activistpost--2020-06-25--Victory! Boston Bans Government Use of Face Surveillance

The push to minimize the government ’ s power to track and spy on people with surveillance technology has picked up steam as the Black-led movement against racism and police brutality continues to push politicians to reconsider the role policing plays in our lives .
Thanks to the tireless efforts of activists and organizations in Massachusetts and around the country , including EFF , this week Boston joins the ranks of cities that have banned government use of face surveillance .
Boston will become the tenth city in the United States to ban government use of face recognition technology .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed a three-year moratorium on the use of FRT on police body-worn and hand-held cameras .
Whereas , Governments around the world are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic with an unprecedented use of surveillance tools , including face surveillance technology , despite public health and privacy experts agreeing that public trust is essential to an effective response to the pandemic ; and Whereas , Facial surveillance technology has been proven to be less accurate for African American and AAPI faces , and racial bias in facial surveillance has the potential to harm communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level of surveillance and harassment ; and Whereas , Several municipalities in Massachusetts , including Springfield , Somerville , Brookline , and Cambridge , have passed local legislation to ban face surveillance… Nathan Sheard , EFF ’ s Associate Director of Community Organizing , testified before the Boston City Council on the hazards of face surveillance .
“ Face surveillance is profoundly dangerous , ” he told the council , “ First , in tracking our faces , a unique marker that we can not change , it invades our privacy .
Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public places will chill people from engaging in first-amendment protected activities… Third , surveillance technologies have an unfair , disparate impact against people of color , immigrants , and other vulnerable populations.
” EFF sent a letter [ PDF ] to the Boston City Council suggesting three improvements to the ordinance .
The Council adopted all three .
One closed a loophole that might have allowed police to ask third parties to collect face recognition evidence for them .
Another change provides attorney fees to a person who brings a successful suit against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government use of face surveillance .
Otherwise , only well-funded organizations or wealthy individuals would be able to enforce this critical new ban .
It is no coincidence that this ban passed unanimously through Boston ’ s city council on the same day that the New York Times published a long piece on the case of Robert Julian-Borchak Williams , who was arrested by Detroit police after face recognition technology wrongly identified him as a suspect in a theft case .
The problem isn ’ t just that studies have found face recognition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to matching the faces of people of color .
The larger concern is that in the hands of police , the technology poses a threat to vulnerable communities by virtue of the fact that police departments themselves disproportionately surveil and patrol those neighborhoods .
EFF has long advocated for a nation-wide ban on the government ’ s use of face surveillance .
You can help by joining our fight , telling your elected officials to ban the technology , or getting your local representatives to introduce our model bill that will ban face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a policy analyst working on issues of surveillance and privacy at the local , state , and federal level .
He received a PhD in history at the University of Connecticut where his research focused on the intersection of race , immigration , U.S. imperialism , and policing in New York City .
He is a frequent contributor to the Freedom of Information-centered outlet Muckrock and his bylines have also appeared in the Washington Post , Slate , and Motherboard .
Matthew is a visiting scholar in the department of history at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Disciplining the City , ” a series on the history of urban policing and incarceration at the Urban History Association ’ s blog The Metropole .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Matthew Guariglia
The push to minimize the government’s power to track and spy on people with surveillance technology has picked up steam as the Black-led movement against racism and police brutality continues to push politicians to reconsider the role policing plays in our lives. Thanks to the tireless efforts of activists and organizations in Massachusetts and around the country, including EFF, this week Boston joins the ranks of cities that have banned government use of face surveillance.
Boston will become the tenth city in the United States to ban government use of face recognition technology. Last year, the state of California passed a three-year moratorium on the use of FRT on police body-worn and hand-held cameras.
The Boston ordinance [PDF] declares:
Whereas, Governments around the world are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic with an unprecedented use of surveillance tools, including face surveillance technology, despite public health and privacy experts agreeing that public trust is essential to an effective response to the pandemic; and Whereas, Facial surveillance technology has been proven to be less accurate for African American and AAPI faces, and racial bias in facial surveillance has the potential to harm communities of color who are already facing increased level of surveillance and harassment; and Whereas, Several municipalities in Massachusetts, including Springfield, Somerville, Brookline, and Cambridge, have passed local legislation to ban face surveillance…
Nathan Sheard, EFF’s Associate Director of Community Organizing, testified before the Boston City Council on the hazards of face surveillance. “Face surveillance is profoundly dangerous,” he told the council, “First, in tracking our faces, a unique marker that we cannot change, it invades our privacy. Second, government use of the technology in public places will chill people from engaging in first-amendment protected activities… Third, surveillance technologies have an unfair, disparate impact against people of color, immigrants, and other vulnerable populations.”
Protect Your Privacy with a Phone Shield Faraday Bag
EFF sent a letter [PDF] to the Boston City Council suggesting three improvements to the ordinance. The Council adopted all three. One closed a loophole that might have allowed police to ask third parties to collect face recognition evidence for them. Another change provides attorney fees to a person who brings a successful suit against the City for violating this ban on government use of face surveillance. Otherwise, only well-funded organizations or wealthy individuals would be able to enforce this critical new ban.
It is no coincidence that this ban passed unanimously through Boston’s city council on the same day that the New York Times published a long piece on the case of Robert Julian-Borchak Williams, who was arrested by Detroit police after face recognition technology wrongly identified him as a suspect in a theft case. The problem isn’t just that studies have found face recognition staggeringly and disparately inaccurate when it comes to matching the faces of people of color. The larger concern is that in the hands of police, the technology poses a threat to vulnerable communities by virtue of the fact that police departments themselves disproportionately surveil and patrol those neighborhoods.
EFF has long advocated for a nation-wide ban on the government’s use of face surveillance. You can help by joining our fight, telling your elected officials to ban the technology, or getting your local representatives to introduce our model bill that will ban face surveillance in your town.
Source: EFF.org
Matthew Guariglia is a policy analyst working on issues of surveillance and privacy at the local, state, and federal level. He received a PhD in history at the University of Connecticut where his research focused on the intersection of race, immigration, U.S. imperialism, and policing in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to the Freedom of Information-centered outlet Muckrock and his bylines have also appeared in the Washington Post, Slate, and Motherboard. Matthew is a visiting scholar in the department of history at UC-Berkeley and serves as an editor of “Disciplining the City,” a series on the history of urban policing and incarceration at the Urban History Association’s blog The Metropole.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-25--The Senate’s New Anti-Encryption Bill Is Even Worse Than EARN IT, and That’s Saying Something

Right now , we rely on secure technologies like never before—to cope with the pandemic , to organize and march in the streets , and much more .
Yet , now is the moment some members of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees have chosen to try to effectively outlaw encryption in those very technologies .
The new Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act—introduced this week by Senators Graham , Blackburn , and Cotton—ignores expert consensus and public opinion , which is unfortunately par for the course .
But the bill is actually even more out of touch with reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since January , we ’ ve been fighting the EARN IT Act , a dangerous anti-speech and anti-security bill that would hand a government commission , led by the Attorney General , the power to determine “ best practices ” online .
It ’ s easy to see how that bill would enable an attack on service providers who provide encrypted communications , because the commission would be headed by Attorney General William Barr , who ’ s made his opposition to encrypted communications crystal clear .
The best that EARN IT ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the bill itself doesn ’ t use the word “ encryption ” —asking us to trust that the commission won ’ t touch encryption .
But if EARN IT attempts to avoid acknowledging the elephant in the room , the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act puts it at the center of a three-ring circus .
The new bill doesn ’ t bother with commissions or best practices .
Instead , it would give the Justice Department the ability to require that manufacturers of encrypted devices and operating systems , communications providers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to decrypt data upon request .
In other words , a backdoor .
The bill is sweeping in scope .
It gives the government the ability to demand these backdoors in connection with a wide range of surveillance orders in criminal and national security cases , including Section 215 of the Patriot Act , a surveillance law so controversial that Congress can ’ t agree whether it should be reauthorized .
Worse yet , the bill requires companies to figure out for themselves how to comply with a decryption directive .
Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would be “ technically impossible.
” While that might seem like a concession to the long-standing expert consensus that technologists simply can ’ t build a “ lawful access ” mechanism that only the government can use , the bill ’ s sponsors are nowhere near that reasonable .
As a hearing led by Senator Graham last December demonstrated , many legislators and law enforcement officials believe that even though any backdoor could be exploited by bad actors and put hundreds of millions of ordinary users at risk , that doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible.
” In fact , even if decryption would be “ impossible ” because the system is designed to be secure against everyone except the user who holds the key —as with full-disk encryption schemes designed by Apple and Google—that ’ s likely not a defense .
Instead , the government can require the system to be redesigned .
Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Not only does the bill disregard the security of users , it allows the government to support its need for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time it feels a public court proceeding would harm national security or “ enforcement of criminal law.
” As we ’ ve seen , the government already attempts to stretch the limit of surveillance laws in secret to undermine the security of communications products .
This bill would make that the norm .
Finally , the bill makes almost no concession to the massive disruption it would have on how people use technology .
Its limitations are almost laughable : any device that has more than a gigabyte of storage and sells more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to build a government-required backdoor if it is subject to five warrants or other requests , as would any operating system or communication system with more than a million active users .
Clearly the bill ’ s authors are attempting to target iPhones , Android phones , WhatsApp , and other popular technologies , but the bill would also sweep in many specialized operating systems as well as consumer devices like Fitbits , Rokus , and so on .
It would also establish a sort of X-Prize for “ secure backdoors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ solutions providing law enforcement access to encrypted data pursuant to legal process.
” But it is not a lack of resources or proper monetary incentives that has failed to square that particular circle .
Instead , it is simply the inability to design a system that reliably allows access by the “ good guys ” without catastrophically weakening the security of the system .
These concerns only scratch the surface of what ’ s wrong with this bill .
As with EARN IT , we should take every opportunity to tell members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we rely on alone .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Andrew Crocker
Right now, we rely on secure technologies like never before—to cope with the pandemic, to organize and march in the streets, and much more. Yet, now is the moment some members of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees have chosen to try to effectively outlaw encryption in those very technologies.
The new Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act—introduced this week by Senators Graham, Blackburn, and Cotton—ignores expert consensus and public opinion, which is unfortunately par for the course. But the bill is actually even more out of touch with reality than many other recent anti-encryption bills. Since January, we’ve been fighting the EARN IT Act, a dangerous anti-speech and anti-security bill that would hand a government commission, led by the Attorney General, the power to determine “best practices” online. It’s easy to see how that bill would enable an attack on service providers who provide encrypted communications, because the commission would be headed by Attorney General William Barr, who’s made his opposition to encrypted communications crystal clear. The best that EARN IT’s sponsors can muster in defense is that the bill itself doesn’t use the word “encryption”—asking us to trust that the commission won’t touch encryption.
But if EARN IT attempts to avoid acknowledging the elephant in the room, the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act puts it at the center of a three-ring circus. The new bill doesn’t bother with commissions or best practices. Instead, it would give the Justice Department the ability to require that manufacturers of encrypted devices and operating systems, communications providers, and many others must have the ability to decrypt data upon request. In other words, a backdoor.
The bill is sweeping in scope. It gives the government the ability to demand these backdoors in connection with a wide range of surveillance orders in criminal and national security cases, including Section 215 of the Patriot Act, a surveillance law so controversial that Congress can’t agree whether it should be reauthorized.
Worse yet, the bill requires companies to figure out for themselves how to comply with a decryption directive. Their only grounds to resist is to show it would be “technically impossible.” While that might seem like a concession to the long-standing expert consensus that technologists simply can’t build a “lawful access” mechanism that only the government can use, the bill’s sponsors are nowhere near that reasonable. As a hearing led by Senator Graham last December demonstrated, many legislators and law enforcement officials believe that even though any backdoor could be exploited by bad actors and put hundreds of millions of ordinary users at risk, that doesn’t mean it’s “technically impossible.” In fact, even if decryption would be “impossible” because the system is designed to be secure against everyone except the user who holds the key —as with full-disk encryption schemes designed by Apple and Google—that’s likely not a defense. Instead, the government can require the system to be redesigned.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
Not only does the bill disregard the security of users, it allows the government to support its need for a backdoor with one-sided secret evidence, any time it feels a public court proceeding would harm national security or “enforcement of criminal law.” As we’ve seen, the government already attempts to stretch the limit of surveillance laws in secret to undermine the security of communications products. This bill would make that the norm.
Finally, the bill makes almost no concession to the massive disruption it would have on how people use technology. Its limitations are almost laughable: any device that has more than a gigabyte of storage and sells more than a million units a year could have to build a government-required backdoor if it is subject to five warrants or other requests, as would any operating system or communication system with more than a million active users. Clearly the bill’s authors are attempting to target iPhones, Android phones, WhatsApp, and other popular technologies, but the bill would also sweep in many specialized operating systems as well as consumer devices like Fitbits, Rokus, and so on.
It would also establish a sort of X-Prize for “secure backdoors,” rewarding researchers who manage to find “solutions providing law enforcement access to encrypted data pursuant to legal process.” But it is not a lack of resources or proper monetary incentives that has failed to square that particular circle. Instead, it is simply the inability to design a system that reliably allows access by the “good guys” without catastrophically weakening the security of the system.
These concerns only scratch the surface of what’s wrong with this bill. As with EARN IT, we should take every opportunity to tell members of Congress to leave the secure technology we rely on alone.
STOP THE ATTACK ON ENCRYPTION
Source: EFF.org
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-24--Commissioner Submits Letter of Dissent on FCC Plan to Speed Up 5G Deployment During Pandemic

Opposition to 5G is WORLDWIDE .
Cities AND countries have taken action to ban , delay , halt , and limit installation as well as issue moratoriums due to serious health and safety risks and warnings ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 .
10 , 11 ) .
The Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the telecom industry .
They have a LONG history of catering to the industry instead ( see 1 , 2 ) .
Lawsuits have already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protecting the public from unsafe levels of radiation ( see 1 , 2 ) as well as unwanted 5G installation .
Federal agencies and elected officials have also voiced their concerns and opposition to 5G ( see 1 , 2 ) .
American medical professionals have as well ( see 1 , 2 ) .
None of this seems to matter to the FCC ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ) .
The agency is hell-bent on speeding up deployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even referred to opponents as “ Tin Foil Hat ” people .
One commissioner has finally dissented against 5G accelerated deployment .
Thank you , Jessica Rosenworcel .
Today the FCC adopts a declaratory ruling that requires every state and local government to immediately review and update their current ordinances , policies , and application systems involving wireless towers .
They have to rework the way they process new requests , how they measure tower height , what they do with requests to add more equipment , and how they conceal structures to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Addressing these things is not unreasonable .
But these clarifications can be hard to put into practice and they were shared with state and local governments for the first time only three weeks ago—and my goodness , they ’ ve been busy .
So it ’ s no wonder than that we have heard from the National League of Cities .
We ’ ve heard from the United States Conference of Mayors .
We ’ ve heard from the National Association of Counties .
We ’ ve heard from the National Association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve heard from the National Association of Towns and Townships .
Together they represent more than 19,000 cities , 3,069 counties , and 10,000 towns across the country .
You know what they want ?
It ’ s not radical .
They want a bit more time to weigh in on our decision , so they can be in a better place to implement it .
They want this time because their resources are strained by a deadly virus , economic calamity , and civil unrest .
As 24 members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Energy and Commerce noted last week , “ [ i ] f local governments are forced to respond to this Declaratory Ruling instead of focusing on their public health and safety responses , it very well may put Americans ’ health and safety at risk.
” But the FCC has decided to ignore this modest request for time to review .
I don ’ t get it .
Why can ’ t we acknowledge what is happening around us ?
Profit outside the rigged system !
Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace !
- Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom The sad truth is that this is not the first time we ’ ve given short shrift to the pleas of local governments who are strained by these historic days .
It was just a few weeks ago when city officials and local firefighters asked the FCC to give them more time to weigh in on the court remand of our misguided decision to roll back net neutrality .
But we didn ’ t grant their request .
FCC RF Radiation exposure guidelines are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to how most of us use or are exposed to cell phone and wireless radiation today .
In fact , there is still NO “ safe ” level of exposure that has been scientifically determined for pregnant women or children !
They still REFUSE to update guidelines regardless of ALL the research proving harm .
They are part of “ The Swamp ” that Trump promised to drain .
Unfortunately , the Trump administration seems to want to speed up deployment too .
So much for “ giving the country back to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
Opposition to 5G is WORLDWIDE. Cities AND countries have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit installation as well as issue moratoriums due to serious health and safety risks and warnings (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. 10, 11).
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the telecom industry. They have a LONG history of catering to the industry instead (see 1, 2). Lawsuits have already been filed against the agency for NOT protecting the public from unsafe levels of radiation (see 1, 2) as well as unwanted 5G installation.
Federal agencies and elected officials have also voiced their concerns and opposition to 5G (see 1, 2). American medical professionals have as well (see 1, 2). None of this seems to matter to the FCC (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). The agency is hell-bent on speeding up deployment during the pandemic. One commissioner has even referred to opponents as “Tin Foil Hat” people.
One commissioner, however, has finally dissented against 5G accelerated deployment. Thank you, Jessica Rosenworcel.
Today the FCC adopts a declaratory ruling that requires every state and local government to immediately review and update their current ordinances, policies, and application systems involving wireless towers. They have to rework the way they process new requests, how they measure tower height, what they do with requests to add more equipment, and how they conceal structures to preserve the visual character of their communities. Addressing these things is not unreasonable. But these clarifications can be hard to put into practice and they were shared with state and local governments for the first time only three weeks ago—and my goodness, they’ve been busy. So it’s no wonder than that we have heard from the National League of Cities. We’ve heard from the United States Conference of Mayors. We’ve heard from the National Association of Counties. We’ve heard from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. We’ve heard from the National Association of Towns and Townships. Together they represent more than 19,000 cities, 3,069 counties, and 10,000 towns across the country. You know what they want? It’s not radical. They want a bit more time to weigh in on our decision, so they can be in a better place to implement it. They want this time because their resources are strained by a deadly virus, economic calamity, and civil unrest. As 24 members of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce noted last week, “[i]f local governments are forced to respond to this Declaratory Ruling instead of focusing on their public health and safety responses, it very well may put Americans’ health and safety at risk.” But the FCC has decided to ignore this modest request for time to review. I don’t get it. Why can’t we acknowledge what is happening around us? The sad truth is that this is not the first time we’ve given short shrift to the pleas of local governments who are strained by these historic days. It was just a few weeks ago when city officials and local firefighters asked the FCC to give them more time to weigh in on the court remand of our misguided decision to roll back net neutrality. But we didn’t grant their request.
FCC RF Radiation exposure guidelines are beyond outdated and don’t apply to how most of us use or are exposed to cell phone and wireless radiation today. In fact, there is still NO “safe” level of exposure that has been scientifically determined for pregnant women or children! They still REFUSE to update guidelines regardless of ALL the research proving harm. They are part of “The Swamp” that Trump promised to drain. Unfortunately, the Trump administration seems to want to speed up deployment too. So much for “giving the country back to the people.”
Activist Post reports regularly about 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. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-26--Who Is Funding Black Lives Matter And Why? The Answer May Shock You!

Black Lives Matter has been dominating the headlines for weeks and there has been a lot of speculation regarding the funding of this organization with many fingers quick to point at George Soros .
So the million dollar question is … Did George Soros fund Black Lives Matter ?
Yes , he absolutely did and we share the details in this report .
But George Soros is not the only source of funding for Black Lives Matter .
In fact , Soros and his funding is just another spoke in the wheel of a massive , well-financed and politically motivated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world by destroying the current system of control in order to roll out a new system of control .
This certainly seems like a recurring theme right now , as the United Nations , the World Economic Forum , the central banks and governments around the world are preparing for the ‘ Great Reset ’ and a global paradigm shift .
So let examine who exactly is funding Black Lives Matter and why ?
Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Black Lives Matter cashes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ https : //www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/black-lives-matter-cashes-100-million-liberal-foun/ Thousand Currents changed its name from IDEX – International Development Exchange in 2016. https : //thousandcurrents.org/formerly-idex/ Healing the Wounds in Ferguson and Staten Island https : //www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/healing-wounds-ferguson-and-staten-island Want to know where all those corporate donations for # BLM are going ?
Here ’ s the list .
https : //www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/want-know-where-all-those-corporate-donations-blm-are-going-n1225371 Black Lives Matter Groups Push Grant Makers to Step Outside Their Comfort Zones https : //www.philanthropy.com/article/Black-Lives-Matter-Challenges/237356 ‘ I am my brother ’ s keeper ’ , Philonise Floyd tells UN rights body , in impassioned plea for racial justice https @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Spiro Skouras
Black Lives Matter has been dominating the headlines for weeks and there has been a lot of speculation regarding the funding of this organization with many fingers quick to point at George Soros.
So the million dollar question is … Did George Soros fund Black Lives Matter? Yes, he absolutely did and we share the details in this report.
But George Soros is not the only source of funding for Black Lives Matter. In fact, Soros and his funding is just another spoke in the wheel of a massive, well-financed and politically motivated campaign with the desired goal of transforming the world by destroying the current system of control in order to roll out a new system of control.
This certainly seems like a recurring theme right now, as the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the central banks and governments around the world are preparing for the ‘Great Reset’ and a global paradigm shift.
So let examine who exactly is funding Black Lives Matter and why?
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
Black Lives Matter Official Site
https://blacklivesmatter.com
Black Lives Matter cashes in with $100 million from liberal foundations
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/black-lives-matter-cashes-100-million-liberal-foun/
Black Lives Matter & Thousand Currents
https://thousandcurrents.org/black-lives-matter/
Thousand Currents changed its name from IDEX – International Development Exchange in 2016.
https://thousandcurrents.org/formerly-idex/
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/w-k-kellogg-foundation/
The W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s Radical Leftward Drift
https://capitalresearch.org/article/kellogg-foundation-radical-leftward-drift/
Borealis Philanthropy: Black Led Movement Fund
https://borealisphilanthropy.org/grantmaking/black-led-movement-fund/
Healing the Wounds in Ferguson and Staten Island
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/healing-wounds-ferguson-and-staten-island
George Soros and His Incredible Growing Disinformation Foundation
https://capitalresearch.org/article/soross-incredible-growing-disinformation-foundation/
Tech firms say they support George Floyd protests — here’s what’s happening
https://www.cnet.com/news/tech-companies-say-they-support-george-floyd-protests-heres-whats-happening/
Want to know where all those corporate donations for #BLM are going? Here’s the list.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/want-know-where-all-those-corporate-donations-blm-are-going-n1225371
Black Lives Matter Groups Push Grant Makers to Step Outside Their Comfort Zones
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Black-Lives-Matter-Challenges/237356
The Organizational Structure of Black Lives Matter
https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-organizational-structure-of-black-lives-matter/
Black Lives Matter / Thousand Currents Funds
https://thousandcurrents.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Thousand-Currents-06.30.19-FS-FINAL.pdf
‘I am my brother’s keeper’, Philonise Floyd tells UN rights body, in impassioned plea for racial justice
https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/06/1066542
Speakers urge definitive action to combat systemic racism
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/HRC43-Racism-Debate.aspx
Follow Spiro on BitChute bitchute.com/channel/spiro/ Follow on Twitter https://twitter.com/o_rips
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-25--You Don’t Have a Savings Account — You Have a Dwindling Account

On April 5 , 1933 everyone ’ s favorite fascist , President Franklin D. Roosevelt , signed an executive order which outlawed the private ownership of gold .
To justify the seizure , FDR used wartime authorities under the “ Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 ” .
The law was never repealed after World War One , so Roosevelt used it to declare a national banking emergency .
Roosevelt ’ s order demanded that all Americans must surrender their gold to a Federal Reserve Bank by May 1 , 1933 , less than a month after he signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular form of savings at the time ; US dollars were convertible to gold , and many Americans , from wealthy business owners to rural farmers , owned gold as a form of savings .
Anyone who failed to comply faced up to ten years in prison , and a $ 10,000 fine– which was a huge sum at the time equivalent to several times a typical annual salary .
And the government actually prosecuted people who refused to turn over their gold .
One man , Louis Ruffino , was convicted of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also had his 78 ounces of gold confiscated by the government , without compensation .
In today ’ s money , that would be over $ 135,000 .
For people who did comply with the order , the government paid them $ 20.67 for every ounce of gold that was turned in .
But then , shortly after the deadline , Roosevelt raised the price of gold to $ 35 , essentially stealing nearly half of the wealth of those former gold owners .
See : 177 Different Ways to Generate Extra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1970s that gold ownership was once again legal .
But before that happened , in 1971 Nixon entirely divorced the dollar from the gold standard .
Throughout the next decade the US ( and much of the world ) was hit by terrible stagflation– a period of high unemployment , high inflation , higher taxes , higher debt levels , and pitiful economic growth .
When adjusted for inflation , the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nearly HALF of its value during the 1970s .
And government bonds paid just 5.5 % , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 % .
This means that anyone who owned bonds in the 1970s was LOSING more than 4 % per year .
It was the same with bank accounts ; depositors who held their savings in a bank account LOST money every year after adjusting for inflation .
Economists call this condition “ negative real interest rates , ” meaning that , after adjusting for inflation , the rate of interest is actually negative .
If your bank pays you 1 % interest , but the inflation rate is 3 % , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ savings is actually losing 2 % per year , i.e .
the “ real rate ” is NEGATIVE 2 % .
Coincidentally , this is the same situation we find ourselves in today .
For most of the last decade , in fact , REAL interest rates in the Land of the Free have been negative .
Wells Fargo , for example , offers a “ Way2Save ” savings account that pays a big fat 0.1 % interest .
And it ’ s important to bear in mind that interest from your bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Free .
So after accounting for taxes , you ’ re looking at around 0.08 % interest .
The annual rate of inflation for 2019 was 2.3 % .
So this means that a depositor with a Wells Fargo savings account is LOSING 1.5 % per year .
When you ’ re guaranteed to lose money , you don ’ t have a savings account .
You have a dwindling account .
But GOLD is one of several assets that tends to perform very well when real interest rates are negative .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ its value ; and back in the 1970s when real rates were negative , investors who bought gold made more than 10x their money over the course of the decade .
Gold and silver have been very attractive investments lately ; in fact , gold just hit a 7-year high .
That ’ s not surprising given that the US national debt has increased by more than $ 1.2 TRILLION dollars just since the beginning of May .
And the Federal Reserve has expanded its balance sheet by nearly $ 3 trillion since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are insane figures that point to a deteriorating value for the currency… which is reason enough to own gold .
Personally , I keep some of my own precious metals on hand in a strong home safe– so there is no counterparty risk .
I have it when I need it .
But as FDR ’ s confiscation shows , it also makes sense to consider holding some precious metals overseas in a safe jurisdiction .
It isn ’ t 1933 anymore .
It ’ s perfectly legal ( for now ) to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of sense .
If you ’ re new to this and looking for a great resource on getting started , I ’ d encourage you to download our free Ultimate Gold and Silver Guide .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets @ @

By Simon Black, Sovereign Man
On April 5, 1933 everyone’s favorite fascist, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed an executive order which outlawed the private ownership of gold.
To justify the seizure, FDR used wartime authorities under the “Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917”. The law was never repealed after World War One, so Roosevelt used it to declare a national banking emergency.
Roosevelt’s order demanded that all Americans must surrender their gold to a Federal Reserve Bank by May 1, 1933, less than a month after he signed the executive order.
Gold was a popular form of savings at the time; US dollars were convertible to gold, and many Americans, from wealthy business owners to rural farmers, owned gold as a form of savings.
So Roosevelt’s order affected a LOT of people.
Anyone who failed to comply faced up to ten years in prison, and a $10,000 fine– which was a huge sum at the time equivalent to several times a typical annual salary.
And the government actually prosecuted people who refused to turn over their gold.
One man, Louis Ruffino, was convicted of hoarding gold and went to prison. He also had his 78 ounces of gold confiscated by the government, without compensation. In today’s money, that would be over $135,000.
For people who did comply with the order, the government paid them $20.67 for every ounce of gold that was turned in.
But then, shortly after the deadline, Roosevelt raised the price of gold to $35, essentially stealing nearly half of the wealth of those former gold owners.
It wasn’t until the 1970s that gold ownership was once again legal.
But before that happened, in 1971 Nixon entirely divorced the dollar from the gold standard.
Throughout the next decade the US (and much of the world) was hit by terrible stagflation– a period of high unemployment, high inflation, higher taxes, higher debt levels, and pitiful economic growth.
When adjusted for inflation, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nearly HALF of its value during the 1970s.
And government bonds paid just 5.5%, at a time when inflation peaked at 10%. This means that anyone who owned bonds in the 1970s was LOSING more than 4% per year.
It was the same with bank accounts; depositors who held their savings in a bank account LOST money every year after adjusting for inflation.
Economists call this condition “negative real interest rates,” meaning that, after adjusting for inflation, the rate of interest is actually negative.
If your bank pays you 1% interest, but the inflation rate is 3%, this means that the purchasing power of your savings is actually losing 2% per year, i.e. the “real rate” is NEGATIVE 2%.
Coincidentally, this is the same situation we find ourselves in today.
For most of the last decade, in fact, REAL interest rates in the Land of the Free have been negative.
Wells Fargo, for example, offers a “Way2Save” savings account that pays a big fat 0.1% interest.
And it’s important to bear in mind that interest from your bank account is TAXABLE in the Land of the Free. So after accounting for taxes, you’re looking at around 0.08% interest.
The annual rate of inflation for 2019 was 2.3%. So this means that a depositor with a Wells Fargo savings account is LOSING 1.5% per year.
When you’re guaranteed to lose money, you don’t have a savings account. You have a dwindling account.
But GOLD is one of several assets that tends to perform very well when real interest rates are negative.
Gold has a 5,000-year history of maintaining its value; and back in the 1970s when real rates were negative, investors who bought gold made more than 10x their money over the course of the decade.
(And silver actually outperformed gold, rising from less than $2 in 1970 to more than $30 at the end of 1979.)
Gold and silver have been very attractive investments lately; in fact, gold just hit a 7-year high.
That’s not surprising given that the US national debt has increased by more than $1.2 TRILLION dollars just since the beginning of May.
And the Federal Reserve has expanded its balance sheet by nearly $3 trillion since the start of the pandemic.
These are insane figures that point to a deteriorating value for the currency… which is reason enough to own gold.
Personally, I keep some of my own precious metals on hand in a strong home safe– so there is no counterparty risk. I have it when I need it.
But as FDR’s confiscation shows, it also makes sense to consider holding some precious metals overseas in a safe jurisdiction.
It isn’t 1933 anymore. It’s perfectly legal (for now) to own gold. And it makes a lot of sense.
If you’re new to this and looking for a great resource on getting started, I’d encourage you to download our free Ultimate Gold and Silver Guide.
Source: The Daily Bell
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-25--New York Bills Would Limit Federal Militarization of Police

ALBANY , N.Y. ( June 25 , 2020 ) – Bills introduced in the New York Assembly and Senate would ban state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring certain military equipment from federal programs .
Sen Alessandra Biaggi ( D-Bronx ) , along with four fellow Democrats , introduced Senate Bill 8507 ( S8507 ) on June 6 .
Assm .
Ron Kim ( D-Flushing ) introduced the companion , Assembly Bill 10669 ( A10660 ) , on June 17 .
The legislation would prohibit a state or local law enforcement agency from receiving or purchasing the following property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the federal government .
• Drones that are armored , weaponized , or both • Aircraft that are combat configured or combat coded The proposed law would also require law enforcement agencies to publish a notice on their publicly accessible website within 14 days of requesting allowable military equipment from a federal program .
The legislation applies both to the well-known 1033 program , along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government , as well as federal programs that fund the acquisition of surveillance equipment .
While passage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militarization , it would keep some dangerous weapons out of the hands of police officers set the stage for further limits in the future .
Police departments often obtain military and surveillance equipment from the federal government in complete secrecy .
Requiring public disclosure of all requests for military gear would bring the process into the open and provide an opportunity for concerned residents to stop the acquisition through their local representatives .
Through the federal 1033 Program , local police departments procure military-grade weapons .
Police can also get military equipment through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( DHS ) “ Homeland Security Grant Program.
” The DHS doles out over $ 1 billion in counterterrorism funds to state and local police each year .
According to a 2012 Senate report , this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles , drones , and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety .
And , according to ProPublica , “ In 1994 , the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
In August 2017 , President Trump issued an executive order that gave a push to local police militarization .
Trump ’ s action rescinded an Obama-era policy meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police .
Passage of S8507/A10669 would limit New York ’ s participation in federal police militarization programs and create a framework of transparency .
It would also create a foundation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from obtaining this type of gear .
Arming ‘ peace officers ’ like they ’ re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders .
They ’ ve turned ‘ protect and serve ’ into ‘ command and control.
’ In the 1980s , the federal government began arming , funding and training local police forces , turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “ War on Drugs.
” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By making it more difficult for local police to get this military-grade gear and surveillance technology , and ensuring they can ’ t do it in secret , it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships .
Passage of S8507/A10669 would take a first step toward limiting police militarization in New York .
S8507 was referred to the Senate Rules Committee .
A10669 was referred to the Assembly Government Operations Committee .
The bills must pass their respective committees by a majority vote before moving forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ send him email ] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center .
He is from the original home of the Principles of ’ 98 – Kentucky and currently resides in northern Florida .
See his blog archive here and his article archive here.He is the author of the book , Our Last Hope : Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty .
You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Michael Maharrey
ALBANY, N.Y. (June 25, 2020) – Bills introduced in the New York Assembly and Senate would ban state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring certain military equipment from federal programs.
Sen Alessandra Biaggi (D-Bronx), along with four fellow Democrats, introduced Senate Bill 8507 (S8507) on June 6. Assm. Ron Kim (D-Flushing) introduced the companion, Assembly Bill 10669 (A10660), on June 17. The legislation would prohibit a state or local law enforcement agency from receiving or purchasing the following property from a military equipment surplus program operated by the federal government.
Drones that are armored, weaponized, or both
Aircraft that are combat configured or combat coded
Grenades or similar explosives and grenade launchers
Silencers
Militarized armored vehicles
The proposed law would also require law enforcement agencies to publish a notice on their publicly accessible website within 14 days of requesting allowable military equipment from a federal program.
The legislation applies both to the well-known 1033 program, along with any other military surplus program operated by the federal government, as well as federal programs that fund the acquisition of surveillance equipment.
While passage of S8507/A10669 wouldn’t end the militarization, it would keep some dangerous weapons out of the hands of police officers set the stage for further limits in the future.
Police departments often obtain military and surveillance equipment from the federal government in complete secrecy. Requiring public disclosure of all requests for military gear would bring the process into the open and provide an opportunity for concerned residents to stop the acquisition through their local representatives.
FEDERAL SURPLUS AND GRANT MONEY
Through the federal 1033 Program, local police departments procure military-grade weapons. Police can also get military equipment through the Department of Homeland Security via the (DHS) “Homeland Security Grant Program.” The DHS doles out over $1 billion in counterterrorism funds to state and local police each year. According to a 2012 Senate report, this money has been used to purchase tactical vehicles, drones, and even tanks with little obvious benefit to public safety. And, according to ProPublica, “In 1994, the Justice Department and the Pentagon-funded a five-year program to adapt military security and surveillance technology for local police departments that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
In August 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that gave a push to local police militarization. Trump’s action rescinded an Obama-era policy meant to provide greater transparency and oversight around the Department of Defense 1033 program and other federal resources that provide military weapons to local police.
Passage of S8507/A10669 would limit New York’s participation in federal police militarization programs and create a framework of transparency. It would also create a foundation for the public to stop their local police from obtaining this type of gear.
COMMAND AND CONTROL
Arming ‘peace officers’ like they’re ready to occupy an enemy city is totally contrary to the society envisioned by the founders. They’ve turned ‘protect and serve’ into ‘command and control.’
In the 1980s, the federal government began arming, funding and training local police forces, turning peace officers into soldiers to fight in its unconstitutional “War on Drugs.” The militarization went into hyper-drive after 9/11 when a second front opened up – the “War on Terror.”
By making it more difficult for local police to get this military-grade gear and surveillance technology, and ensuring they can’t do it in secret, it makes them less likely to cooperate with the feds and removes incentives for partnerships. Passage of S8507/A10669 would take a first step toward limiting police militarization in New York.
WHAT’S NEXT
S8507 was referred to the Senate Rules Committee. A10669 was referred to the Assembly Government Operations Committee. The bills must pass their respective committees by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
Source: Tenth Amendment Center
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He is from the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky and currently resides in northern Florida. See his blog archive here and his article archive here.He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-25--Thinking About Downsizing? Here Are Top Most Popular States For Tiny Home Living

Most Americans aren ’ t prepared for an extended slowdown in the economy .
To prepare , one must cut expenses , build savings , and even downsize .
There ’ s nothing wrong with downsizing in a recession – it ’ s survival of the fittest – and with a recovery that could take several years – this could be one of the best ways to weather the financial storm .
Not taking the precautionary measures to shore up one ’ s finances in a downturn could prove disastrous – but for those who make the transition to tiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt and maximum economic freedom for when the next expansion arrives .
The tiny home movement started about a decade ago among heavily indebted millennials who couldn ’ t afford to purchase the average home .
In other words , they simply couldn ’ t afford the American dream .
Living in less than 1,000 square feet space could be the norm for many Americans – or at least for the ones who downsize .
There is no clear guidance on the economic recovery – despite the Trump administration cheerleading imminent V-shaped recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all know it ’ s all election bullshit propaganda , and an actual recovery could take several years .
As for the labor market , the unemployment level is expected to stay elevated through 2021 .
See : 177 Different Ways to Generate Extra Income For those who have considered downsizing – HomeAdvisor has compiled a list of the most popular states for tiny home living .
The site used geolocation data from Instagram posts containing the # tinyliving hashtag was used to determine the best areas .
For anyone thinking about fleeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and second round of coronavirus – well , right now might be the perfect window of opportunity to discover tiny home living in a rural community , which will serve two purposes : first , save money and cut expenses ; second , isolate oneself and or family from collapsing American inner cities .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Tyler Durden
Most Americans aren’t prepared for an extended slowdown in the economy. To prepare, one must cut expenses, build savings, and even downsize.
There’s nothing wrong with downsizing in a recession – it’s survival of the fittest – and with a recovery that could take several years – this could be one of the best ways to weather the financial storm.
Not taking the precautionary measures to shore up one’s finances in a downturn could prove disastrous – but for those who make the transition to tiny homes, it could result in minimal debt and maximum economic freedom for when the next expansion arrives.
The tiny home movement started about a decade ago among heavily indebted millennials who couldn’t afford to purchase the average home. In other words, they simply couldn’t afford the American dream.
Living in less than 1,000 square feet space could be the norm for many Americans – or at least for the ones who downsize. There is no clear guidance on the economic recovery – despite the Trump administration cheerleading imminent V-shaped recovery ahead of elections – although, we all know it’s all election bullshit propaganda, and an actual recovery could take several years. As for the labor market, the unemployment level is expected to stay elevated through 2021.
For those who have considered downsizing – HomeAdvisor has compiled a list of the most popular states for tiny home living. The site used geolocation data from Instagram posts containing the #tinyliving hashtag was used to determine the best areas.
California Florida Colorado Texas Oregon Washington Arizona North Carolina New York Utah
For anyone thinking about fleeing a metro area because of social unrest and second round of coronavirus – well, right now might be the perfect window of opportunity to discover tiny home living in a rural community, which will serve two purposes: first, save money and cut expenses; second, isolate oneself and or family from collapsing American inner cities.
Source: Zerohedge
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-25--California Agency Blocks Release of Police Use of Force and Surveillance Training, Claiming Copyrigh

California Agency Blocks Release of Police Use of Force and Surveillance Training, Claiming Copyright

Under a California law that went into effect on January 1 , 2020 , all law enforcement training materials must be “ conspicuously ” published on the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training ( POST ) website .
However , if you visit POST ’ s Open Data hub and try to download the officer training materials relating to face recognition technology or automated license plate readers ( ALPRs ) , or the California Peace Officers Association ’ s course on use of force , you will receive only a Word document with a single sentence : This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told POST in a letter submitted today .
Under the new California law , SB 978 , POST must post law enforcement training materials online if the materials would be available to the public under the California Public Records Act .
Copyrighted material is available to the public under the California Public Records Act—in fact , EFF obtained a full , unredacted copy of POST ’ s ALPR training through a records request just last year .
The company that creates POST ’ s courses on ALPR and face recognition is the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solutions ( now a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions ) .
This company has a long history of including non-publication clauses in its contracts with law enforcement as a means to control its intellectual property .
But , as we explain in our letter , SB 978 is clear : copyright law is not a valid excuse for POST to evade its transparency obligations .
And what ’ s just as bad is that even when copyright isn ’ t an issue , POST has only released training course outlines , and not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has made no training materials about the use of force available , sharing only the outlines .
With police use of force currently a hotly debated issue throughout the state and nation , it is all the more concerning that POST is unlawfully hiding this material .
Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
SB 978 was sponsored by California State Senator Steven Bradford and supported by EFF and a number of civil rights groups in order to create a new level of transparency and public accountability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year , we found that Vigilant Solutions ’ training was gravely outdated , included incorrect information , and raised questions about whether the presentation served the company ’ s commercial interests more than the public ’ s .
EFF called on POST to suspend the course .
However , since POST has not published the current training materials , the public does not yet know whether these problems have been adequately addressed .
Our elected officials can pass laws regulating the police , and watchdog bodies can review law enforcement policies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it provides a back door for manufacturers of surveillance technology and private organizations to influence police practices without oversight or accountability .
If California POST is going to set and uphold police standards , then it can not ignore the law .
POST must make its training materials available online immediately .
As EFF ’ s senior investigative researcher , Dave Maass is a muckraker/noisemaker , covering issues related to police surveillance , free speech , transparency , and government accountability .
In addition to leading deep-dive investigations , Dave coordinates large-scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation , and compiles The Foilies , EFF ’ s annual tongue-in-cheek awards for outrageous responses to FOIA requests .
He sometimes represents EFF in digital rights-themed cosplay at Dragon Con , and he edited EFF ’ s first science fiction collection , Pwning Tomorrow .
He also researches virtual reality as part of the team that developed Spot the Surveillance , EFF ’ s first VR experience .
Contact him with questions or information on police technology ( e.g .
automated license plate readers , biometric identification ) , prisoner rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Dave Maass and Naomi Gilens
Under a California law that went into effect on January 1, 2020, all law enforcement training materials must be “conspicuously” published on the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) website.
However, if you visit POST’s Open Data hub and try to download the officer training materials relating to face recognition technology or automated license plate readers (ALPRs), or the California Peace Officers Association’s course on use of force, you will receive only a Word document with a single sentence:
This is unlawful, and unacceptable, EFF told POST in a letter submitted today. Under the new California law, SB 978, POST must post law enforcement training materials online if the materials would be available to the public under the California Public Records Act. Copyrighted material is available to the public under the California Public Records Act—in fact, EFF obtained a full, unredacted copy of POST’s ALPR training through a records request just last year.
The company that creates POST’s courses on ALPR and face recognition is the same company that sells the technology: Vigilant Solutions (now a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions). This company has a long history of including non-publication clauses in its contracts with law enforcement as a means to control its intellectual property. But, as we explain in our letter, SB 978 is clear: copyright law is not a valid excuse for POST to evade its transparency obligations.
And what’s just as bad is that even when copyright isn’t an issue, POST has only released training course outlines, and not the training materials themselves. Indeed, POST has made no training materials about the use of force available, sharing only the outlines. With police use of force currently a hotly debated issue throughout the state and nation, it is all the more concerning that POST is unlawfully hiding this material.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
SB 978 was sponsored by California State Senator Steven Bradford and supported by EFF and a number of civil rights groups in order to create a new level of transparency and public accountability.
When EFF obtained the ALPR training last year, we found that Vigilant Solutions’ training was gravely outdated, included incorrect information, and raised questions about whether the presentation served the company’s commercial interests more than the public’s. EFF called on POST to suspend the course. However, since POST has not published the current training materials, the public does not yet know whether these problems have been adequately addressed.
Our elected officials can pass laws regulating the police, and watchdog bodies can review law enforcement policies, but if training materials are kept secret, it provides a back door for manufacturers of surveillance technology and private organizations to influence police practices without oversight or accountability.
If California POST is going to set and uphold police standards, then it cannot ignore the law. POST must make its training materials available online immediately.
Read EFF’s letter to POST on SB 978 violations.
Source: EFF.org
As EFF’s senior investigative researcher, Dave Maass is a muckraker/noisemaker, covering issues related to police surveillance, free speech, transparency, and government accountability. In addition to leading deep-dive investigations, Dave coordinates large-scale public records campaigns, advocates on state legislation, and compiles The Foilies, EFF’s annual tongue-in-cheek awards for outrageous responses to FOIA requests. He sometimes represents EFF in digital rights-themed cosplay at Dragon Con, and he edited EFF’s first science fiction collection, Pwning Tomorrow. He also researches virtual reality as part of the team that developed Spot the Surveillance, EFF’s first VR experience. Contact him with questions or information on police technology (e.g. automated license plate readers, biometric identification), prisoner rights, or public records laws.
Naomi is an attorney specializing in free speech litigation. Prior to joining EFF, she worked on issues of free speech, privacy, and government transparency at the ACLU. Naomi graduated from Harvard Law School and Princeton University, and served as a law clerk to the Honorable David J. Barron of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the Honorable Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-25--Gates Invests in Lab-made “Breastmilk” — New World Next Week

Welcome back to # NewWorldNextWeek — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news .
This week : Story # 1 : Bayer Settles Roundup Cancer Lawsuits For Up to $ 10.9 Billion • Many BPA-Free Plastics Are Toxic .
Some Are Worse Than BPA • # FluorideTrial : Ruling Delayed As Judge Asks Defense and Plaintiffs to Discuss New Evidence • Nova Scotia Killer Had Ties to Criminals , Withdrew Huge Sum of Cash Before Shooting • BOMBSHELL REPORT : Transactions Reveal Nova Scotia Shooter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
!
!
Watch this video on BitChute / LBRY / Minds.com / YouTube or Download the mp4 You can help support our independent and non-commercial work by visiting http : //CorbettReport.com/Support & http : //MediaMonarchy.com/Join .
Thank You .
Visit James Corbett at CorbettReport.com .
Subscribe to his channel on YouTube and Bitchute , and support him on Patreon .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By The Corbett Report
Welcome back to #NewWorldNextWeek — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:
Story #1: Bayer Settles Roundup Cancer Lawsuits For Up to $10.9 Billion
Story #2: Japan to Bolster Defense After Scrapping Missile System
Story #3: Nova Scotia Shooter Case Has Hallmarks of Undercover Operation
Watch this video on BitChute / LBRY / Minds.com / YouTube or Download the mp4
You can help support our independent and non-commercial work by visiting http://CorbettReport.com/Support & http://MediaMonarchy.com/Join. Thank You.
Visit James Corbett at CorbettReport.com. Subscribe to his channel on YouTube and Bitchute, and support him on Patreon.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-25--Two Kids Sue Google for Allegedly Collecting Students’ Biometric Data with Their Educational Tools

Google is well known already for collecting data on customers with their products and services .
This is sometimes referred to as “ Surveillance Capitalism ” and many businesses do it whether customers are aware of it or not .
A documentary was even produced about “ Surveillance Capitalism.
” Creepy indeed .
Tech use by kids in and out of schools may now be the “ new normal ” .
However , tech insiders ( Bill Gates , Steve Jobs , etc . )
and other Silicon Valley parents have been taking expensive and sometimes drastic measures to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Public school systems keep pushing tech in the curriculums anyway .
Now 2 kids are striking back about alleged involuntary data collection by Google while using the company ’ s educational tools .
The lawsuit says the search giant violated privacy laws with its educational tools .
Two children from Illinois are suing Google for allegedly collecting biometric data , including face scans , of millions of students through the search giant ’ s software tools for classrooms .
The lawsuit , filed Thursday in a federal court in San Jose , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The children , known only as H.K .
and J.C. in the complaint , are suing through their father , Clinton Farwell .
Google is using its services to create face templates and “ voiceprints ” of children , the complaint says , through a program in which the search giant provides school districts across the country with Chromebooks and free access to G Suite for Education apps .
Those apps include student versions of Gmail , Calendar and Google Docs .
The data collection would likely violate Illinois ’ Biometric Information Privacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facial recognition , fingerprinting and other biometric technologies in the state .
The practice would also likely run afoul of the Children ’ s Online Privacy Protection Act , or COPPA , a federal law that requires sites to get parental consent when collecting personal information from users who are under 13 years old .
On a related note , Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) is seeking data collection horror stories to stop the Fitbit-Google merger .
Also noteworthy , Google is being sued for genocide complicity in China and endangering humanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports regularly about unsafe technology .
For more information , visit our archives .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
Google is well known already for collecting data on customers with their products and services. This is sometimes referred to as “Surveillance Capitalism” and many businesses do it whether customers are aware of it or not.
A documentary was even produced about “Surveillance Capitalism.”
Creepy indeed. Tech use by kids in and out of schools may now be the “new normal”. However, tech insiders (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc.) and other Silicon Valley parents have been taking expensive and sometimes drastic measures to keep it away from their kids ALL ALONG. Public school systems keep pushing tech in the curriculums anyway. Now 2 kids are striking back about alleged involuntary data collection by Google while using the company’s educational tools.
Activist Post Recommended Book: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
From CNET:
Two children sue Google for allegedly collecting students’ biometric data The lawsuit says the search giant violated privacy laws with its educational tools. Two children from Illinois are suing Google for allegedly collecting biometric data, including face scans, of millions of students through the search giant’s software tools for classrooms. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in a federal court in San Jose, California, is seeking class-action status. The children, known only as H.K. and J.C. in the complaint, are suing through their father, Clinton Farwell. Google is using its services to create face templates and “voiceprints” of children, the complaint says, through a program in which the search giant provides school districts across the country with Chromebooks and free access to G Suite for Education apps. Those apps include student versions of Gmail, Calendar and Google Docs. The data collection would likely violate Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, or BIPA, which regulates facial recognition, fingerprinting and other biometric technologies in the state. The practice would also likely run afoul of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, a federal law that requires sites to get parental consent when collecting personal information from users who are under 13 years old. Read full article
On a related note, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is seeking data collection horror stories to stop the Fitbit-Google merger.
Also noteworthy, Google is being sued for genocide complicity in China and endangering humanity with misuse of AI.
Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology. For more information, visit our archives.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-25--Can We Trust An FDA Approved, DARPA Funded, Under-the-Skin Biosensor to Detect Signs of Illness?

The Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) approves A LOT of prescriptions and products that are eventually proven to be harmful .
Sometimes catastrophically harmful .
The agency has even been blamed for the Opioid Crisis by some very credible people .
Activist Post reports regularly about the agency ’ s mishaps , mistakes , and shenanigans ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) .
So should we be concerned about them being in charge of approving an under-the-skin biosensor to detect symptoms like those found with Covid-19 ?
A Military-Funded Biosensor Could Be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins FDA approval next year , the two-part sensor could help spot new infections weeks before symptoms begin to show .
Why are pandemics so hard to stop ?
Often it ’ s because the disease moves faster than people can be tested for it .
The Defense Department is helping to fund a new study to determine whether an under-the-skin biosensor can help trackers keep up — by detecting flu-like infections even before their symptoms begin to show .
Its maker , Profusa , says the sensor is on track to try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The sensor has two parts .
One is a 3mm string of hydrogel , a material whose network of polymer chains is used in some contact lenses and other implants .
Inserted under the skin with a syringe , the string includes a specially engineered molecule that sends a fluorescent signal outside of the body when the body begins to fight an infection .
The other part is an electronic component attached to the skin .
It sends light through the skin , detects the fluorescent signal and generates another signal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , website , etc .
It ’ s like a blood lab on the skin that can pick up the body ’ s response to illness before the presence of other symptoms , like coughing .
The announcement comes as the United States grapples with COVID-19 , a respiratory illness that can present in flu-like symptoms such as coughing and shortness of breath .
The military is taking a leading role in vaccine research , Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley told reporters at the Pentagon on Monday .
“ Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the horn here to try to come up with a vaccine .
So we ’ ll see how that develops over the next couple of months , ” Milley said .
U.S. troops themselves are also at risk .
A U.S. soldier in South Korea became the first U.S. service member to contract the virus , the Wall Street Journal reported in February .
Profusa ’ s newest funded study , which the company announced on Tuesday , will test how well the sensor can detect influenza outbreaks up to three weeks before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using current methods .
Because the gel doesn ’ t actually emit any signal , it wouldn ’ t give away a soldier ’ s position , so the sensor could be used in sensitive settings like behind enemy lines , Profusa CEO Ben Hwang said .
Hwang said his company has received grants from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency , or DARPA , since around 2011 .
“ They gave us grant money to help our research and as we prove out a certain milestone , as we de-risk the technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a third phase and provide support , ” he said .
“ Their support has transitioned from grants into these types of programs that create real-world evidence.
” Hwang said DARPA is helping the company reach out to other outfits within the Defense Department that might use the device on troops or servicemembers .
That could include partnerships with U.S. Special Operations Command , for instance , or , Indo-Pacific Command .
He declined to comment on conversations with specific military customers .

By B.N. Frank
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves A LOT of prescriptions and products that are eventually proven to be harmful. Sometimes catastrophically harmful. The agency has even been blamed for the Opioid Crisis by some very credible people. Activist Post reports regularly about the agency’s mishaps, mistakes, and shenanigans (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
So should we be concerned about them being in charge of approving an under-the-skin biosensor to detect symptoms like those found with Covid-19?
From GovExec Daily, published March 4, 2020:
A Military-Funded Biosensor Could Be the Future of Pandemic Detection
If it wins FDA approval next year, the two-part sensor could help spot new infections weeks before symptoms begin to show.
Why are pandemics so hard to stop? Often it’s because the disease moves faster than people can be tested for it. The Defense Department is helping to fund a new study to determine whether an under-the-skin biosensor can help trackers keep up — by detecting flu-like infections even before their symptoms begin to show. Its maker, Profusa, says the sensor is on track to try for FDA approval by early next year.
The sensor has two parts. One is a 3mm string of hydrogel, a material whose network of polymer chains is used in some contact lenses and other implants. Inserted under the skin with a syringe, the string includes a specially engineered molecule that sends a fluorescent signal outside of the body when the body begins to fight an infection. The other part is an electronic component attached to the skin. It sends light through the skin, detects the fluorescent signal and generates another signal that the wearer can send to a doctor, website, etc. It’s like a blood lab on the skin that can pick up the body’s response to illness before the presence of other symptoms, like coughing.
The announcement comes as the United States grapples with COVID-19, a respiratory illness that can present in flu-like symptoms such as coughing and shortness of breath. The military is taking a leading role in vaccine research, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley told reporters at the Pentagon on Monday. “Our military research labs are working feverishly around the horn here to try to come up with a vaccine. So we’ll see how that develops over the next couple of months,” Milley said. U.S. troops themselves are also at risk. A U.S. soldier in South Korea became the first U.S. service member to contract the virus, the Wall Street Journal reported in February.
Profusa’s newest funded study, which the company announced on Tuesday, will test how well the sensor can detect influenza outbreaks up to three weeks before it’s possible to detect them using current methods. Because the gel doesn’t actually emit any signal, it wouldn’t give away a soldier’s position, so the sensor could be used in sensitive settings like behind enemy lines, Profusa CEO Ben Hwang said.
Hwang said his company has received grants from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, since around 2011. “They gave us grant money to help our research and as we prove out a certain milestone, as we de-risk the technology, they give us a second phrase and a third phase and provide support,” he said. “Their support has transitioned from grants into these types of programs that create real-world evidence.”
Hwang said DARPA is helping the company reach out to other outfits within the Defense Department that might use the device on troops or servicemembers. That could include partnerships with U.S. Special Operations Command, for instance, or, Indo-Pacific Command. He declined to comment on conversations with specific military customers.


activistpost--2020-06-26--Gates Invests in Lab-made “Breastmilk” — New World Next Week


activistpost--2020-06-26--Can We Trust An FDA Approved, DARPA Funded, Under-the-Skin Biosensor to Detect Signs of Illness?


activistpost--2020-06-26--Two Kids Sue Google for Allegedly Collecting Students’ Biometric Data with Their Educational Tools


activistpost--2020-06-26--1984 EPA Report Reveals Major Health Hazards from Exposure to Cell Phone and WiFi Radiation

There was a time when the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) was supposed to warn Americans about biological and environmental risks from exposure to cell phones and other wireless radiation emitting devices and infrastructure .
Unfortunately , the agency was relieved of this duty when they actually wanted to start warning the public about it .
The Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) – not a health or environmental agency – took the EPA ’ s place and has failed miserably to protect the public from the telecom industry ever since ( see 1 , 2 ) .
Thanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report published in 1984 .
For decades , the U.S. government has been acutely aware of the dangers associated with exposure to radiofrequency ( RF ) radiation ( “ wireless radiation ” ) , the same type of radiation emitted by cell phones , WiFi routers , Bluetooth devices , wireless antennas , and more .
In September of 1984 , the EPA published a report titled “ Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation.
” The authors of the document discuss health risks associated with exposure to wireless radiation frequencies between 0.5 MHz to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from carcinogenesis to neurological disturbances .
Lawsuits have been filed against the FCC for NOT protecting Americans from unsafe levels of radiation ( see 1 , 2 ) as well as unwanted 5G installation .
Federal agencies and elected officials have also voiced concerns and opposition to 5G ( see 1 , 2 ) .
American medical professionals have as well ( see 1 , 2 ) .
None of this matters to the FCC .
The agency is hell-bent on saturating the U.S. with 5G and WiFi .
This includes approving satellites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
One commissioner referred to opponents as “ Tin Foil Hat ” people .
All but one commissioner seems to be in favor of speeding up 5G deployment during the pandemic despite increasing widespread opposition .
Since 2018 , there have been reports of people and animals becoming sick after 5G was turned on including in the U.S. ( see 1 .
2 , 3 , 4 ) .
Of course , other sources of Electromagnetic Radiation ( aka “ Electrosmog ” ) can cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity .
The EPA knows this and they aren ’ t alone .
There are cities AND countries that have taken action to ban , delay , halt , and limit 5G installation as well as issue moratoriums due to health and safety risks and warnings ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 .
10 , 11 ) .
Activist Post reports regularly about exposure risks from all sources of Electrosmog .
For more information , visit our archives and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
There was a time when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was supposed to warn Americans about biological and environmental risks from exposure to cell phones and other wireless radiation emitting devices and infrastructure. Unfortunately, the agency was relieved of this duty when they actually wanted to start warning the public about it. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – not a health or environmental agency – took the EPA’s place and has failed miserably to protect the public from the telecom industry ever since (see 1, 2).
Thanks to 5G Crisis for highlighting this EPA report published in 1984.
For decades, the U.S. government has been acutely aware of the dangers associated with exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation (“wireless radiation”), the same type of radiation emitted by cell phones, WiFi routers, Bluetooth devices, wireless antennas, and more. In September of 1984, the EPA published a report titled “Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation.” The authors of the document discuss health risks associated with exposure to wireless radiation frequencies between 0.5 MHz to 100 GHz, citing disease endpoints ranging from carcinogenesis to neurological disturbances. Access the full report here.
Lawsuits have been filed against the FCC for NOT protecting Americans from unsafe levels of radiation (see 1, 2) as well as unwanted 5G installation. Federal agencies and elected officials have also voiced concerns and opposition to 5G (see 1, 2). American medical professionals have as well (see 1, 2). None of this matters to the FCC. The agency is hell-bent on saturating the U.S. with 5G and WiFi. This includes approving satellites to blast it at us from space (see 1, 2, 3). One commissioner referred to opponents as “Tin Foil Hat” people. All but one commissioner seems to be in favor of speeding up 5G deployment during the pandemic despite increasing widespread opposition.
Since 2018, there have been reports of people and animals becoming sick after 5G was turned on including in the U.S. (see 1. 2, 3, 4). Of course, other sources of Electromagnetic Radiation (aka “Electrosmog”) can cause symptoms and illness too – including reduced immunity. The EPA knows this and they aren’t alone. There are cities AND countries that have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit 5G installation as well as issue moratoriums due to health and safety risks and warnings (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. 10, 11).
Activist Post reports regularly about exposure risks from all sources of Electrosmog. For more information, visit our archives and the following websites.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-25--Majority of Scientists Are Opposed to 5G Until Studies Show It’s Safe

Cities AND countries have taken action to ban , delay , halt , and limit 5G installation as well as issue moratoriums due to serious health and safety warnings ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 .
11 , 12 ) .
Since 2017 doctors and scientists have been asking for a moratorium on installation on Earth as well as in space ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
Since 2018 , there have been reports of people and animals becoming sick after 5G @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
Of course , exposure to other sources of Electromagnetic Radiation ( aka “ Electrosmog ” ) can cause symptoms and illness too .
That ’ s why so many health experts have been encouraging us to decrease our exposure – not increase it .
The “ Race for 5G ” undoubtedly increases our exposure .
In the U.S. – telecom executives gave congressional testimony in 2019 that they had NO scientific evidence that 5G is safe .
They still haven ’ t provided any .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already IS evidence that 5G is NOT safe .
Nevertheless , there are still scientists who are okay with throwing caution to the wind and saturating the world with 5G .
It may be best to assume they fit into the “ mad scientist ” category .
The majority of scientists ARE NOT okay with this so let ’ s focus more on them .
Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology .
For more information visit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
Cities AND countries have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit 5G installation as well as issue moratoriums due to serious health and safety warnings (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 11, 12). Since 2017 doctors and scientists have been asking for a moratorium on installation on Earth as well as in space (see 1, 2, 3). Since 2018, there have been reports of people and animals becoming sick after 5G was turned on (see 1. 2, 3, 4).
Of course, exposure to other sources of Electromagnetic Radiation (aka “Electrosmog”) can cause symptoms and illness too. That’s why so many health experts have been encouraging us to decrease our exposure – not increase it. The “Race for 5G” undoubtedly increases our exposure.
In the U.S. – telecom executives gave congressional testimony in 2019 that they had NO scientific evidence that 5G is safe. They still haven’t provided any.
Of course there are scientists who say there already IS evidence that 5G is NOT safe.
Nevertheless, there are still scientists who are okay with throwing caution to the wind and saturating the world with 5G. It may be best to assume they fit into the “mad scientist” category. The majority of scientists ARE NOT okay with this so let’s focus more on them.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
Activist Post reports regularly about 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. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-06-26--A Quarter Of All Personal Income In The US Now Comes From The Government

Following today ’ s release of the latest Personal Income and Spending data , Wall Street was predictably focused on the changes in these two key series , which showed a record jump in personal spending ( to be expected one month after the savings rate in the US hit a whopping 32 % annualized ) , and a record drop in personal income ( as government benefits and stimulus checks slowed substantially ) .
But while the change in the headline data was indeed notable , what was far more remarkable was less followed data showing just how reliant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become .
We are referring , of course , to Personal Current Transfer payments which are essentially government sourced income such as unemployment and emergency benefits , welfare checks , and so on .
In May , this number was $ 5.3 trillion annualized , following the record $ 6.4 trillion hit last month when the US government activated the money helicopters to avoid a total collapse of the US economy .
See : 177 Different Ways to Generate Extra Income Even more striking , is that as of May when total Personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trillion annualized , the government is now responsible for over a quarter of all income .
Putting that number in perspective , in the 1950s and 1960s , transfer payments were around 7 % .
This number rose in the low teens starting in the mid-1970s ( or right after the Nixon Shock ended Bretton-Woods and closed the gold window ) .
The number then jumped again after the financial crisis , spiking to the high teens .
And now , the coronavirus has officially sent this number into the mid-20 % range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % in April .
And that ’ s how creeping banana republic socialism comes at you : first slowly , then fast .
So for all those who claim that the Fed is now ( and has been for the past decade ) subsidizing the 1 % , that ’ s true , but with every passing month , the government is also funding the daily life of an ever greater portion of America ’ s poorest social segments .
Who ends up paying for both ?
Why the middle class of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side , and the insane debt accumulation on the other , mean that millions of Americans content to work 9-5 , pay their taxes , and generally keep their mouth shut as others are burning everything down and tearing down statues , are now doomed .
The “ good ” news ?
As we reported last November , the US middle class won ’ t have to suffer this pain for much longer , because while the US has one one of the highest median incomes in the entire world , with only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is who gets to collect this money that is the major problem , because as the chart also shows , with just a 50 % share of the population in middle-income households , the US is now in the same category as such “ banana republics ” as Turkey , China and , drumroll , Russia .
What is just as stunning : according to the OECD , more than half of the countries in question have a more vibrant middle class than the US .
So the next time someone abuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our [ fill in the blank ] ” , perhaps it ’ s time to counter that “ they ” may not “ hate ” us at all , but rather are making fun of what has slowly but surely become the world ’ s biggest banana republic ?
And as we concluded last year , “ it is not Russia , nor China , nor any other enemy , foreign or domestic , to blame… except for one : the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.
” Subscribe to Activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and HIVE .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Tyler Durden
Following today’s release of the latest Personal Income and Spending data, Wall Street was predictably focused on the changes in these two key series, which showed a record jump in personal spending (to be expected one month after the savings rate in the US hit a whopping 32% annualized), and a record drop in personal income (as government benefits and stimulus checks slowed substantially).
But while the change in the headline data was indeed notable, what was far more remarkable was less followed data showing just how reliant on the US government the population has become.
We are referring, of course, to Personal Current Transfer payments which are essentially government sourced income such as unemployment and emergency benefits, welfare checks, and so on. In May, this number was $5.3 trillion annualized, following the record $6.4 trillion hit last month when the US government activated the money helicopters to avoid a total collapse of the US economy.
Even more striking, is that as of May when total Personal Income was just shy of $20 trillion annualized, the government is now responsible for over a quarter of all income.
Putting that number in perspective, in the 1950s and 1960s, transfer payments were around 7%. This number rose in the low teens starting in the mid-1970s (or right after the Nixon Shock ended Bretton-Woods and closed the gold window). The number then jumped again after the financial crisis, spiking to the high teens.
And now, the coronavirus has officially sent this number into the mid-20% range, after hitting a record high 31% in April.
And that’s how creeping banana republic socialism comes at you: first slowly, then fast.
So for all those who claim that the Fed is now (and has been for the past decade) subsidizing the 1%, that’s true, but with every passing month, the government is also funding the daily life of an ever greater portion of America’s poorest social segments.
Who ends up paying for both?
Why the middle class of course, where the dollar debasement on one side, and the insane debt accumulation on the other, mean that millions of Americans content to work 9-5, pay their taxes, and generally keep their mouth shut as others are burning everything down and tearing down statues, are now doomed.
The “good” news? As we reported last November, the US middle class won’t have to suffer this pain for much longer, because while the US has one one of the highest median incomes in the entire world, with only three countries boasting a higher income, it is who gets to collect this money that is the major problem, because as the chart also shows, with just a 50% share of the population in middle-income households, the US is now in the same category as such “banana republics” as Turkey, China and, drumroll, Russia.
What is just as stunning: according to the OECD, more than half of the countries in question have a more vibrant middle class than the US.
So the next time someone abuses the popular phrase “they hate us for our [fill in the blank]”, perhaps it’s time to counter that “they” may not “hate” us at all, but rather are making fun of what has slowly but surely become the world’s biggest banana republic?
And as we concluded last year, “it is not Russia, nor China, nor any other enemy, foreign or domestic, to blame… except for one: the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.”
Source: Zerohedge
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and HIVE.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.