • From NPR : “ Northam is raising concerns about a reprise of the deadly violence surrounding the white supremacist march in Charlottesville in August 2017 .
He said state intelligence analysts have identified threats and rhetoric online that mirrors the chatter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But in actuality , the group sponsoring the rally is Virginia Citizen ’ s Defense League , a group dedicated to “ defending your right to defend yourself in Virginia.
” This isn ’ t the first tyrannical move in Virginia this week .
An extremely popular Facebook post that has been shared thousands of times reads : So Virginia introduces a bundle of radical laws to destroy 2A rights , militias , sale transfer and registration bills , and the People of Virginia says no , and we ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Virginia says we ’ re not going to wait , we ’ ll petition your removal from office and gets almost a 3rd of the 240K signatures to remove the governor and starts petitions to remove deligates .
Virginia govornment responds by introducing a bill to raise the amount of signatures from 10 % of the prevailing vote , to 25 % .
Folks , this is the a textbook example of tyranny .
“ We ’ re the government , and we ’ ll do anything we want , whether you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t let you vote us out , we won ’ t let you remove us from office… .
And if you can ’ t possess the weapons that a militia would need to force us out , of office , then there ’ s absolutely nothing you can do about it ” ( source ) I guess we can add this Executive Order to the list of tyrannies above .
What happens now ?
On their Facebook page , they said of Northam ’ s emergency declaration : Based on the comments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of Virginians are not planning to comply and it looks like there could be widespread civil disobedience on Monday .
You can find out more information about Lobby Day here and you can get transportation to attend here .
I ’ ll update this article with more information as it becomes available .
Please share this information with your friends and family members .
Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging , gun-toting blogger who writes about current events , preparedness , frugality , voluntaryism , and the pursuit of liberty on her website @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article first appeared .
She is widely republished across alternative media and she curates all the most important news links on her aggregate site , PreppersDailyNews.com .
Daisy is the best-selling author of 4 books and lives in the mountains of Virginia with her two daughters and an ever-growing menagerie .
You can find her on Facebook , Pinterest , and Twitter .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Daisy Luther
The drama in Virginia has escalated again as Governor Ralph Northam declares an official State of Emergency before January 20th’s “Lobby Day” protests.
Citing violence that erupted in Charlottesville during a Unite the Right rally in 2017, Northam said that there are credible threats that “armed militia groups plan to storm the Capitol” during Monday’s rally. In an executive order, he announced he is banning all weapons from Capitol Square for the day.
Credible intelligence gathered by Virginia’s law enforcement agencies indicates that tens of thousands of advocates plan to converge on Capitol Square for events culminating on January 20, 2020. Available information suggests that a substantial number of these demonstrators are expected to come from outside the Commonwealth, may be armed, and have as their purpose not peaceful assembly but violence, rioting, and insurrection. Assuring that Virginia’s Capitol Square and surrounding public areas are sheltered safe places for those who come to participate in the democratic process, as well as those who work on or near Capitol Square, is my greatest priority. The anticipated effects of the potential convergence of tens of thousands of demonstrators on Capitol Square, some of whom may not come to assemble peacefully, constitutes an emergency as described in § 44-146.16 of the Code of Virginia (Code). Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution of Virginia, by §§ 2.2-103 and 44-146.13 et seq. of the Code, as Governor and Director of Emergency Management and Commander-in-Chief of the Commonwealth’s armed forces, I proclaim that a state of emergency will exist starting on January 17, 2020 through January 21, 2020. Accordingly, I direct state and local governments to render appropriate assistance to prepare for this event, to alleviate any conditions resulting from the situation, and to implement recovery and mitigation operations and activities so as to return impacted areas to pre-event conditions as much as possible. Emergency services shall be conducted in accordance with § 44-146.13 et seq. of the Code. (source)
The Executive Order doesn’t only ban guns, but also includes helmets, shields, and more.
“No weapons will be allowed on Capitol grounds,” said Northam, a Democrat. “Everything from sticks and bats to chains and projectiles…. The list also includes firearms. It makes no sense to ban every other weapon but allow firearms when intelligence shows that armed militia groups plan to storm the Capitol.” (source)
The rally had been planned as an open carry event and the turnout is expected to be massive. Monday, the state’s congress is expected to vote on a number of incredibly unpopular anti-gun laws, discussed here and here. While one of the most alarming bills has been pulled due to overwhelming opposition, there are plenty more to take its place.
What are these threats?
When you push a population to the brink, threatening them with gun confiscation at the hands of the National Guard and telling them that their lawful actions of rebellion are meaningless, you have to expect that population to push back. Particularly a rural, gun-loving population that makes up most of the counties in Virginia.
According to a press release from Northam’s office, “credible intelligence gathered by Virginia’s law enforcement agencies indicates that tens of thousands of advocates plan to converge on Capitol Square for events culminating on January 20, 2020. Available information suggests that a substantial number of these demonstrators are expected to come from outside the Commonwealth, may be armed, and have as their purpose not peaceful assembly but violence, rioting, and insurrection.” Specifically, Northam said they’ve received threats including people detailing plans to storm the Capitol Building, use weaponized drones, and more. A state official cited one posting that included a photo of an AR-15 with a caption that said there are “great sight angles from certain buildings” near Capitol Square. (source)
Who is sponsoring the rally?
It’s interesting to note that throughout nearly every article on the mainstream media about this topic, you’ll find multiple references to “white nationalists,” making it seem as though the event is being hosted by white supremacists instead of law-abiding gun owners who have no intention of kowtowing to unconstitutional mandates. It’s particularly interesting that it’s Governor Northam making most of these references, given his part in a recent “blackface” scandal.
Here are some examples:
From NBC: “Northam’s declaration will also ban items like helmets and shields, items that some white nationalists carried in Charlottesville. “
From USA Today: “Northam said the decision was a response to threats, some of them made online in forums hosted by hate groups and white nationalists. The governor called on rally organizers to dissuade out-of-state groups from coming to the rally and encouraged a “peaceful day” for Virginians.”
From NPR: “Northam is raising concerns about a reprise of the deadly violence surrounding the white supremacist march in Charlottesville in August 2017. He said state intelligence analysts have identified threats and rhetoric online that mirrors the chatter they were picking up around that time.”
But in actuality, the group sponsoring the rally is Virginia Citizen’s Defense League, a group dedicated to “defending your right to defend yourself in Virginia.”
This isn’t the first tyrannical move in Virginia this week.
An extremely popular Facebook post that has been shared thousands of times reads:
So Virginia introduces a bundle of radical laws to destroy 2A rights, militias, sale transfer and registration bills, and the People of Virginia says no, and we’re going to vote you all out next term. Virginia government responds by introducing a bill to eliminate voter ID. Virginia says we’re not going to wait, we’ll petition your removal from office and gets almost a 3rd of the 240K signatures to remove the governor and starts petitions to remove deligates. Virginia govornment responds by introducing a bill to raise the amount of signatures from 10% of the prevailing vote, to 25%. Folks, this is the a textbook example of tyranny. “We’re the government, and we’ll do anything we want, whether you like it or not. We won’t let you vote us out, we won’t let you remove us from office…. And if you can’t possess the weapons that a militia would need to force us out, of office, then there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it” (source)
I guess we can add this Executive Order to the list of tyrannies above.
What happens now?
On their Facebook page, they said of Northam’s emergency declaration:
VCDL is going to have our attorneys investigate this situation once we hear Northam’s statement on Wednesday and we will let you know what we find out. (source)
Based on the comments on the VCDL Facebook page, a lot of Virginians are not planning to comply and it looks like there could be widespread civil disobedience on Monday. You can find out more information about Lobby Day here and you can get transportation to attend here.
I’ll update this article with more information as it becomes available. Please share this information with your friends and family members.
Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging, gun-toting blogger who writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, voluntaryism, and the pursuit of liberty on her website, The Organic Prepper, where this article first appeared. She is widely republished across alternative media and she curates all the most important news links on her aggregate site, PreppersDailyNews.com. Daisy is the best-selling author of 4 books and lives in the mountains of Virginia with her two daughters and an ever-growing menagerie. You can find her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter.
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, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-16--Jimmy Dore Interview — Voting In A Broken System, The Two-Party Illusion & Tulsi Gabbard

By The Last American Vagabond Joining me today is political commentator , and self-styled “ Jagoff nightclub comedian ” yet @ @ @ @ @ of the most important voices of today in reaching the masses that are still lost @ @ @ @ @ the mainstream propaganda , and that of course is Jimmy Dore .
Visit TheLastAmericanVagabond.com .
@ @ @ @ @ independent news broadcast on YouTube or iTunes .
Follow on Facebook , Twitter , and @ @ @ @ @ or PayPal .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news @ @ @ @ @ Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on @ @ @ @ @ , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ issue of Counter Markets today .

By The Last American Vagabond
Joining me today is political commentator, and self-styled “Jagoff nightclub comedian” yet, in truth, one of the most important voices of today in reaching the masses that are still lost to the comforting suffocation of the mainstream propaganda, and that of course is Jimmy Dore.

Image: Anthony Freda Art
Visit TheLastAmericanVagabond.com. Subscribe to TLAV’s independent news broadcast on YouTube or iTunes. Follow on Facebook, Twitter, and Minds. Support at Patreon or PayPal.
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, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-15--Senators Want $1 Billion to Fund 5G Deployment Despite Lawsuits, Opposition and Warnings

Warnings about 5G aren ’ t only about biological and environmental risks .
Engineers , security experts , meteorologists , NASA , NOAA , the U.S. Navy and Department of Defense have also warned that 5G is not what ’ s best for anybody ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
Lawsuits have been filed ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
Requests for 5G moratoriums from doctors and scientists started in 2017 .
Another one was recently submitted to President Trump .
People and animals have been getting sick where 5G @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
Some communities and countries have banned it .
Regardless , a bipartisan group of senators still wants to fund forcing it on Americans despite all of the above AND that telecom companies have still provided NO scientific evidence that 5G is safe .
Argh .
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators , alarmed by the rise of Chinese electronics supplier Huawei Technologies Co. , wants Washington to subsidize firms that could counter China ’ s 5G advances .
The proposed Utilizing Strategic Allied Telecommunications Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward companies developing fifth-generation , or 5G , wireless technology and create a separate $ 500 million fund for companies that deploy “ trusted and secure ” equipment around the world .
Activist Post reports regularly about risks associated with 5G and other 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 , Flote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
Warnings about 5G aren’t only about biological and environmental risks. Engineers, security experts, meteorologists, NASA, NOAA, the U.S. Navy and Department of Defense have also warned that 5G is not what’s best for anybody (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Lawsuits have been filed (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Requests for 5G moratoriums from doctors and scientists started in 2017. Another one was recently submitted to President Trump.
People and animals have been getting sick where 5G has been turned on (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Some communities and countries have banned it. Regardless, a bipartisan group of senators still wants to fund forcing it on Americans despite all of the above AND that telecom companies have still provided NO scientific evidence that 5G is safe. Argh.
From MarketWatch:
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators, alarmed by the rise of Chinese electronics supplier Huawei Technologies Co., wants Washington to subsidize firms that could counter China’s 5G advances. The proposed Utilizing Strategic Allied Telecommunications Act would steer at least $750 million toward companies developing fifth-generation, or 5G, wireless technology and create a separate $500 million fund for companies that deploy “trusted and secure” equipment around the world.

Activist Post reports regularly about risks associated with 5G and other 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, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-17--Grandpa and 12yo Granddaughter Cuffed, Detained — for Opening a Bank Account While Indigenous

Although the duo had three forms of identification , an Indigenous Canadian and his granddaughter were detained by police outside their bank because the clerk believed something was amiss .
Maxwell Johnson , a member of the Heiltsuk community located on British Columbia ’ s Central Coast , wanted to help his daughter access some of his funds while she was away playing out of town sports .
What started out as a good idea to help his granddaughter ended in Johnson nearly being kidnapped and caged .
Johnson , along with his granddaughter presented government-issued Indian Status cards , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The elderly man had been a long-standing account holder at his BMO bank .
Thinking there would be no problem in opening a youth account for his granddaughter , he said he submitted his paperwork to the clerk .
That ’ s when the problem started .
The employee became suspicious and went upstairs with their ID cards and documents .
The grandpa remarked : Not long ago , Johnson and every other Heiltsuk community member received reparations from the government in the form of cold , hard , cash .
Thirty-thousand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost 23,000 U.S. dollars .
The grandpa believes that ’ s why the clerk called the police .
After informing the family their documents could be retrieved by going upstairs with her , the two saw police coming their way .
Immediately thereafter , the cops informed them they were being detained , they were handcuffed , and then read their rights .
Johnson told local media he believes the police action was due to racial profiling .
“ It was so hard to see my granddaughter taken out of the bank and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life from this , ” Johnson said in an emotional Facebook post after the Dec. 20 incident .
“ At the time I was just worried … now that I have had time to go over this it makes me so mad.
” News of the situation subsequently sparked nationwide backlash and a day of action was planned in protest .
According to the Vancouver Police Department , the incident did , in fact , take place .
In a statement the cops admit the clerk believed the two Indigenous individuals were attempting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But there was no crime taking place at all—just a grandfather trying to open a bank account .
Unlike the majority of the police departments we cover in the US , the Canadian PD was quick to issue an apology saying : The Canadian officers involved had been given cultural sensitivity training yet went ahead and detained the Indigenous family nonetheless .
Also worth noting was the apology issued by BMO bank .
We value our long and special relationship with Indigenous communities .
Recently , an incident occurred that does not reflect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regret this and unequivocally apologize to all .
We are reviewing what took place , how it was handled and will use this as a learning opportunity .
We understand the importance and seriousness of this situation at the highest levels of the bank .
This week , B.C.
’ s police complaint commissioner has ordered an investigation into the arrest of an innocent Indigenous man and his granddaughter at a Bank of Montreal branch .
“ It is important that there be a thorough and independent investigation of this matter , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement Tuesday .
Canada , like the United States , has an equally disturbing history in dealing with Indigenous populations .
Called “ Residential Schools ” , Native Americans from Canada ’ s provinces were shipped off for Western indoctrination by white men who dominated them .
Al Jazeera English created a documentary it calls Canada ’ s “ Dark Secret ” .
It appears , from the above example , the Johnson family is still suffering the fallout from such a discriminatory history .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Jack Burns
Although the duo had three forms of identification, an Indigenous Canadian and his granddaughter were detained by police outside their bank because the clerk believed something was amiss. Maxwell Johnson, a member of the Heiltsuk community located on British Columbia’s Central Coast, wanted to help his daughter access some of his funds while she was away playing out of town sports. What started out as a good idea to help his granddaughter ended in Johnson nearly being kidnapped and caged.
Johnson, along with his granddaughter presented government-issued Indian Status cards, his birth certificate and her medical card. The elderly man had been a long-standing account holder at his BMO bank. Thinking there would be no problem in opening a youth account for his granddaughter, he said he submitted his paperwork to the clerk. That’s when the problem started. The employee became suspicious and went upstairs with their ID cards and documents. The grandpa remarked:
She said the numbers didn’t match up what she had on her computer.
Not long ago, Johnson and every other Heiltsuk community member received reparations from the government in the form of cold, hard, cash. Thirty-thousand Canadian dollars to be exact, or almost 23,000 U.S. dollars. The grandpa believes that’s why the clerk called the police. After informing the family their documents could be retrieved by going upstairs with her, the two saw police coming their way. Immediately thereafter, the cops informed them they were being detained, they were handcuffed, and then read their rights.
They came over and grabbed me and my granddaughter, took us to a police vehicle and handcuffed both of us, told us we were being detained and read us our rights…You can see how scared she was…It was really hard to see that.
Maxwell Johnson and his 12-year-old granddaughter were handcuffed in front of a Bank of Montreal in Vancouver. They went there to open a bank account so he could transfer money to her when she was on the road for basketball games. | @cbcnewsbchttps://t.co/oQhVzKQ9dE — CBC (@CBC) January 11, 2020
Johnson told local media he believes the police action was due to racial profiling.
“It was so hard to see my granddaughter taken out of the bank and handcuffed. She will be scarred for life from this,” Johnson said in an emotional Facebook post after the Dec. 20 incident.
“At the time I was just worried … now that I have had time to go over this it makes me so mad.”
News of the situation subsequently sparked nationwide backlash and a day of action was planned in protest.
According to the Vancouver Police Department, the incident did, in fact, take place. In a statement the cops admit the clerk believed the two Indigenous individuals were attempting to commit some sort of crime. But there was no crime taking place at all—just a grandfather trying to open a bank account.
It was determined that there was no criminal activity and no fraudulent transaction.
Unlike the majority of the police departments we cover in the US, the Canadian PD was quick to issue an apology saying:
It is a regrettable situation, and we don’t want anybody to have to go through anything like this.
The Canadian officers involved had been given cultural sensitivity training yet went ahead and detained the Indigenous family nonetheless. Also worth noting was the apology issued by BMO bank.
We value our long and special relationship with Indigenous communities. Recently, an incident occurred that does not reflect us at our best. We deeply regret this and unequivocally apologize to all. We are reviewing what took place, how it was handled and will use this as a learning opportunity. We understand the importance and seriousness of this situation at the highest levels of the bank.
This week, B.C.’s police complaint commissioner has ordered an investigation into the arrest of an innocent Indigenous man and his granddaughter at a Bank of Montreal branch.
“It is important that there be a thorough and independent investigation of this matter,” Deputy Police Complaint Commissioner Andrea Spindler said in a statement Tuesday.
The investigation will carefully examine and assess the circumstances of this incident including the legal authority to detain, arrest and use restraining devices such as handcuffs as well as any relevant questions of policy or training.
Shame on you Bank of Montreal. Compensate this nice family now for your disgusting behavior. @BMO @ConsumerSOS https://t.co/PMIbe4dSzF — Sandra Cole (@Sandra_Cole44) January 9, 2020
Canada, like the United States, has an equally disturbing history in dealing with Indigenous populations. Called “Residential Schools”, Native Americans from Canada’s provinces were shipped off for Western indoctrination by white men who dominated them. Al Jazeera English created a documentary it calls Canada’s “Dark Secret”. It appears, from the above example, the Johnson family is still suffering the fallout from such a discriminatory history.
Article source: The Free Thought Project
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, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.