activistpost--2020-07-15--Sierra Club Magazine Weighs In On WiFi at Yellowstone and Other National Parks

There ’ s so much research that has determined that cell phone radiation and WiFi is biologically ( see 1 , 2 ) and environmentally harmful .
Unfortunately , even American national parks seem to be ignoring this and selling out to telecoms ( see 1 , 2 ) .
The Sierra Club has offered an opinion about this before in their magazine and recently again .
The National Park Service is racing to expand cellphone service at parks nationwide .
Do we really want a connected wild ?
In 2018 , I went on a solo backpacking trip into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district in Canyonlands National Park .
After three days among the canyons and hoodoos , happily not seeing another person , I crested a rise of slickrock overlooking the stunning basin-and-mesa country that reaches from Utah ’ s La Sal Mountains to the Abajo range .
I had an iPhone with me , which I was using as a camera , and on a lark I decided to see if I could catch a signal .
Sure enough , I could .
Like one of Pavlov ’ s dogs , I descended into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of my device always calls forth .
Dutifully , I checked email , the weather , the headlines .
When a flood of texts poured in , I felt a surge of satisfaction—that dopamine thrill of virtual connection .
I immediately regretted having turned on the phone .
There was something idiotic in my tinkering with an electronic toy when all about me was a beauty and immensity that dwarfed the merely human .
Three days of sweet calm and mental quiet faded in the light of the screen and , instantly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overload we call civilization .
I vowed to never again bring my phone on a backpacking trip .
The temptation to look for a signal is too great , and the psychological cost—the loss of serenity and a sense of presence—is , for me , too high The National Park Service has a different attitude toward cellular technology : The agency has opted to embrace expanded connectivity as an important visitor amenity .
The Park Service is in the midst of a sweeping build-out of new cellphone and wireless sites across many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affixed to existing buildings to hundred-foot towers to wi-fi hubs .
Grand Teton National Park is in the process of permitting the largest cell-site expansion in NPS history , with nine new wireless communication sites slated for construction—on top of the two already in place—and plans to install 60 miles of fiber-optic cable to supply the needed bandwidth .
Earlier this year , Glacier National Park announced its intention to build at least four new towers , while Grand Canyon may have as many as five sprouting from the South and North Rims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are proceeding with the construction of a 138-foot tower intended to resemble a tree .
New towers are in the offing at Olympic and Bryce Canyon as well as Glen Canyon National Recreation Area .
Already , visitors are able to get five bars in the developed areas of our oldest park , Yellowstone , and can pick up “ spillover signals ” across much of the 3,500-square-mile park ’ s wild backcountry .
Most conservation organizations ( including , for the record , the Sierra Club ) have had nothing critical to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most prized public lands .
But a few watchdog groups—along with some current and former NPS staffers—warn that the spread of telecom connectivity threatens the parks ’ wild character and the opportunities for solitude and retreat that make the parks valuable in the first place .
The most vocal and dogged opponent of the cellular build-out is Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility ( PEER ) , which over the past decade has barraged the Park Service with complaints , Freedom of Information Act requests , and , when ignored , FOIA lawsuits regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documented the agency ’ s troubling pattern of ignoring the federal laws—specifically the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act—designed to protect public lands from overdevelopment .
According to PEER , the Park Service ’ s telecom policy is “ myopic and lawless ” and a threat to “ scenery , ” “ soundscapes , ” and what the group calls “ serenity values.
” Jeff Ruch , who was the executive director of PEER for more than 20 years and now oversees its investigations in the American West , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the build-out .
Ruch charges that park policy has “ betrayed the public interest ” by aiding and abetting the telecom behemoths—Verizon , AT & T , and Qwest , among others—as they extend their reach into wild places in the interest of boosting their customers ’ time on the networks .
“ These plans are by the telecoms , for the telecoms , of the telecoms , ” Ruch told me .
“ A national park is supposed to facilitate the public ’ s ability to enjoy the natural world and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of civilization .
To commune with nature .
To unplug .
The Park Service is doing the very opposite .
It ’ s wiring the wilderness.
” SINCE ITS FOUNDING IN 1916 , the National Park Service has been caught between two seemingly conflicting mandates : to “ conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life ” in the parks and “ to provide for the enjoyment of the same ” for as much of the public as possible , primarily through recreation .
For more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some dissent in its ranks , has rarely questioned whether providing the infrastructure for maximized recreation threatens conservation .
One of the agency ’ s earliest critics , Robert Sterling Yard , who was also among the first executives of the NPS , wrote in 1925 that the park system ’ s “ shining purpose [ was ] hidden behind its official recreational promotion.
” Yard argued that the national park system “ must be saved .
.
.
from those [ who ] would reduce it to the general level of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology will , supposedly , attract the smartphone generation and at the same time allow visitors to more easily summon help after falling off a ledge while taking a selfie .
Historically , the Park Service has barreled ahead with initiatives to attract ever more visitors .
Beginning in the 1920s , the agency embarked on a massive road-building program to draw in the motoring public and then turned to private concessionaires for the construction and operation of commercial amenities like hotels , restaurants , and trinket shops .
The automobile-centered development model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the number of park visitors boomed .
The expansion of cell and wi-fi service today is part of this historical continuum and represents the Park Service ’ s latest gambit to maintain its cultural relevancy , especially in the digital age .
Some stalwart public lands champions in Congress have encouraged the expansion of telecom connectivity in the parks .
In 2016 , a group of Democratic lawmakers wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking for a “ significant funding increase ” for wireless and broadband development .
The letter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the House Committee on Natural Resources , Raúl Grijalva , contended that “ improved connectivity will help to make our parks accessible and engaging to changing park visitor demographics.
” Connectivity would “ also support the Park Service ’ s long-term goals of improving public safety , providing greater interpretive services , and meeting the needs of the visiting public.
” The justifications in the Grijalva letter are the same ones the National Park Service offered during the Obama administration and the same ones it continues to trumpet , with seamless consistency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new technology will , supposedly , attract the smartphone generation and at the same time allow visitors to more easily summon help after , say , falling off a ledge while taking a selfie ( a not-uncommon occurrence ) .
“ The National Park Service recognizes the benefit of increased and reliable connectivity , ” agency spokesperson Cynthia Hernandez told me in a statement .
Better cell service , she added , is especially important for public safety .
Jon Jarvis , who served as the agency director for eight years under President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ angle .
But Jarvis also admitted that cell towers , as he explained to E & E News in 2015 , are “ intrusive in most places and probably inappropriate in a lot of national parks.
” Jarvis said that he was a proponent of more service in developed areas only—that is , at visitor centers , in campgrounds , and along roads .
“ I ’ m not suggesting—nor do I think it ’ s appropriate—that you have wireless connectivity on the Colorado River as you go down the Grand Canyon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ But if you ’ re on the South Rim and you ’ re sitting on the deck of the El Tovar [ Hotel ] , then I think it ’ s perfectly appropriate that you might have wireless connectivity or at least be able to access your Facebook site and upload your photos.
” OPPONENTS OF THE TELECOM build-out look askance at these arguments .
“ The safety claim , for example , is just a canard , ” PEER ’ s Ruch told me , emphasizing that his organization isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visitor centers and hotels .
“ The Park Service has said over and over that it wants cell coverage only for developed areas and says it has no intention of cell signals reaching into the backcountry ” —where , presumably , connectivity is most needed for public safety .
It ’ s in the backcountry , after all , that people tend to get into trouble .
PEER also questions whether Americans really want connectivity in the parks .
There is little evidence to support the argument that park visitors—including younger ones—expect to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outdoors .
“ There are no polls , no surveys by the NPS of its visitors , ” said Frank Buono , a retired Park Service employee who was the chief instructor at the NPS National Academy on issues of law and policy and is now a PEER board member .
“ It is just taken as an assumption.
” When I asked the Park Service to provide documentation about visitors ’ attitudes toward connectivity , the agency failed to respond .
“ The Park Service states that cell-tower expansion will help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the national park .
They only become more disconnected from the natural world.
” In the few instances in which the NPS has solicited public comments on cell-site and other connectivity proposals , the public has vociferously opposed the plans .
In 2009 , Yellowstone National Park published an environmental assessment for a plan to provide cell service at Yellowstone Lake , add wi-fi to historic structures across the park , and expand the number of antennae on the park ’ s highest peak , Mt .
Washburn .
Of the 2,055 comments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority—the document did not specify an exact number— ” favored limiting wireless communications to park developed areas.
” The majority of commenters specifically “ opposed cellular service being added at [ Yellowstone ] Lake , favored reducing or consolidating unneeded and/or visually obtrusive wireless infrastructure , favored protecting visual resources , opposed adding wi-fi to historic lobbies , opposed adding webcams to the backcountry.
” This same majority felt that “ cellphones created noise pollution , thus reducing solitude.
” Some commenters “ objected to any wireless coverage for visitor convenience.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ] few felt that cell service within the park should be expanded.
” Mount Rainier National Park ’ s April 2018 assessment for a proposed tower in its spectacular Paradise area received 893 comments , more than 60 percent of which were in opposition .
“ Comments opposed .
.
.
emphasized the protection of national parks and wildernesses from electronic signals , ” the report said .
Similarly , when Death Valley in 2019 issued an environmental assessment for a new tower planned for 10,000-foot Rogers Peak , it drew what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments.
” “ Some people ” —again the Park Service did not provide specific numbers— ” objected to any increase in cellular coverage , expressing a desire to keep the wilderness free of cellular service or to have the park be a place to ‘ get off the grid . '
” Many cell-antenna and tower-siting decisions in parks , however , have not been open to public comment .
The Park Service has often opted out of the rigorous process of environmental analysis normally required under the National Environmental Policy Act by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for cell sites .
A categorical exclusion is allowed if park officials determine a finding of “ no significant impact ” from any particular development proposal .
Under NEPA , a categorical exclusion voids the need for either an environmental assessment or the more difficult and expensive undertaking of an environmental impact statement .
It also voids the need to solicit public comments otherwise mandated under NEPA .
Consider the routine use of categorical exclusions at Yellowstone National Park .
In 2018 alone , categorical exclusions were issued to approve a three-sided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite considerable public opposition ) , a new cell tower at Canyon Village , and a new tower at Yellowstone Lake ( also despite public opposition ) .
Yellowstone managers that year issued categorical exclusions that effectively eliminated all previous wi-fi restrictions for historic buildings .
The park managers never gave the public an opportunity to comment on those changes in wi-fi policy .
Similarly , officials at Yosemite National Park have approved at least six cellular sites , yet failed to apprise the public of the plans so as to elicit timely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a pattern , Buono said .
Compliance with NEPA “ has been spotty at best , ” and the Park Service has repeatedly violated the consultative process under the National Historic Preservation Act in ways that he calls “ shoddy and dishonest.
” According to Buono , the NPS has routinely allowed telecom corporations to site facilities in parks rent-free and sometimes without even a legal right-of-way .
Some parks , including Yellowstone , have issued rights-of-way and retained the rental fees in the park budget rather than depositing them in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Park Service ’ s regulatory oversight of the telecom industry is so lax that the agency doesn ’ t even know how many cell sites exist on its lands .
When I asked the NPS for an inventory of all cell sites in the park system , I was told that the agency doesn ’ t have the data ; it hasn ’ t bothered to compile it , despite having received numerous Freedom of Information Act requests from PEER since 2004 about the subject .
In July 2019 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the NPS had failed miserably at managing permits for cell facilities .
Of 133 inventoried commercial cellular facilities in the parks system , 68 required “ research to determine whether permits needed to be issued ” or “ to determine whether renewals were needed.
” The Park Service also “ could not provide evidence that the required National Environmental Policy Act determination was performed consistently for commercial [ right-of-way ] permits .
.
.
.
Without a complete inventory , its [ the NPS ’ s ] Washington Support Office can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with NPS policy and that federal land is protected.
” THEN THERE IS THE QUESTION of how connectivity squares , if at all , with the intentions of the Wilderness Act .
Under law and by long-standing policy , the National Park Service manages the wildlands of the backcountry as wilderness , regardless of whether those areas enjoy wilderness designation by Congress or are simply recommended for or eligible for wilderness protection .
Many of the parks now considering or approving new cell sites are wilderness parks .
Mount Rainier National Park is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ park has approved a cellular facility that , according to the Park Service ’ s own reporting , will spill signals deep into the wilderness .
Yosemite is 95 percent wilderness , Grand Teton 46 percent wilderness .
Many of these wilderness areas are already experiencing some degree of cell-signal spillover .
As Steve Mishkin , an environmental attorney and PEER volunteer put it to me , “ the NPS is trashing the Wilderness Act every time it approves a cell tower whose signals reach into the backcountry.
” The Park Service itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digital rollout in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks , that “ access to cell service and cellphone use in the Sequoia–Kings Canyon wilderness may cause noise such as ringtones , music , and chatter , impacting wilderness character and altering the wilderness experience.
” The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as “ an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man , where man himself is a visitor who does not remain , ” and where the land retains “ its primeval character and influence , without permanent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.
” Wilderness areas “ have been affected primarily by the forces of nature , with the imprint of man ’ s work substantially unnoticeable , ” and are places that offer “ outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.
” Land of primeval character ?
The imprint of man ’ s work substantially unnoticeable ?
Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation ?
Once there ’ s a cell signal , all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the backcountry is offensive , ” Howie Wolke , a longtime board member of the nonprofit Wilderness Watch , told me .
“ If you want to be connected , go to Disneyland .
One of the important values of wilderness is the feeling of remoteness one gets in a wild and natural environment.
” The motivation of the telecom corporations to expand their reach deeper into the national parks is , of course , to have more customers connected all the time—wherever they are , in wilderness or in the front @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people connected to the system .
But the Park Service ’ s legal obligation is to protect the “ primeval character ” of wilderness—and the agency simply can not do that if everyone carrying a smartphone is enabled for such wilderness-incompatible activities as watching a live sporting event , making stock trades , or playing video games .
The Wilderness Act stipulates , “ There shall be no commercial enterprise .
.
.
within any wilderness area designated by this Act.
” Does a cellular company need to have a physical presence within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enterprise there ?
The law isn ’ t clear .
A possible analogue is aviation ; pilots are required to maintain an altitude of at least 2,000 feet when flying over wilderness .
This is an example of an activity that doesn ’ t have a permanent physical presence in wilderness yet still has restrictions placed on it because the activity can have an impact on the wilderness experience .
Backcountry rangers with the Park Service whom I have spoken with share Wolke ’ s acid opinion on the cell-signal invasion .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the record for fear of compromising their jobs , but one who did speak freely is Crystal Muzik , a 37-year-old seasonal ranger in southern Utah who has been with the NPS for 11 years .
“ With more connectivity , I envision the worst , ” Muzik told me .
“ Perhaps a visitor brings their tablet on a five-day backpacking trip and finds themselves checking their work emails .
They are distracted and have completely lost the idea of why they came out into nature in the first place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will help visitors find new ways to engage with the national park .
They only become more disconnected from the natural world.
” AFTER HE LEFT THE PARK SERVICE , Robert Sterling Yard visited Yosemite Valley in 1926 and declared it “ lost ” to overdevelopment , primarily from road building to accommodate ever-increasing motorized tourism .
Too much commercial activity had degraded the place into “ an Asbury Park of the altitudes .
.
.
sacrificed on the altar of Gasoline.
” Easy access with machines , coupled with the Park Service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of scenery , ” had eroded the shining purpose of Yosemite , which was the “ offering [ of ] inspiration , horizons , and perspectives , elevation of the spirit , and education.
” But the Park Service had ceased to listen to Yard—considered him , in fact , a pariah—because he had concluded that the “ danger to the national parks ” issued from “ industrial companies that want to use the parks for profit.
” The danger remains the same today ; it ’ s just taken a different form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ —the infiltration of our wildest landscapes by the telecom profiteers .
In the long run , digital roading may be a far greater threat to the park experience than automobiles have been .
Cars transport visitors physically into the parks , where they are free to explore on foot ( and in recent years , some parks have placed restraints on automotive access to force people out of their machines as much as possible ) .
A wireless connection spreads everywhere , beyond the roads ; the connection serves to transport people out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a screen machine .
PEER ’ s Jeff Ruch sees the connectivity controversy as part of a loss of direction at the agency , a misdirection that ties into a misunderstanding of the agency ’ s mandate as outlined in the Organic Act of 1916 .
Even with park visitation at record numbers , the Park Service thinks it needs to attract still more people by hosting digital connectivity .
But there ’ s a problem with that logic , Ruch argues .
Even if there were a proven public demand for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states that the Park Service would be obliged to provide it , just as it would not be obliged to provide carousels , zip lines , petting zoos , or water rides if the public demanded those For nearly a century , the Park Service allowed a hotelier to light giant bonfires above Yosemite Valley almost every summer night and push the embers off a cliff for a celebrated “ firefall.
” Rangers at Yellowstone used to feed the bears every summer afternoon .
The public loved the firefall and the bear baiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those activities because they were deemed incompatible with the agency ’ s mandate to conserve the “ natural objects .
.
.
[ and ] wild life ” of the parks .
Perhaps , years hence , today ’ s craze for connectivity will be viewed similarly .
The parks were never intended to meet the expectations of every visitor .
We are told again and again that if the Park Service fails to meet visitor expectations , the public will stop coming and the national parks will lose popular , and congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the Park Service fails to protect the preservation values at the heart of its mission—and in the process fails to serve those visitors who seek the beauty and complexity of life on Earth untrammeled by industrial civilization—the parks will be no different than surrounding landscapes .
And thereby they will lose all their special meaning .
This article appeared in the July/August 2020 edition with the headline “ Wiring the Wilderness.
” This article has been updated since publication .
Activist Post regularly reports about biological and environmental harm caused by all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aka “ Electrosmog.
” 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 , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
There’s so much research that has determined that cell phone radiation and WiFi is biologically (see 1, 2) and environmentally harmful. Unfortunately, even American national parks seem to be ignoring this and selling out to telecoms (see 1, 2). The Sierra Club has offered an opinion about this before in their magazine and recently again.
From Sierra:
Wi-Fi in the Wilderness
The National Park Service is racing to expand cellphone service at parks nationwide. Do we really want a connected wild?
By Christopher Ketcham | Jun 25 2020
In 2018, I went on a solo backpacking trip into the wild stone labyrinth of the Needles district in Canyonlands National Park. After three days among the canyons and hoodoos, happily not seeing another person, I crested a rise of slickrock overlooking the stunning basin-and-mesa country that reaches from Utah’s La Sal Mountains to the Abajo range. I had an iPhone with me, which I was using as a camera, and on a lark I decided to see if I could catch a signal. Sure enough, I could.
Like one of Pavlov’s dogs, I descended into the behavior that the sight and sound of my device always calls forth. Dutifully, I checked email, the weather, the headlines. When a flood of texts poured in, I felt a surge of satisfaction—that dopamine thrill of virtual connection. I immediately regretted having turned on the phone. There was something idiotic in my tinkering with an electronic toy when all about me was a beauty and immensity that dwarfed the merely human. Three days of sweet calm and mental quiet faded in the light of the screen and, instantly, I was back in the frenetic informational overload we call civilization.
I vowed to never again bring my phone on a backpacking trip. The temptation to look for a signal is too great, and the psychological cost—the loss of serenity and a sense of presence—is, for me, too high
The National Park Service has a different attitude toward cellular technology: The agency has opted to embrace expanded connectivity as an important visitor amenity. The Park Service is in the midst of a sweeping build-out of new cellphone and wireless sites across many of the 62 national parks—everything from minuscule antennae affixed to existing buildings to hundred-foot towers to wi-fi hubs. Grand Teton National Park is in the process of permitting the largest cell-site expansion in NPS history, with nine new wireless communication sites slated for construction—on top of the two already in place—and plans to install 60 miles of fiber-optic cable to supply the needed bandwidth. Earlier this year, Glacier National Park announced its intention to build at least four new towers, while Grand Canyon may have as many as five sprouting from the South and North Rims. At Sequoia National Park, officials are proceeding with the construction of a 138-foot tower intended to resemble a tree. New towers are in the offing at Olympic and Bryce Canyon as well as Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Already, visitors are able to get five bars in the developed areas of our oldest park, Yellowstone, and can pick up “spillover signals” across much of the 3,500-square-mile park’s wild backcountry.
Most conservation organizations (including, for the record, the Sierra Club) have had nothing critical to say about this industrial expansion into our most prized public lands. But a few watchdog groups—along with some current and former NPS staffers—warn that the spread of telecom connectivity threatens the parks’ wild character and the opportunities for solitude and retreat that make the parks valuable in the first place.
The most vocal and dogged opponent of the cellular build-out is Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which over the past decade has barraged the Park Service with complaints, Freedom of Information Act requests, and, when ignored, FOIA lawsuits regarding its cell-siting decisions. The group has documented the agency’s troubling pattern of ignoring the federal laws—specifically the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act—designed to protect public lands from overdevelopment. According to PEER, the Park Service’s telecom policy is “myopic and lawless” and a threat to “scenery,” “soundscapes,” and what the group calls “serenity values.”
Jeff Ruch, who was the executive director of PEER for more than 20 years and now oversees its investigations in the American West, is the group’s point person on the build-out. Ruch charges that park policy has “betrayed the public interest” by aiding and abetting the telecom behemoths—Verizon, AT&T, and Qwest, among others—as they extend their reach into wild places in the interest of boosting their customers’ time on the networks. “These plans are by the telecoms, for the telecoms, of the telecoms,” Ruch told me. “A national park is supposed to facilitate the public’s ability to enjoy the natural world and be able to escape the electronic tendrils of civilization. To commune with nature. To unplug. The Park Service is doing the very opposite. It’s wiring the wilderness.”
SINCE ITS FOUNDING IN 1916, the National Park Service has been caught between two seemingly conflicting mandates: to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life” in the parks and “to provide for the enjoyment of the same” for as much of the public as possible, primarily through recreation. For more than a century, the Park Service, despite some dissent in its ranks, has rarely questioned whether providing the infrastructure for maximized recreation threatens conservation. One of the agency’s earliest critics, Robert Sterling Yard, who was also among the first executives of the NPS, wrote in 1925 that the park system’s “shining purpose [was] hidden behind its official recreational promotion.” Yard argued that the national park system “must be saved . . . from those [who] would reduce it to the general level of the country’s playgrounds.”
The new technology will, supposedly, attract the smartphone generation and at the same time allow visitors to more easily summon help after falling off a ledge while taking a selfie.
Historically, the Park Service has barreled ahead with initiatives to attract ever more visitors. Beginning in the 1920s, the agency embarked on a massive road-building program to draw in the motoring public and then turned to private concessionaires for the construction and operation of commercial amenities like hotels, restaurants, and trinket shops. The automobile-centered development model accelerated in the 1950s and ’60s as the number of park visitors boomed. The expansion of cell and wi-fi service today is part of this historical continuum and represents the Park Service’s latest gambit to maintain its cultural relevancy, especially in the digital age.
Some stalwart public lands champions in Congress have encouraged the expansion of telecom connectivity in the parks. In 2016, a group of Democratic lawmakers wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking for a “significant funding increase” for wireless and broadband development. The letter, whose notable signatories included the current chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Raúl Grijalva, contended that “improved connectivity will help to make our parks accessible and engaging to changing park visitor demographics.” Connectivity would “also support the Park Service’s long-term goals of improving public safety, providing greater interpretive services, and meeting the needs of the visiting public.”
The justifications in the Grijalva letter are the same ones the National Park Service offered during the Obama administration and the same ones it continues to trumpet, with seamless consistency, under the Trump administration. The new technology will, supposedly, attract the smartphone generation and at the same time allow visitors to more easily summon help after, say, falling off a ledge while taking a selfie (a not-uncommon occurrence). “The National Park Service recognizes the benefit of increased and reliable connectivity,” agency spokesperson Cynthia Hernandez told me in a statement. Better cell service, she added, is especially important for public safety.
Jon Jarvis, who served as the agency director for eight years under President Barack Obama, repeatedly stressed the safety angle. But Jarvis also admitted that cell towers, as he explained to E&E News in 2015, are “intrusive in most places and probably inappropriate in a lot of national parks.” Jarvis said that he was a proponent of more service in developed areas only—that is, at visitor centers, in campgrounds, and along roads. “I’m not suggesting—nor do I think it’s appropriate—that you have wireless connectivity on the Colorado River as you go down the Grand Canyon,” he told E&E News. “But if you’re on the South Rim and you’re sitting on the deck of the El Tovar [Hotel], then I think it’s perfectly appropriate that you might have wireless connectivity or at least be able to access your Facebook site and upload your photos.”
OPPONENTS OF THE TELECOM build-out look askance at these arguments. “The safety claim, for example, is just a canard,” PEER’s Ruch told me, emphasizing that his organization isn’t opposed to cell service around visitor centers and hotels. “The Park Service has said over and over that it wants cell coverage only for developed areas and says it has no intention of cell signals reaching into the backcountry”—where, presumably, connectivity is most needed for public safety. It’s in the backcountry, after all, that people tend to get into trouble.
PEER also questions whether Americans really want connectivity in the parks. There is little evidence to support the argument that park visitors—including younger ones—expect to get a crystal clear signal while enjoying the outdoors. “There are no polls, no surveys by the NPS of its visitors,” said Frank Buono, a retired Park Service employee who was the chief instructor at the NPS National Academy on issues of law and policy and is now a PEER board member. “It is just taken as an assumption.” When I asked the Park Service to provide documentation about visitors’ attitudes toward connectivity, the agency failed to respond.
“The Park Service states that cell-tower expansion will help visitors find new ways to engage with the national park. They only become more disconnected from the natural world.”
In the few instances in which the NPS has solicited public comments on cell-site and other connectivity proposals, the public has vociferously opposed the plans. In 2009, Yellowstone National Park published an environmental assessment for a plan to provide cell service at Yellowstone Lake, add wi-fi to historic structures across the park, and expand the number of antennae on the park’s highest peak, Mt. Washburn. Of the 2,055 comments park managers received on the proposal, the majority—the document did not specify an exact number—”favored limiting wireless communications to park developed areas.” The majority of commenters specifically “opposed cellular service being added at [Yellowstone] Lake, favored reducing or consolidating unneeded and/or visually obtrusive wireless infrastructure, favored protecting visual resources, opposed adding wi-fi to historic lobbies, opposed adding webcams to the backcountry.” This same majority felt that “cellphones created noise pollution, thus reducing solitude.” Some commenters “objected to any wireless coverage for visitor convenience.” The report added that only “[a] few felt that cell service within the park should be expanded.”
Mount Rainier National Park’s April 2018 assessment for a proposed tower in its spectacular Paradise area received 893 comments, more than 60 percent of which were in opposition. “Comments opposed . . . emphasized the protection of national parks and wildernesses from electronic signals,” the report said. Similarly, when Death Valley in 2019 issued an environmental assessment for a new tower planned for 10,000-foot Rogers Peak, it drew what the service described as “emotional public comments.” “Some people”—again the Park Service did not provide specific numbers—”objected to any increase in cellular coverage, expressing a desire to keep the wilderness free of cellular service or to have the park be a place to ‘get off the grid.'”
Many cell-antenna and tower-siting decisions in parks, however, have not been open to public comment. The Park Service has often opted out of the rigorous process of environmental analysis normally required under the National Environmental Policy Act by issuing what are called “categorical exclusions” for cell sites. A categorical exclusion is allowed if park officials determine a finding of “no significant impact” from any particular development proposal. Under NEPA, a categorical exclusion voids the need for either an environmental assessment or the more difficult and expensive undertaking of an environmental impact statement. It also voids the need to solicit public comments otherwise mandated under NEPA.
Consider the routine use of categorical exclusions at Yellowstone National Park. In 2018 alone, categorical exclusions were issued to approve a three-sided wraparound tower on Mt. Washburn (despite considerable public opposition), a new cell tower at Canyon Village, and a new tower at Yellowstone Lake (also despite public opposition). Yellowstone managers that year issued categorical exclusions that effectively eliminated all previous wi-fi restrictions for historic buildings. The park managers never gave the public an opportunity to comment on those changes in wi-fi policy. Similarly, officials at Yosemite National Park have approved at least six cellular sites, yet failed to apprise the public of the plans so as to elicit timely public comment.
This is all part of a pattern, Buono said. Compliance with NEPA “has been spotty at best,” and the Park Service has repeatedly violated the consultative process under the National Historic Preservation Act in ways that he calls “shoddy and dishonest.” According to Buono, the NPS has routinely allowed telecom corporations to site facilities in parks rent-free and sometimes without even a legal right-of-way. Some parks, including Yellowstone, have issued rights-of-way and retained the rental fees in the park budget rather than depositing them in the US Treasury, as required by law.
The Park Service’s regulatory oversight of the telecom industry is so lax that the agency doesn’t even know how many cell sites exist on its lands. When I asked the NPS for an inventory of all cell sites in the park system, I was told that the agency doesn’t have the data; it hasn’t bothered to compile it, despite having received numerous Freedom of Information Act requests from PEER since 2004 about the subject.
In July 2019, the Interior Department’s inspector general found that the NPS had failed miserably at managing permits for cell facilities. Of 133 inventoried commercial cellular facilities in the parks system, 68 required “research to determine whether permits needed to be issued” or “to determine whether renewals were needed.” The Park Service also “could not provide evidence that the required National Environmental Policy Act determination was performed consistently for commercial [right-of-way] permits. . . . Without a complete inventory, its [the NPS’s] Washington Support Office cannot be sure that parks are in compliance with NPS policy and that federal land is protected.”
THEN THERE IS THE QUESTION of how connectivity squares, if at all, with the intentions of the Wilderness Act. Under law and by long-standing policy, the National Park Service manages the wildlands of the backcountry as wilderness, regardless of whether those areas enjoy wilderness designation by Congress or are simply recommended for or eligible for wilderness protection. Many of the parks now considering or approving new cell sites are wilderness parks. Mount Rainier National Park is 97 percent designated wilderness, yet the park has approved a cellular facility that, according to the Park Service’s own reporting, will spill signals deep into the wilderness. Yosemite is 95 percent wilderness, Grand Teton 46 percent wilderness. Many of these wilderness areas are already experiencing some degree of cell-signal spillover.
As Steve Mishkin, an environmental attorney and PEER volunteer put it to me, “the NPS is trashing the Wilderness Act every time it approves a cell tower whose signals reach into the backcountry.” The Park Service itself has admitted, in commentary on the digital rollout in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, that “access to cell service and cellphone use in the Sequoia–Kings Canyon wilderness may cause noise such as ringtones, music, and chatter, impacting wilderness character and altering the wilderness experience.”
The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,” and where the land retains “its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” Wilderness areas “have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable,” and are places that offer “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.”
Land of primeval character? The imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable? Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation? Once there’s a cell signal, all that goes out the window. “Spillover into the backcountry is offensive,” Howie Wolke, a longtime board member of the nonprofit Wilderness Watch, told me. “If you want to be connected, go to Disneyland. One of the important values of wilderness is the feeling of remoteness one gets in a wild and natural environment.”
The motivation of the telecom corporations to expand their reach deeper into the national parks is, of course, to have more customers connected all the time—wherever they are, in wilderness or in the front country—because it’s profitable to have people connected to the system. But the Park Service’s legal obligation is to protect the “primeval character” of wilderness—and the agency simply cannot do that if everyone carrying a smartphone is enabled for such wilderness-incompatible activities as watching a live sporting event, making stock trades, or playing video games.
The Wilderness Act stipulates, “There shall be no commercial enterprise . . . within any wilderness area designated by this Act.” Does a cellular company need to have a physical presence within designated wilderness to be conducting a commercial enterprise there? The law isn’t clear. A possible analogue is aviation; pilots are required to maintain an altitude of at least 2,000 feet when flying over wilderness. This is an example of an activity that doesn’t have a permanent physical presence in wilderness yet still has restrictions placed on it because the activity can have an impact on the wilderness experience.
Backcountry rangers with the Park Service whom I have spoken with share Wolke’s acid opinion on the cell-signal invasion. Most of the rangers wouldn’t go on the record for fear of compromising their jobs, but one who did speak freely is Crystal Muzik, a 37-year-old seasonal ranger in southern Utah who has been with the NPS for 11 years. “With more connectivity, I envision the worst,” Muzik told me. “Perhaps a visitor brings their tablet on a five-day backpacking trip and finds themselves checking their work emails. They are distracted and have completely lost the idea of why they came out into nature in the first place. The Park Service states that cell-tower expansion will help visitors find new ways to engage with the national park. They only become more disconnected from the natural world.”
AFTER HE LEFT THE PARK SERVICE, Robert Sterling Yard visited Yosemite Valley in 1926 and declared it “lost” to overdevelopment, primarily from road building to accommodate ever-increasing motorized tourism. Too much commercial activity had degraded the place into “an Asbury Park of the altitudes . . . sacrificed on the altar of Gasoline.” Easy access with machines, coupled with the Park Service’s embrace of the “business of scenery,” had eroded the shining purpose of Yosemite, which was the “offering [of] inspiration, horizons, and perspectives, elevation of the spirit, and education.” But the Park Service had ceased to listen to Yard—considered him, in fact, a pariah—because he had concluded that the “danger to the national parks” issued from “industrial companies that want to use the parks for profit.”
The danger remains the same today; it’s just taken a different form. Call it “digital roading”—the infiltration of our wildest landscapes by the telecom profiteers. In the long run, digital roading may be a far greater threat to the park experience than automobiles have been. Cars transport visitors physically into the parks, where they are free to explore on foot (and in recent years, some parks have placed restraints on automotive access to force people out of their machines as much as possible). A wireless connection spreads everywhere, beyond the roads; the connection serves to transport people out of the parks and into the grip of a screen machine.
PEER’s Jeff Ruch sees the connectivity controversy as part of a loss of direction at the agency, a misdirection that ties into a misunderstanding of the agency’s mandate as outlined in the Organic Act of 1916. Even with park visitation at record numbers, the Park Service thinks it needs to attract still more people by hosting digital connectivity. But there’s a problem with that logic, Ruch argues. Even if there were a proven public demand for connectivity, nothing in the Organic Act states that the Park Service would be obliged to provide it, just as it would not be obliged to provide carousels, zip lines, petting zoos, or water rides if the public demanded those
For nearly a century, the Park Service allowed a hotelier to light giant bonfires above Yosemite Valley almost every summer night and push the embers off a cliff for a celebrated “firefall.” Rangers at Yellowstone used to feed the bears every summer afternoon. The public loved the firefall and the bear baiting, but the Park Service eventually stopped those activities because they were deemed incompatible with the agency’s mandate to conserve the “natural objects . . . [and] wild life” of the parks. Perhaps, years hence, today’s craze for connectivity will be viewed similarly.
The parks were never intended to meet the expectations of every visitor. We are told again and again that if the Park Service fails to meet visitor expectations, the public will stop coming and the national parks will lose popular, and congressional, support. To the contrary, if the Park Service fails to protect the preservation values at the heart of its mission—and in the process fails to serve those visitors who seek the beauty and complexity of life on Earth untrammeled by industrial civilization—the parks will be no different than surrounding landscapes. And thereby they will lose all their special meaning.
This article appeared in the July/August 2020 edition with the headline “Wiring the Wilderness.”
This article has been updated since publication.
Activist Post regularly reports about biological and environmental harm caused by all sources of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR/EMF) aka “Electrosmog.” For more information, visit our archives.
Image: Pixabay
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, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-07-15--Don’t Look Now, But This Airline Just Cancelled All International Flights Until March 2021 Due To CO

Don’t Look Now, But This Airline Just Cancelled All International Flights Until March 2021 Due To COVID

The prospects for a V-shaped recovery in airlines are looking dim .
The latest indication of how slow things are getting back to normal in the industry is Australian-based Qantas Airlines pulling all of its international flights off its website this week .
The airline is cancelling routes to New Zealand until September 1 and flights to other international destinations have been cancelled until March 28 , 2021 – nearly another year away – according to the Daily Mail .
“ All international and sale flights have been removed from the website until further notice due to the coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ There are some international flights in the system but they are not currently operating.
” Flights are still available through the airline ’ s partner airlines like Emirates , British Airways and Cathay Pacific .
But Qantas wants to prevent new bookings from being made on its own airline .
Flights that have already been booked will proceed as planned .
The move comes weeks after the airline cut 6,000 jobs , representing 20 % of its workforce .
The company ’ s CEO has also predicted that international flights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We have never experienced anything like this before – no-one has .
All airlines are in the biggest crisis our industry has ever faced , ” he said last month .
“ Revenues have collapsed , entire fleets are grounded and the world biggest carriers are taking extreme action just to survive.
” The decision to halt international flights comes after the airline ’ s decision to also ground its double-decker A380 planes for at least three years and to retire six Boeing 747s .
Trade Minister Simon Birmingham said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably remain closed for another 4 months .
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 , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Tyler Durden
The prospects for a V-shaped recovery in airlines are looking dim. The latest indication of how slow things are getting back to normal in the industry is Australian-based Qantas Airlines pulling all of its international flights off its website this week.
The airline is cancelling routes to New Zealand until September 1 and flights to other international destinations have been cancelled until March 28, 2021 – nearly another year away – according to the Daily Mail.
“All international and sale flights have been removed from the website until further notice due to the coronavirus pandemic,” a spokesperson for the airline said. “There are some international flights in the system but they are not currently operating.”
Flights are still available through the airline’s partner airlines like Emirates, British Airways and Cathay Pacific. But Qantas wants to prevent new bookings from being made on its own airline. Flights that have already been booked will proceed as planned.
The move comes weeks after the airline cut 6,000 jobs, representing 20% of its workforce. The company’s CEO has also predicted that international flights wouldn’t resume until July 2021.
“We have never experienced anything like this before – no-one has. All airlines are in the biggest crisis our industry has ever faced,” he said last month. “Revenues have collapsed, entire fleets are grounded and the world biggest carriers are taking extreme action just to survive.”
The decision to halt international flights comes after the airline’s decision to also ground its double-decker A380 planes for at least three years and to retire six Boeing 747s.
Trade Minister Simon Birmingham said in June that Australia’s borders would probably remain closed for another 4 months.
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, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-07-15--Cops Raid “Illegal” Gym, Let Cop Who Was Working Out Go While Ticketing Everyone Else

Lincoln Park , MI — In northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula , the almighty governor is kind enough to allow gyms to open under Phase 5 of the MI Safe Start Plan .
However , the rest of the state remains in Phase 4 which means gyms in those areas are illegal .
Naturally , this has upset a lot of people who chose to disobey Governor Gretchen Whitmer ’ s unconstitutional executive order .
As a result of the fact that the only way government can enforce immoral laws is through the barrel of a gun , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , Tino Ulicne , owner of the RTB Gym , defied Whitmer ’ s dictate and opened his gym to those who wanted to be their voluntarily .
“ I don ’ t understand , ” Ulicne said .
“ Like , if we take all the right precautions , why can ’ t we open ?
” Because the governor said so , that ’ s why !
Clearly it is not evidence-based as the NY Times reports , researchers found no coronavirus infections among thousands of people allowed to return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the governor ’ s unconstitutional order was not some criminal act but a financial necessity as this is his only means of income .
“ It ’ s a do or die situation , ” he said .
While taking all the necessary precautions , multiple people , who were tired of not being able to work out , voluntarily used the facility .
This was a no-no to the police state , however , who promptly raided the gym .
Every single staff member and patron were detained and cited for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who happened to be identified as a Detroit Police officer .
According to the Michigan Sentry , several individuals have reportedly confirmed that the individual seen leaving the gym is a plainclothes officer with the Detroit Police Department named Lamar Harris , but have done so off the record due to fears of possible retribution .
As the Sentry reports , according to a report from the Detroit News , Harris graduated and became an officer in 2019 .
They also presented photos of celebrated cookies made by Harris ’ friends and family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ featuring his presumed badge number , 881 .
Harris ’ Instagram account shows the massive cop flexing his biceps which some could say makes him a good candidate for a urinalysis to test for steroids .
But I digress .
As the video below shows , as all the other gym goers were detained and cited , the man identified as Harris was simply allowed to walk right through the door .
And just like that , the blue line protected their own while punishing everyone else for the non-crime of staying healthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Generate Extra Income “ Go stand in line back there and go get a ticket , ” the unidentified cop says as he lets Harris walk right out of the front door without so much as a slap on the wrist .
The irony of police officers detaining and fining people for trying to stay healthy during a pandemic is thick .
But it is even more prevalent given the fact that one of their own was doing the exact same thing and he was let go .
Ulicne said that he and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 in 25th District Court in Lincoln Park to answer to the citations — except for the cop of course .
“ We all got violation of the governor ’ s orders , ” he said .
“ The officers said they ’ re not sure on how we ’ re going to be punished .
They don ’ t know what the fines are going to come out to , but I do believe it ’ s a misdemeanor.
” In total , according to WYXZ , police issued 21 violations to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I happened to finish my workout and they got me on the way out , ” Taylor said .
Taylor told WXYZ that he plans to fight the ticket in court and there is already an attorney willing to represent those who received citations — pro bono .
Attorney Nick Somberg , told WXYZ none of the members should have received tickets for simply being inside the gym .
He says they plan to fight the violations in the court .
“ The Governor ’ s executive order 2020-21 order specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home to engage in recreational activity .
People go to the gym to get healthy .
If this was a strip club then there would ’ ve been no issue , ” he told Action News .
This is 2020 in the land of the free .
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA .
This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state .
Agorist has been an independent journalist for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on mainstream networks around the world .
Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project .
Follow @ MattAgorist on Twitter , Steemit , and now on Minds .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today @

By Matt Agorist
Lincoln Park, MI — In northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula, the almighty governor is kind enough to allow gyms to open under Phase 5 of the MI Safe Start Plan. However, the rest of the state remains in Phase 4 which means gyms in those areas are illegal. Naturally, this has upset a lot of people who chose to disobey Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s unconstitutional executive order. As a result of the fact that the only way government can enforce immoral laws is through the barrel of a gun, the gyms were raided by cops.
Last week, Tino Ulicne, owner of the RTB Gym, defied Whitmer’s dictate and opened his gym to those who wanted to be their voluntarily.
“I don’t understand,” Ulicne said. “Like, if we take all the right precautions, why can’t we open?”
Because the governor said so, that’s why! Clearly it is not evidence-based as the NY Times reports, researchers found no coronavirus infections among thousands of people allowed to return to their gyms.
Ulicne said defying the governor’s unconstitutional order was not some criminal act but a financial necessity as this is his only means of income.
“It’s a do or die situation,” he said.
While taking all the necessary precautions, multiple people, who were tired of not being able to work out, voluntarily used the facility. This was a no-no to the police state, however, who promptly raided the gym. Every single staff member and patron were detained and cited for their illegal workouts — except for one — who happened to be identified as a Detroit Police officer.
According to the Michigan Sentry, several individuals have reportedly confirmed that the individual seen leaving the gym is a plainclothes officer with the Detroit Police Department named Lamar Harris, but have done so off the record due to fears of possible retribution.
As the Sentry reports, according to a report from the Detroit News, Harris graduated and became an officer in 2019. They also presented photos of celebrated cookies made by Harris’ friends and family, shaped as guns and barbells, featuring his presumed badge number, 881.
Harris’ Instagram account shows the massive cop flexing his biceps which some could say makes him a good candidate for a urinalysis to test for steroids. But I digress.
As the video below shows, as all the other gym goers were detained and cited, the man identified as Harris was simply allowed to walk right through the door. And just like that, the blue line protected their own while punishing everyone else for the non-crime of staying healthy.
Lincoln Park Police issued 21 violations to staff and gym members at RTB Gym yesterday. Here’s video one member shot on his cell phone as officers issued the violations @wxyzdetroit pic.twitter.com/73zIbP9k62 — Jenn Schanz (@JennSchanzWXYZ) July 9, 2020
“Go stand in line back there and go get a ticket,” the unidentified cop says as he lets Harris walk right out of the front door without so much as a slap on the wrist.
The irony of police officers detaining and fining people for trying to stay healthy during a pandemic is thick. But it is even more prevalent given the fact that one of their own was doing the exact same thing and he was let go.
Ulicne said that he and everyone else are due to appear July 30 in 25th District Court in Lincoln Park to answer to the citations — except for the cop of course.
“We all got violation of the governor’s orders,” he said. “The officers said they’re not sure on how we’re going to be punished. They don’t know what the fines are going to come out to, but I do believe it’s a misdemeanor.”
In total, according to WYXZ, police issued 21 violations to gym staff and members like Scott Taylor.
“I happened to finish my workout and they got me on the way out,” Taylor said.
Taylor told WXYZ that he plans to fight the ticket in court and there is already an attorney willing to represent those who received citations — pro bono.
Attorney Nick Somberg, told WXYZ none of the members should have received tickets for simply being inside the gym. He says they plan to fight the violations in the court.
“The Governor’s executive order 2020-21 order specifically exempts and encourages people to leave their home to engage in recreational activity. People go to the gym to get healthy. If this was a strip club then there would’ve been no issue,” he told Action News.
This is 2020 in the land of the free.
Full video below:
Source: The Free Thought Project
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.
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, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-07-15--Africa to Become Testing Ground for “Trust Stamp” Vaccine Record and Payment System

A biometric digital identity platform that “ evolves just as you evolve ” is set to be introduced in “ low-income , remote communities ” in West Africa thanks to a public-private partnership between the Bill Gates-backed GAVI vaccine alliance , Mastercard and the AI-powered “ identity authentication ” company , Trust Stamp .
The program , which was first launched in late 2018 , will see Trust Stamp ’ s digital identity platform integrated into the GAVI-Mastercard “ Wellness Pass , ” a digital vaccination record and identity system that is also linked to Mastercard ’ s click-to-play system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learning technology called NuData .
Mastercard , in addition to professing its commitment to promoting “ centralized record keeping of childhood immunization ” also describes itself as a leader toward a “ World Beyond Cash , ” and its partnership with GAVI marks a novel approach towards linking a biometric digital identity system , vaccination records , and a payment system into a single cohesive platform .
The effort , since its launch nearly two years ago , has been funded via $ 3.8 million in GAVI donor funds in addition to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation .
In early June , GAVI reported that Mastercard ’ s Wellness Pass program would be adapted in response to the coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) pandemic .
Around a month later , Mastercard announced that Trust Stamp ’ s biometric identity platform would be integrated into Wellness Pass as Trust Stamp ’ s system is capable of providing biometric identity in areas of the world lacking internet access or cellular connectivity and also does not require knowledge of an individual ’ s legal name or identity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mastercard , and Trust Stamp will soon be launched in West Africa and will be coupled with a COVID-19 vaccination program once a vaccine becomes available .
The push to implement biometrics as part of national ID registration systems has been ongoing for many years on the continent and has become a highly politicized issue in several African countries .
Opposition to similar projects in Africa often revolves around the costs surrounding them , such as the biometric voter management system that the Electoral Commission of Ghana has been trying to implement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December .
Bright Simons , honorary VP of the IMANI policy think tank , has questioned the “ budgetary allocation ” for the new system , claiming that the “ unnecessary registration of 17 million people all over again ” represents millions of dollars “ being blown for reasons that nobody can explain in this country.
” Trust Stamp ’ s biometric identity system , largely funded by Mastercard ’ s massive investment in the company in February , utilizes a technology it calls Evergreen Hash that creates an AI-generated “ 3D mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a person ’ s face , palm or fingerprint .
Once this “ mask ” is created , much of the original data is discarded and encryption keys are created in place of a person ’ s name or other more traditional identifiers .
“ Only a small percentage of the data that originally existed is in the hash , ” Trust Stamp CEO Gareth Genner has stated .
“ What you have is something safer for storing because it can ’ t be used to directly identify you .
No one would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers.
” The result , according to Genner , is an “ irreversible non-personally identifiable information ” system that “ protects privacy , reduces potential for misuse and allows effective inclusion when there is no other form of legal record.
” Genner also explained in a recent press release that the unique “ hash ” is capable of “ evolving ” as a new hash with updated health information is created every time a child or individual gets a vaccine .
Trust Stamp ’ s AI algorithms can accurately determine if different hashes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ the hash evolves over time just as you evolve , ” said Genner .
It is unclear how much the Wellness Pass initiative is motivated by public health concerns as opposed to free market considerations .
Indeed , the GAVI alliance , largely funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates and Rockefeller Foundations , as well as allied governments and the vaccine industry , is principally concerned with improving “ the health of markets for vaccines and other immunization products , ” rather than the health of individuals , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s GAVI partnership is directly linked to its “ World Beyond Cash ” effort , which mainly bolsters its business model that has long depended on a reduction in the use of physical cash .
Trust Stamp also shares this market-focused vision for its digital identity system as the company has stated that it is looking for new commercialization options for its Evergreen Hash technology , specifically with prison systems .
Talks with private and public prison systems have revealed an interest in their utilization of Trust Stamp ’ s technology to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without making them pay for pricey ankle bracelets that monitor their every move , ” as Trust Stamp ’ s platform would ostensibly provide that same function but in a “ touchless ” and less expensive manner .
Trust Stamp ’ s interest in providing its technology to both COVID-19 response and to law enforcement is part of a growing trend where numerous companies providing digital solutions to COVID-19 also offer the same solutions to prison systems and law enforcement for the purposes of surveillance and “ predictive policing .
”

By Raul Diego
A biometric digital identity platform that “evolves just as you evolve” is set to be introduced in “low-income, remote communities” in West Africa thanks to a public-private partnership between the Bill Gates-backed GAVI vaccine alliance, Mastercard and the AI-powered “identity authentication” company, Trust Stamp.
The program, which was first launched in late 2018, will see Trust Stamp’s digital identity platform integrated into the GAVI-Mastercard “Wellness Pass,” a digital vaccination record and identity system that is also linked to Mastercard’s click-to-play system that powered by its AI and machine learning technology called NuData. Mastercard, in addition to professing its commitment to promoting “centralized record keeping of childhood immunization” also describes itself as a leader toward a “World Beyond Cash,” and its partnership with GAVI marks a novel approach towards linking a biometric digital identity system, vaccination records, and a payment system into a single cohesive platform. The effort, since its launch nearly two years ago, has been funded via $3.8 million in GAVI donor funds in addition to a matched donation of the same amount by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In early June, GAVI reported that Mastercard’s Wellness Pass program would be adapted in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Around a month later, Mastercard announced that Trust Stamp’s biometric identity platform would be integrated into Wellness Pass as Trust Stamp’s system is capable of providing biometric identity in areas of the world lacking internet access or cellular connectivity and also does not require knowledge of an individual’s legal name or identity to function. The Wellness Program involving GAVI, Mastercard, and Trust Stamp will soon be launched in West Africa and will be coupled with a COVID-19 vaccination program once a vaccine becomes available.
The push to implement biometrics as part of national ID registration systems has been ongoing for many years on the continent and has become a highly politicized issue in several African countries. Opposition to similar projects in Africa often revolves around the costs surrounding them, such as the biometric voter management system that the Electoral Commission of Ghana has been trying to implement ahead of their 2020 general election in December. Bright Simons, honorary VP of the IMANI policy think tank, has questioned the “budgetary allocation” for the new system, claiming that the “unnecessary registration of 17 million people all over again” represents millions of dollars “being blown for reasons that nobody can explain in this country.”
Masking ulterior motives
Trust Stamp’s biometric identity system, largely funded by Mastercard’s massive investment in the company in February, utilizes a technology it calls Evergreen Hash that creates an AI-generated “3D mask” based on a single photo of a person’s face, palm or fingerprint. Once this “mask” is created, much of the original data is discarded and encryption keys are created in place of a person’s name or other more traditional identifiers.
“Only a small percentage of the data that originally existed is in the hash,” Trust Stamp CEO Gareth Genner has stated. “What you have is something safer for storing because it can’t be used to directly identify you. No one would recognize you in this huge jumble of numbers.” The result, according to Genner, is an “irreversible non-personally identifiable information” system that “protects privacy, reduces potential for misuse and allows effective inclusion when there is no other form of legal record.”
Genner also explained in a recent press release that the unique “hash” is capable of “evolving” as a new hash with updated health information is created every time a child or individual gets a vaccine. Trust Stamp’s AI algorithms can accurately determine if different hashes belong to the same individual, meaning that “the hash evolves over time just as you evolve,” said Genner.
It is unclear how much the Wellness Pass initiative is motivated by public health concerns as opposed to free market considerations. Indeed, the GAVI alliance, largely funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, as well as allied governments and the vaccine industry, is principally concerned with improving “the health of markets for vaccines and other immunization products,” rather than the health of individuals, according to its own website. Similarly, Mastercard’s GAVI partnership is directly linked to its “World Beyond Cash” effort, which mainly bolsters its business model that has long depended on a reduction in the use of physical cash.
Dual use tyranny
Trust Stamp also shares this market-focused vision for its digital identity system as the company has stated that it is looking for new commercialization options for its Evergreen Hash technology, specifically with prison systems. Talks with private and public prison systems have revealed an interest in their utilization of Trust Stamp’s technology to provide identification for individuals on parole “without making them pay for pricey ankle bracelets that monitor their every move,” as Trust Stamp’s platform would ostensibly provide that same function but in a “touchless” and less expensive manner.
Trust Stamp’s interest in providing its technology to both COVID-19 response and to law enforcement is part of a growing trend where numerous companies providing digital solutions to COVID-19 also offer the same solutions to prison systems and law enforcement for the purposes of surveillance and “predictive policing.”


activistpost--2020-07-15--Time to Ditch the Smart Phone?

Time to Ditch the Smart Phone?

Our struggle for social justice takes on many forms , and with COVID threatening to become a forever phenomenon enforced with increasingly extreme measures , our fight back strategies might need to be creatively extreme too .
But extremes can come in seemingly little acts .
For starters , might it be time for us to ditch our smart phones ?
Replace them with either flip phones , or just return to land lines ?
Make the agenda of the corporate and political elite , particularly those supposedly for our health , harder to implement ?
Might smart phones and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which are undoubtedly cool and useful , have gotten to the point ( perhaps long past the point ) where they now serve the oppressors far more than they serve us ?
Where our habit of evaluating the benefits of a technology in strictly personal terms has been trumped by its use for economic , political , social , and militarized control ?
Might we stop feeling that high tech is a juggernaut that we ’ re helpless to control ?
Smart enough to throw away the very tools used to repress and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might we expand our resistance to becoming less dependent on the Internet ?
Embark on a massive campaign to take long holidays away from predatory behemoths like Facebook , Google , Amazon and Twitter ?
Take a breather from a world ruled by algorithms , a world where our self-worth is measured in digital likes and shares ?
Yes , many of us have been forced to become more reliant on programs like Zoom and other digital and social media platform in order to connect , communicate , and earn a living .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like this type of reality .
Yet , might we be trading one health crisis for another ?
Getting used to—and even happy with—having less physical contact with our fellow human being ?
Living in a virtual world , glued to an electronic screen , functioning in high-speed time , our thinking process permanently rewired ?
Aren ’ t these things major health issues also ?
And as with smart phones , might all this be serving the oppressors more than us ?
David Perez is a writer , journalist , activist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bronx in New York City and currently living in Taos , New Mexico 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 , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By David Perez
Our struggle for social justice takes on many forms, and with COVID threatening to become a forever phenomenon enforced with increasingly extreme measures, our fight back strategies might need to be creatively extreme too.
But extremes can come in seemingly little acts.
For starters, might it be time for us to ditch our smart phones? Replace them with either flip phones, or just return to land lines? Make the agenda of the corporate and political elite, particularly those supposedly for our health, harder to implement?
Might smart phones and their hundreds of apps, many of which are undoubtedly cool and useful, have gotten to the point (perhaps long past the point) where they now serve the oppressors far more than they serve us? Where our habit of evaluating the benefits of a technology in strictly personal terms has been trumped by its use for economic, political, social, and militarized control?
Might we stop feeling that high tech is a juggernaut that we’re helpless to control? Smart enough to throw away the very tools used to repress and dominate us?
Taking it further, might we expand our resistance to becoming less dependent on the Internet? Embark on a massive campaign to take long holidays away from predatory behemoths like Facebook, Google, Amazon and Twitter? Take a breather from a world ruled by algorithms, a world where our self-worth is measured in digital likes and shares? Yes, many of us have been forced to become more reliant on programs like Zoom and other digital and social media platform in order to connect, communicate, and earn a living. Some of us have grown to even like this type of reality.
Yet, might we be trading one health crisis for another? Getting used to—and even happy with—having less physical contact with our fellow human being? Living in a virtual world, glued to an electronic screen, functioning in high-speed time, our thinking process permanently rewired?
Aren’t these things major health issues also? And as with smart phones, might all this be serving the oppressors more than us?
David Perez is a writer, journalist, activist, and actor, born in the South Bronx in New York City and currently living in Taos, New Mexico
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, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-07-16--Freedom of Information Dead on Arrival — Another Covid Casualty

“ Democracy Dies in Darkness ” –Washington Post “ It ’ s not dark yet , but it ’ s getting there ” –Bob Dylan Another fallout from the Covid crisis is that you can no longer reach public officials and bureaucrats .
Phone calls go unanswered and there seems to be a pervasive disinterest in responding to emails now .
This is significant in terms of transparency and the public ’ s right to be informed .
What we are seeing now in daily media reports , wildly contradicting each other as to the nature of the Covid crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by public officials , who seem to have discarded any semblance of concern about “ the public ’ s right to know.
” Government , as originally conceptualized , was to protect the governed from external attacks .
The earliest manifestations of government , tribal government , emerged as family units banded together for a greater protection than a mere clan or family group could provide .
The tribal leaders were not despots—indeed , they would be unseated if they evidenced those qualities—and whether one was a singular head or part of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tasked with serving the needs of the community .
Later , city-states emerged and gradually , the governors moved away from the community that they governed , not so much in physical location but in adherence to the emerging group of leadership .
An “ elite ” was born—those who led .
The separation of the leaders from the led has now become a fact of so-called democratic forms of government , as well as of oligarchies and monarchies .
And this was nowhere more evident in President Trump ’ s promise to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be those embedded in government who were not serving the interests of the governed , but rather serving an entity unto itself .
The first hints that Covid-19 was going to kill off whatever crumbs of accountability still remained were evident early on in the crisis .
Back in March , California Governor Newsom ’ s intent to suspend the California Public Records Act during the Covid crisis was first reported .
In March , the city of San Diego announced that it was suspending the government ’ s necessity to respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article linked here states that no other cities had launched such measures , it appears that indeed many levels of government have cut off access to public records .
As reported in the Los Angeles Times , also in March : The city of Fresno suspended “ immediate responses ” to public records requests on Tuesday after the city declared a state of emergency , according to an email from the city attorney ’ s office .
The city will resume responding to requests once the emergency declaration ends .
In the Bay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is closed to the public and only staffing “ essential employees ” because of a shelter-in-place order from Alameda County , according to an email from the city manager ’ s office .
The city will need an additional 45 days to respond to records requests after the order is lifted , the email said .
And the city clerk ’ s office in Fremont told a journalist this week it would not be able to accept public records requests until its offices reopened following an emergency declaration there .
The unification of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , separate from the led , has become even more obvious with this public health crisis .
The public ’ s need to know has never been so strong , and apart from the daily barrage of contradictory news , we now must realize that we are also being barred from previously accessible information .
Here are a few cases of which I have personal knowledge : Debra Ashby filed a Request for Precautionary Measures with the IACHR over a year ago , citing the endangerment of her father under a court authorized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Human Rights is an arm of the Organization of American States and has a legally binding mandate to act when there are allegations that state parties to the governing treaty have violated the treaty mandates .
Her tracking number for the report is PM 19-492 .
I have emailed the IACHR at their various email addresses several times , trying to get an update on their progress in her matter .
No one replies .
When one telephones them , one gets the “ Out-Of-The-Office-Due-to-Covid ” message .
I also emailed directly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with no response .
The IACHR is less than friendly to me , after I exposed one of their former Commissioners , James Cavallaro of Stanford University , as apparently taking bribes to throw cases .
And this sort of retaliation against journalists is becoming regular fare .
Julian Assange is the most public face to retaliation , which is certainly not confined to him .
Equally , after my FOIA for my FBI file produced a flurry of bizarre responses , none of which involved producing my actual file , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had previously sent me emails assuring me that her office could intervene .
I guess you can figure out what happened here—No Reply .
And forget about telephoning her—everybody is working at home now , due to Covid-19 .
So the phone calls go to a messaging system , apparently to die there .
After an extensive interview a couple years back by Special Agent Stephen Lamb of the Riverside Office of the Secret Service concerning my knowledge of the activities of former professional fiduciary Melodie Scott , I became uncomfortable with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hank Price , and asked for an update on the investigation .
But not only can I not reach anyone at the Secret Service field office , but no one there , no one at the US Attorney ’ s office in Los Angeles and no one at the HQ of the Secret Service will deign to answer my emails .
Most recently , I emailed Mason Brayman , at the media office for the Secret Service , requesting to speak with someone at an administrative level who could let me know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Brayman is MIA , at least as far as I can tell .
Back in April of this year , I filed a FOIA with the CDC requesting a racial breakdown of Covid victims .
The initial response , by a Paula Thomas with the CDC , was appropriate and timely .
She informed me that the records I had requested would be supplied by June 9 .
But then something went on tilt .
The records were not supplied and requests for an update were ignored .
Finally on June 24 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assured me that they were working on my request but couldn ’ t tell me when it would be fulfilled .
I then discovered that the CDC had already published this data .
Indeed it appeared that some media outlets were running this story in late May .
Brookings had published the data on June 16 .
Alarmed , I re-contacted the CDC and asked why they were withholding already published data .
In a subsequent email , I stated my intent to file a complaint with the Inspector General for HHS .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a letter via email that the records were ready .
Apparently , the CDC has reverted to a form of tribal governance and responds best to explicit threats .
Back in 2011 , I had interviewed two CDC honchos , Lori Bane and Von Roebuck .
I was attempting to discern the numbers of BSL-3s and 4s in the United States .
The subsequent article published in Activist Post , reveals that Bane and Roebuck prevaricated and attempted to give me inadequate and false information on the prevalence of these labs .
Another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Dr. Scott Dowell of CDC at the Biological Weapons Convention in Geneva , also in 2011 , resulted in revelations that these two top docs were also reluctant to admit to the knowledge of high level triage plans in the event of a pandemic .
These triage plans would exclude the elderly and infirm from getting life saving treatment .
I did not mention in this article that Dr. Dowell behaved in a threatening manner towards me when I approached him with questions about the triage plans , demanding to know my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manner which bordered on blatant intimidation .
So one does begin to wonder if the CDC is reacting based on prior contact and “ blacklisting.
” The generalized reluctance now by government to abide by transparency dictates seems to be enhanced by more particularized concerns .
Based on the perception that some sort of “ blacklisting ” may have figured in here , I filed a FOIA with the CDC in late June , requesting records particularly pertaining to me .
I received a response confirming receipt of my request , which did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available .
Emails requesting follow up on the FOIA status have been ignored .
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation , As concerns begin to escalate that Covid-19 represents a permanent state of affairs and that we may not ever return to “ normal , ” the indications are mounting that public awareness and oversight have also been a victim of the coronavirus .
Janet Phelan is an investigative journalist and author of the groundbreaking exposé , EXILE .
Her articles previously appeared in such mainstream venues as the Los Angeles Times , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Telegram , etc .
In 2004 , Janet “ jumped ship ” and now exclusively writes for independent media .
She is also the author of two collections of poetry—The Hitler Poems and Held Captive .
She resides abroad .
You are invited to support her work on Buy Me A Coffee here : https : //www.buymeacoffee.com/JanetPhelan 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 , HIVE , Parler , Flote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Janet Phelan
“Democracy Dies in Darkness”–Washington Post
“It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there”–Bob Dylan
Another fallout from the Covid crisis is that you can no longer reach public officials and bureaucrats. Phone calls go unanswered and there seems to be a pervasive disinterest in responding to emails now.
This is significant in terms of transparency and the public’s right to be informed. What we are seeing now in daily media reports, wildly contradicting each other as to the nature of the Covid crisis, is compounded by the unaccountability engendered by public officials, who seem to have discarded any semblance of concern about “the public’s right to know.”
Government, as originally conceptualized, was to protect the governed from external attacks. The earliest manifestations of government, tribal government, emerged as family units banded together for a greater protection than a mere clan or family group could provide. The tribal leaders were not despots—indeed, they would be unseated if they evidenced those qualities—and whether one was a singular head or part of a council of elders, a leader was tasked with serving the needs of the community. Later, city-states emerged and gradually, the governors moved away from the community that they governed, not so much in physical location but in adherence to the emerging group of leadership. An “elite” was born—those who led.
The separation of the leaders from the led has now become a fact of so-called democratic forms of government, as well as of oligarchies and monarchies. And this was nowhere more evident in President Trump’s promise to “Drain the Swamp.” The Swamp would be those embedded in government who were not serving the interests of the governed, but rather serving an entity unto itself.
The first hints that Covid-19 was going to kill off whatever crumbs of accountability still remained were evident early on in the crisis. Back in March, California Governor Newsom’s intent to suspend the California Public Records Act during the Covid crisis was first reported. In March, the city of San Diego announced that it was suspending the government’s necessity to respond to Covid-related PRA requests. While the article linked here states that no other cities had launched such measures, it appears that indeed many levels of government have cut off access to public records.
As reported in the Los Angeles Times, also in March:
The city of Fresno suspended “immediate responses” to public records requests on Tuesday after the city declared a state of emergency, according to an email from the city attorney’s office. The city will resume responding to requests once the emergency declaration ends. In the Bay Area, the city of San Leandro is closed to the public and only staffing “essential employees” because of a shelter-in-place order from Alameda County, according to an email from the city manager’s office. The city will need an additional 45 days to respond to records requests after the order is lifted, the email said. And the city clerk’s office in Fremont told a journalist this week it would not be able to accept public records requests until its offices reopened following an emergency declaration there.
The unification of the leaders into an increasingly unaccountable group, separate from the led, has become even more obvious with this public health crisis. The public’s need to know has never been so strong, and apart from the daily barrage of contradictory news, we now must realize that we are also being barred from previously accessible information.
Here are a few cases of which I have personal knowledge:
GUARDIANSHIP ISSUE AT INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL
Debra Ashby filed a Request for Precautionary Measures with the IACHR over a year ago, citing the endangerment of her father under a court authorized guardianship. The Inter American Commission on Human Rights is an arm of the Organization of American States and has a legally binding mandate to act when there are allegations that state parties to the governing treaty have violated the treaty mandates. Her tracking number for the report is PM 19-492. I have emailed the IACHR at their various email addresses several times, trying to get an update on their progress in her matter. No one replies. When one telephones them, one gets the “Out-Of-The-Office-Due-to-Covid” message. I also emailed directly the head of the IACHR, Paulo Abrao, with no response.
The IACHR is less than friendly to me, after I exposed one of their former Commissioners, James Cavallaro of Stanford University, as apparently taking bribes to throw cases. And this sort of retaliation against journalists is becoming regular fare. Julian Assange is the most public face to retaliation, which is certainly not confined to him.
FBI FILE REQUEST
Equally, after my FOIA for my FBI file produced a flurry of bizarre responses, none of which involved producing my actual file, I emailed their FOIA mediator, as she had previously sent me emails assuring me that her office could intervene. I guess you can figure out what happened here—No Reply. And forget about telephoning her—everybody is working at home now, due to Covid-19. So the phone calls go to a messaging system, apparently to die there.
SECRET SERVICE INVESTIGATION
After an extensive interview a couple years back by Special Agent Stephen Lamb of the Riverside Office of the Secret Service concerning my knowledge of the activities of former professional fiduciary Melodie Scott, I became uncomfortable with the verbiage by the Head of that office, Hank Price, and asked for an update on the investigation. But not only can I not reach anyone at the Secret Service field office, but no one there, no one at the US Attorney’s office in Los Angeles and no one at the HQ of the Secret Service will deign to answer my emails. Most recently, I emailed Mason Brayman, at the media office for the Secret Service, requesting to speak with someone at an administrative level who could let me know if the investigation is still extant.
But Brayman is MIA, at least as far as I can tell.
CDC FOIA GAMES
Back in April of this year, I filed a FOIA with the CDC requesting a racial breakdown of Covid victims. The initial response, by a Paula Thomas with the CDC, was appropriate and timely. She informed me that the records I had requested would be supplied by June 9.
But then something went on tilt. The records were not supplied and requests for an update were ignored. Finally on June 24, a Carolyn Okpewho at the CDC assured me that they were working on my request but couldn’t tell me when it would be fulfilled.
I then discovered that the CDC had already published this data.
Indeed it appeared that some media outlets were running this story in late May.
Brookings had published the data on June 16.
Alarmed, I re-contacted the CDC and asked why they were withholding already published data. In a subsequent email, I stated my intent to file a complaint with the Inspector General for HHS.
The very next day, I received a letter via email that the records were ready.
Apparently, the CDC has reverted to a form of tribal governance and responds best to explicit threats.
RETALIATION OR?
Back in 2011, I had interviewed two CDC honchos, Lori Bane and Von Roebuck. I was attempting to discern the numbers of BSL-3s and 4s in the United States.
The subsequent article published in Activist Post, reveals that Bane and Roebuck prevaricated and attempted to give me inadequate and false information on the prevalence of these labs.
Another contact with Dr. George Korch of HHS and Dr. Scott Dowell of CDC at the Biological Weapons Convention in Geneva, also in 2011, resulted in revelations that these two top docs were also reluctant to admit to the knowledge of high level triage plans in the event of a pandemic. These triage plans would exclude the elderly and infirm from getting life saving treatment.
I did not mention in this article that Dr. Dowell behaved in a threatening manner towards me when I approached him with questions about the triage plans, demanding to know my name and my press affiliation in a manner which bordered on blatant intimidation.
So one does begin to wonder if the CDC is reacting based on prior contact and “blacklisting.” The generalized reluctance now by government to abide by transparency dictates seems to be enhanced by more particularized concerns.
Based on the perception that some sort of “blacklisting” may have figured in here, I filed a FOIA with the CDC in late June, requesting records particularly pertaining to me. I received a response confirming receipt of my request, which did not state when the records would be available.
Emails requesting follow up on the FOIA status have been ignored.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
While COVID-19 will certainly interrupt some of our normal expectations, it is essential that our democracy continue to function through these hard times. That means ensuring that the public can understand and hold officials accountable for the decisions they make in the halls of power while we’re all stuck at home.
As concerns begin to escalate that Covid-19 represents a permanent state of affairs and that we may not ever return to “normal,” the indications are mounting that public awareness and oversight have also been a victim of the coronavirus.
Janet Phelan is an investigative journalist and author of the groundbreaking exposé, EXILE. Her articles previously appeared in such mainstream venues as the Los Angeles Times, Orange Coast Magazine, Long Beach Press Telegram, etc. In 2004, Janet “jumped ship” and now exclusively writes for independent media. She is also the author of two collections of poetry—The Hitler Poems and Held Captive. She resides abroad. You are invited to support her work on Buy Me A Coffee here: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/JanetPhelan
Image Source
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, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.