Nearly every adult told their kids to remember that “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me.” Today we are living in a time where a sizable majority of the people seem to believe that “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will mortally harm me.”
So much for freedom of speech, so much for freedom. So much for being an adult.
(ANTIMEDIA) Iceland’s anti-establishment Pirate Party continues to lead nationwide polls as the most popular choice for the next elections. The party — whose policies include internet freedom, drug decriminalisation, and open democracy — has consistently led the polls for the last year and, as a result, has secured more funding than any of its rivals.
The 2008 financial crisis hit Iceland hard. The following year, the krona was devalued by around 50%, unemployment doubled, and capital controls were introduce. Miraculously, the country rose from the ashes to become one of Europe’s top performers in terms of growth. More recently, the political establishment has been in turmoil since three government ministers were implicated in the global Panama Papers scandal.
Despite their struggle, or perhaps because of it, the list of reasons to admire Icelanders keeps on growing. Whether it’s the sentencing of senior bankers — or the mass outrage at the offshore leak, which propelled 10% of the population to the streets and ousted the Prime Minister — the radical refusal of Icelanders to bow down and accept establishment corruption is admirable.
Because of this, the surge in popularity of the once-fringe Pirate Party comes as little surprise — recent polls suggest almost half the nation supports them. In Iceland, financial support for political parties is allocated based on how well they have done in polls.
Although the party doesn’t have formal leadership, chair of the parliamentary group and spokesperson, Birgitta Jonsdottir, said they did not expect the funding. Claiming their campaign was, so far, funded at a flea market, she said that was enough and that all the party needs is to be able to pay the salaries of its employees.
“We did not expect this. We don’t care. Democracy doesn’t revolve around getting loads of money from the government,” she added.
This article (Iceland’s Biggest Political Party Is Now The “Pirate Party” — and It’s Amazing) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.
From theantimedia.org Team
(ANTIMEDIA) As people have taken up vaping in droves, it was only a matter of time before the joy police pulled up and slapped rules on the electronic substitute. This week, the Food and Drug Administration did exactly that when it announced U.S. tobacco regulations will be extended to e-cigarettes.
The latest era of prohibition, aimed at the fast-growing vaping industry, not only signifies the end for thousands of small business, but is a slap in the face to e-cig users who are trying to reduce their risk of harm. Unsurprisingly, Thursday’s ruling has led to vaping advocates accusing the FDA of gifting the market to Big Tobacco.
The FDA states the historic rule helps implement the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which is intended to allow the agency to improve public health and protect future generations. Until now, the act gave the FDA the power to regulate the industry, but e-cigs and other tobacco related products were left out.
The new ruling now gives the agency jurisdiction over all tobacco products in the US — including the $3 billion e-cigarette industry, which wasn’t previously under its control.
In April 2014, when the first proposal to extend authority over the products was launched, it attracted over 100,000 comments, and the FDA was forced to include lengthy responses in the final rule. Consequently, the 499-page rule has been broadened to include hookah and pipe tobacco, as well as premium and small cigars (among other products); it also banned the sale of e-cigs to individuals under 18.
In a press statement, Health and Human Services secretary Sylvia Burwell said, “We have more to do to help protect Americans from the dangers of tobacco and nicotine, especially our youth.” She said that while cigarette smoking among those under 18 has fallen, the use of other nicotine products has taken a drastic leap.
The Vape Debate
No matter where you turn, the vape debate is conflicting. With hundreds of brands and thousands of flavours, the smoke-free, tobacco-free substitute is either hailed as a successful harm reduction tool or a looming public health threat. As with anything, the importance of establishing who is behind any research, statements, and articles can never be underestimated — but it’s safe to assume that the electronic devices are less damaging to smokers than conventional cigarettes.
“Some harm from sustained exposure to low levels of toxins over many years may yet emerge, but the magnitude of these risks relative to those of sustained tobacco smoking is likely to be small,” the Royal College of Physicians wrote.
The only thing for sure so far is that evidence is limited regarding the long-term effects of e-cigs. At the same time, it remains to be seen whether they help people to give up smoking altogether, or how they will affect the use of other tobacco products.
While anti-tobacco groups have welcomed the FDA ruling as a step forward, e-cig advocates warn it could lead to the end of small businesses. Within two years, companies must submit premarket tobacco application papers with the FDA at a whopping estimated cost of $1 million or more for each flavour, nicotine strength, and device. Once applications are submitted, there is no guarantee they will get the green light.
Unsurprisingly, the crackdown means the increasingly popular market is likely to undergo significant changes that will include price hikes, reduced choice, more research, and the potential of an emerging black market as prohibition drives vaping underground.
This article (The Government Just Declared War on Vaping) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: micadew. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.
From theantimedia.org Team
Here’s the fraud of the State in action.
It seems that the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment sent out a letter to parents demanding that those who have not vaccinated their children register them on a state website under requirement by law… the only problem is that there is no such law.
The agency has apologized, claiming the letter was sent out by mistake, but their intent was revealed anyway.
A law was proposed to require a “yellow star” registration process for families who don’t vaccinate… but the law did not make it out of committee. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the bill’s sponsors will give up.
via Off the Grid News:
A number of parents received a letter this month from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which said in the document that parents of unvaccinated children in school would be required to register and exempt their child through a state website.
[…]“My biggest issue is that you are trying to take my child’s information – that you have zero legislative authority to do – to track and to possibly come back to me,” parent Missy Frazier said, according to The Gazette newspaper. “Where does this end, and with whom are you going to share this information?”
It is hardly surprising that the school district is being accused of deliberately spreading the misconception that parents are legally required to comply.
But it certainly looked official when it went out: Here’s an image that was released of the letter:
That is already that standard line with childhood vaccines – creating the impression that they are required, when freedom over medical injections should be a personal decision protected by constitutional freedoms.
“I find it curious that the House has already killed 1164, whereas the health department has already implemented the provisions of 1164 in law on their website stating that by July 1, parents will be required to register online,” Lundberg said. “This online registration system is in complete violation of current statute. They don’t have the authority to require an online registration.”
“They want to populate the vaccine registry and they want to know exactly who’s exempting from which vaccines, where they live and I think it’s a harassment technique,” Theresa Wrangham of the National Vaccine Information Center told a Denver TV station.
Demanding data from people who opt out of any program in this country is akin to discriminating against them and allowing them to be targeted and tracked – and it is dangerous civil liberties, particularly as threats against non-vaccinating families is nothing new.
In particular, government agencies in general seem very disconcerted by the level of independence and rebellion by anti-vaxxers – there is every reason to think that they fear the herd will be spooked, and they could lose control over the masses.
When you consider that non-vaccinating parents are frequently treated as second-class citizens and targeted with misplaced anger about the spread of disease, it is not surprising that this law is being required – as California and other states have stepped up their pro-vaccine rhetoric and used the power of state mandates to pimp for Big Pharma.
Read More:
Parents to be Penalized Thousands for Not Vaccinating Kids: “No Jab, No Pay Policy”
Measles Police State: “Parents who do not vaccinate their children should go to jail”
Social Services To Family: ‘Get Flu Shots Or We’re Taking Your Baby’
SHTFplan and Mac Slavo www.shtfplan.com
Op-ed by Claire Bernish
April 25, 2016
(ANTIMEDIA) Supporting an anti-establishment candidate, as the 2016 election cycle has thus proven, at best amounts to little more than a maddening exercise in futility. Yet, droves continue flocking to the polls, ignoring that fixing a corrupt, authoritarian system by validating it through participating in its carrot-on-a-string illusion will somehow — this time — all work out for the greater good.
Though participation through voting might offer the feeling of power and control — as well as comfort in the illusion — the establishment maintains a thorough stranglehold on the current system, by design. If you’re still unconvinced, consider the evidence thus far — some blatant, some subtle — found in virtually every primary and caucus this year.
Iowa
To grasp how arbitrarily the popular vote can be manipulated to fit the establishment’s intended outcome, the Iowa caucus would be a good place to start. As if insufficiently trained volunteer staff, voter confusion, inadequate voter registration forms, and general disorganization weren’t telling in themselves, in multiple locations the awarding of delegates came down to coin tosses — literally.
While described as “the closest Democratic caucus in Iowa history” by the state’s Democratic Party, according to Salon, apparently the same Party felt the need to give Hillary Clinton an advantageous edge. One of Bernie Sanders’ delegates was sneakily awarded to Clinton amidst the confusion, but the Iowa Democratic Party didn’t bother to inform the precinct secretary it had done so. It then refused, despite the somewhat suspect happenings, to perform an audit.
“What happened Monday night at the caucuses was a debacle, period,” The Des Moines Register penned in an editorial afterward. “Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy, and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy.”
Nevada
Though Nevada didn’t have to resort to its deck-of-cards method to figure the awarding of delegates — as Iowa had done with its coin tosses — that didn’t stop anecdotal picture and video evidence from proving rampant issues and possible fraud.
Inexcusably hours-long lines, a lack of paper ballots, and poorly trained elections workers meant general disenfranchisement pervaded caucus locations. The situation so outraged voters, it was characterized a “fiasco.” Those who did manage to procure a ballot discovered Clinton propaganda in plain sight; though electioneering is prohibited at polling locations, one Reddit user posted a photo of a sign-in sheet emblazoned with the Hillary for Nevada logo at the top. Asked for an explanation, the poll worker handing out the not-at-all neutral sign-in claimed it was “for the democratic party,” US Uncut reported.
Worse, a Twitter user discovered Hillary supporters allowed to caucus without registering, to which a precinct volunteer offered the rather effrontery explanation that they’d be permitted to register after casting a ballot — and it was all captured on video.
Worse still, another Reddit user claimed a poll volunteer registering new Democratic voters automatically marked them as favoring Clinton — and not only seemed stubbornly hesitant to correct the error, but later appeared working for the “Hillary group’s tables.”
Chaos in the Republican caucus mirrored that in the Democratic event, including reports of ballot mismanagement; one was allowed to fall to the floor and was ripped up by a volunteer unsure of its validity. Another witness tweeted “some guy voted for trump twice.” Caucus volunteers, who are required to forego campaign gear, sported Trump paraphernalia and, as another Twitter user claimed, were “Actively bullying folks. Not checking IDs.”
Super Tuesday
Super Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses offered no relief to the election madness, as Colorado and Massachusetts, in particular, similarly devolved into messy embarrassments.
Polling sites for the Democratic caucus in Colorado seemed to arbitrarily switch locations, voters were turned away upon arrival, volunteers were unprepared, and, in one case, a private residence intended to be a caucus location met voters with a locked door.
So marred by troubles was the situation in Colorado, one Twitter user asserted, “I honestly cannot say enough negative things about the caucus system. Disorganized, undemocratic, just generally bad. Primary please!” Another voter summarily tweeted, “The caucus process in Colorado is bullshit!” Indeed, after the debacle, swaths of voters called for a return to the primary system, which had been in place until 2002.
Massachusetts saw an appearance by Bill Clinton, who took advantage of the opportunity to electioneer for Hillary, both inside and outside polling locations in a likely illegal violation of state law. So egregious and unusual was the situation, Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin told the New York Times his office “had to remind some of our poll workers that even a president can’t go inside and work a polling place. He can go in, but he can’t approach voters.”
A petition created afterward calling for Bill Clinton’s arrest and prosecution has since garnered over 127,000 signatures.
While not fraudulent, the Republican Party garnered its own firestorm of criticism by eliminating the popular vote from the nominating process — much to the ire of Trump supporters. As the Denver Post explained:
“Colorado GOP leaders canceled the party’s presidential straw poll in August to avoid binding its delegates to a candidate who may not survive until the Republican National Convention in July.
“Instead, Republicans selected national delegates through the caucus process, a move that put the election of national delegates in the hands of party insiders and activists — leaving roughly 90 percent of the more than 1 million Republican voters on the sidelines.”
“The people of Colorado,” Trump, in part, proclaimed afterward on Twitter, “had their vote taken away from them by the phony politicians.” Later, Trump expounded further, declaring in an interview, “The system is rigged. It’s crooked.”
To wit, the Colorado GOP hubristically boasted on Twitter, “We did it. #NeverTrump” — but likely realized the potentially damning repercussions of its candor and swiftly deleted the tweet.
Arizona
“We’ve received complaints throughout the whole day of lifelong Democrats showing up to the polls and being told they are either independent or have no party affiliations,” stated Arizona Democratic Party spokesman Enrique Gutierrez, according to the Phoenix New Times.
Though locations across Arizona experienced massive voter turnout — which, as in many states before, overwhelmed grievously unprepared volunteers — Maricopa County, home of Phoenix, reported average wait times of up to 90 minutes. Long waits had been anticipated, to an extent, as Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell had drastically cut the total number of polling places from 200 four years ago to just 60 — questionably citing expected low voter turnout for the reduction.
To grasp the magnitude of difficulty this presented, one person tweeted, “Most counties I surveyed had enough polls for 2.5K or fewer voters per site. Maricopa County? 20,833 voters per polling site.” A local NBC affiliate reporter also noted on Twitter:
“Consider: 2012 primary had 300,000 voters and 200 polling places. 2016 primary has estimated 800,000 voters at 60 polling places.”
In predominantly Latino neighborhoods, that consolidation of polling sites was exponentially magnified — so few polling sites were available to Phoenix’ nearly 41 percent Latino population, even politicians publicly rebuked Purcell’s cuts.
“In my district, there is only one polling place,” Democratic State Senator Martin Quezada noted in a written statement, cited by AZCentral.com. “In my neighboring district, LD 30, there are no polling places.”
New York
In what could only be dubbed a farce, so copious were the complaints lodged about the New York City primary, city Comptroller Scott Stringer announced the Board of Elections would be the subject of an audit — hours before the close of polling. In fact, before voting even commenced, over 126,000 voters had been wholly purged from the records.
Diplomatically describing “widespread reports of poll site problems and irregularities,” Stringer wrote in a letter to New York City Board of Elections (BOE) Director Michael J. Ryan:
“Voters across the city have complained about poll workers erroneously redirecting them to different poll sites, poll workers unable to operate voting machines, poll workers unable to produce the correct party ballot for an individual voter, and poll workers giving conflicting information.
“Of particular concern are numerous allegations of widespread removal of eligible voters from voter-registration rolls, as well as instances of incorrect party affiliations on individual registration records. These errors have conspired to bar first time and longtime voters from exercising their fundamental democratic right.”
Mayor Bill de Blasio swiftly backed the call for an audit, and despite repeated denials from Ryan any major issues had tarnished the day, State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman claimed his office had received “by far the largest volume of complaints” from any election since 2011, according to Politico. Both the comptroller’s and attorney general’s offices began investigations following the debacle.
A top official for the NYC BOE has since been suspended without pay and an internal investigation has been launched over discrepancies in voter records and purging of voter rolls in Brooklyn.
✱✱✱
This list is woefully incomplete — Ohio is now investigating its primary, and Sanders managed to lose Wyoming, despite winning by a margin of 12 percent; this article didn’t even delve into superdelegates. Even so, the pattern of suspicious activity before, during, and after elections presents clear evidence many have not been willing to admit.
Your vote — if you’re able to jump enough hurdles to cast it — doesn’t matter. But worst of all, this farce of an election simply amounts to a theater of illusion, designed to distract people who might otherwise realize the change they seek through politicians could best be implemented by all of us, now, without needing to validate the very system of our modern-day enslavement.
This article (Here’s A Rundown of Election Fraud in the 2016 Presidential Race So Far) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.
From theantimedia.org Team
Claire Bernish
April 22, 2016
(ANTIMEDIA) Fascism doesn’t often sweep in overnight and take over some hapless nation’s government; rather, it gradually seeps into the cultural fabric — as is quietly taking place all around the globe, evidenced by an upsurge in sales of riot equipment that has gone largely unnoticed.
A new report from analysts with industry research group, Sandler Research, forecasts the Global Riot Control System Market for the next four years — but beyond a burgeoning market to parallel the expanding global police state, it appears world governments are also keenly aware of civilian discontent. Sandler predicts the market will have an annual growth of 3.5 percent, and makes a telling juxtaposition, emphases added, involving the United States:
“Law enforcement agencies around the world are the biggest market for riot control systems. This market is expected to generate revenues of over USD 3.5 billion by the end of 2020. Countries such as the U.S., Iran, Egypt, Russia, China, and Thailand have started procuring riot control equipment and are investing heavily in [non-lethal weapons]. Moreover, special vehicles that are equipped with water cannon and reservoirs have been designed for security personnel, for use in areas of conflict to handle large crowds and demonstration. Demand for such equipment is expected to rise during the next few years.”
Note the last sentence in its truncated time frame.
Specifically, the analysts continue:
“In North America, the prominent markets are Canada and the U.S. and law enforcement agencies in these nations are best equipped with the upgraded weapons. The militarization of the police department and other law enforcement agencies in the Americas has encouraged the use of advanced riot control equipment.”
While swaths of the country debate the finer points of which lesser evil should take the helm of the corporate plutocracy, various U.S. law enforcement agencies have been gearing up for the virtually inevitable unrest both during and following those elections.
Militarized police forces have become de rigueur, even in the nation’s smallest towns — but arming law enforcement with the weapons of war, rather than protecting civilians, has birthed a chasm of distrust and animosity on both sides. It isn’t as if this equipment is being produced by a marketplace intent on keeping civilians safe from an ostensible outside threat.
As the report, which does not offer a breakdown of specific agencies it might be referring to (though may in its body which can be purchased for $2,500 here), definitively states:
“Law enforcement agencies use riot control systems to maintain the public order and safety and to enforce laws. They are used to disperse, control, and arrest people involved in riots and protests. Riot control systems include lethal and non-lethal weapons (NWLs), body-worn cameras, armored vehicles, and communications systems.”
As if released in conjunction with one another, a report by Lloyd’s intones the necessity of preparedness as mass civil unrest can not only spark without prior warning, but flare outward, unpredictably — what the insurer calls “Political Violence Contagion.” According to the report, instances of political violence “contagion (pandemics) have become more frequent, and the contagion effect ever more rapid and impactful.”
Considering massive worldwide demonstrations in the U.S. and elsewhere — as people finally grasp how corrupt governments actually are — it becomes apparent in these reports the politicians and their enforcement agencies comprehend the greatest threat to their power. As caucuses and primaries fall into chaos — and the City of Cleveland gears up for the Republican National Convention — voters and nonvoters alike harbor greater disillusionment than ever before.
Cleveland, whose police are currently under federal oversight following a Department of Justice probe that found a general pattern of brutality, plans to spend around $20 million to beef up security measures for the RNC. While part of the sum will focus on training, personnel expenditures, and the like, Vox reported 40 percent will be earmarked for “equipment and supplies” — including, in part, 2,000 sets of full-body riot gear. Additionally, if not ominously, the city “has put out bids for, among other things, 24 sets of ballistic body armor, 300 patrol bikes, and more than 3.7 miles of interlocking steel barriers, all of which can be used to curtail protestors,” according to Vox.
Together, the reports paint a dire prediction — not as much for its illustration of a world in chaos, but for its intimation authoritarian actors may act aggressively to quash even positive and peaceful change by the rest of us.
This article (New Report Proves US Law Enforcement Preparing for Rioting on a National Scale) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.
From theantimedia.org Team
America’s proud moniker of ‘Leader of the Free World’ is slipping fast into the recesses of increasingly authoritarian and secretive government.
The World Press Freedom Index, issued by the Watchdog group Reporters Without Borders, ranked the United States at a dismal No. 41 out of 180 countries – putting it just barely in the top quarter of nations, which itself was actually an ‘improvement’ over the past year.
That is a far cry from the perceptions that most Americans have cherished, and politicians have so frequently touted in televised speeches.
The U.S. has lost a lot of ground in such rankings over the course of the past several years of repression in the post-9/11 world and in particular with the clamp down and persecution of whistleblowers, and the journalists who enable them.
According to NPR:
The U.S. is ranked 41 out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index, which measures the “level of freedom of information in 180 countries.”
Citing the U.S. government’s “war on whistleblowers who leak information about its surveillance activities, spying and foreign operations, especially those linked to counter-terrorism,” and the country’s lack of a “shield law” that would allow journalists to protect confidential sources, the report takes a decidedly negative view of U.S. press freedom.
[…] as NPR’s Sam Sanders has reported:
“[Obama’s] Justice Department has cracked down on reporters in an effort to prevent leaks; it also set a new record for withholding access to government files under the Freedom of Information Act (despite calling for a “new era of openness” on his first day in office);
Basically, every major Western democracy ranked ahead of the U.S. in freedoms, and the overall trend is in decline, and a lack of respect for the rights of photographers, citizen journalists and even credentialed press – particularly when asking inconvenient questions with real substance.
[…] The group’s U.S. Director Delphine Halgand says in the report that there is still “room for improvement in the country of the First Amendment.”
The reaction to leaks by Edward Snowden, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange have epitomized this, but there have been many other whistleblowers who were ignored and mistreated.
Former CBS investigative reporter Sheryl Attkisson was harassed by a host of alphabet agencies who hacked her computer and let it be known that her reports on the scandals of the Obama Administration would not be welcomed. Michael Snyder wrote:
Let’s review what has happened to former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson. She was an award-winning journalist for more than thirty years, but that didn’t stop the Obama administration from systematically harassing her. In her new book entitled Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington, she makes some extremely startling claims. She believes that the harassment and intimidation that she experienced were the direct result of her determination to get to the truth about Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the green energy scandals and Obamacare. The following are some of the main points that she has been sharing with the media in recent weeks…
-While she was working at CBS News her computers were hacked by the government, her keystrokes were monitored and potentially incriminating classified material was planted on her hard drive.
There are many more cases, but most of them never make the news, and some are difficult to confirm or report on.
The point is that our rights are slipping away, and the system itself is becoming more entrenched with corruption, and more secretive by the day.
Moreover, it has become sophisticated about its branding and image – Obama appears jovial and friendly towards the ideas of democracy, but in substance his administration has not respected the First Amendment, and obviously not the Second, nor the Fourth Amendment, or due process.
Of course, the most dangerous agencies, like the NSA and CIA, stand above any president, and carry on actions that undermine the rights of Americans as a matter of course, and readily use national security as a pretext to steamroll over the Bill of Rights whenever they get the chance.
Things will only get worse from here unless the core issues are dealt with.
Read more:
National Guard Whistleblower: “Doomsday Preppers Will Be Treated As Terrorists”
When Is It OK To Tell The Truth In America?
SHTFplan and Mac Slavo www.shtfplan.com
Nick Bernabe
April 8, 2016
(ANTIMEDIA) Philadelphia, PA — Hillary Clinton has been performing well with minorities so far in the 2016 Democratic primary, but that could soon be changing. Bill Clinton may have just severely damaged the former secretary of state’s reputation among African Americans by committing a major gaffe — one he is now “almost” apologizing for.
At a campaign stop in Philadelphia on Thursday, Bill was interrupted by protesters — a common theme this presidential election. The protesters, mostly young black Americans, interrupted Bill’s speech to air their grievances about his sweeping 1994 crime bill — the largest ever passed. The bill, sold as a way to effectively fight inner-city crime, actually helped expand an already developing trend of mass incarceration that had an overwhelmingly negative impact of the black community.
Signs reading “Clinton Crime Bill destroyed our community,” and “Hillary is a murderer” could be seen waving in the audience as Bill was interrupted Thursday. He caused a major backlash in the the African-American community when he decided to comment on the people who were incarcerated because of his crime bill.
“I don’t know how you would describe the gang leaders who got 13-year-olds hopped up on crack and sent them out in the streets to murder other African-American children.“Maybe you thought they were good citizens…You are defending the people who kill the lives you say matter. Tell the truth. You are defending the people who cause young people to go out and take guns,” he said at the campaign event.
Hillary Clinton was a major supporter of her husband’s crime bill when she was First Lady. As we reported previously:
“Hillary Clinton lobbied Congress to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Bill Clinton signed the act into law in 1994… The largest crime bill in history, it provided $9.7 billion in prison funding. From 1992 to 2000, the amount of prisoners in the U.S. increased almost 60%.”
In another recent incident, Hillary came under scrutiny for alluding to young black males as “super-predators” in a speech in 1996. She, like Bill, has been confronted by activists for her contribution to the nation’s mass incarceration problem.
Hillary is facing eroding support from the Latino community, as well. Recent polling shows her previous popularity among this key demographic has evaporated — leaving Bernie Sanders with a slight lead of 48% to Clinton’s 47% in Latino support.
Ironically, though he defends it now, Clinton previously disowned the crime bill, admitting in an interview with CNN last year that it had “too wide a net” that resulted in “too many people in prison.”
Regardless, Hillary Clinton is still raking in major cash from the private prison industry despite her haunting past with mass incarceration.
This article (Bill Clinton May Have Just Cost Hillary the Black Vote) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nick Bernabe and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.
From theantimedia.org Team
AnonWatcher
April 8, 2016
(ANONHQ) A man in an Anonymous mask, who was sitting peacefully, was harangued by police and arrested. All caught on camera, bystanders recorded the event while a multitude of witnesses yelled out that he did nothing wrong or illegal. The incident took place in the House Gallery, during the Maricopa County hearing over the suspected election fraud.
Two officers attended the arrest of the man. Although the man in question didn’t have his face concealed by the mask—the mask had been resting on the top of his head—the first arresting officer approached from behind and kicked at him lightly until he left his chair.
Bystanders went to the man’s defense, with several phones filming the event. One bystander even said the arrest was made because the man was sporting an Anonymous mask.
In the video, another bystander accuses the police of choking the man as the officers unduly restrained him while he was quietly sitting between the chairs. Chants of “shame” and “the whole world is watching” were cried as the man was forced to his feet and escorted away.
After the removal of the man, one of the bystanders states: “you promised us if we were silent you wouldn’t remove us.” Officials then began to plead with the crowd. At the end of the video, one official agreed that the man with the mask did nothing wrong.
Janet Higgens, who uploaded one of the videos, stated: “We were at the point of chaos. All brought on by the police. For a man sitting quietly. With dreadlocks. His name is Jonathan S. McRae. He is currently in jail, charged with trespassing and resisting arrest. I disagree. He was harassed, held to the floor for over 5 minutes, and kidnapped. I don’t know if he was injured in the attack.”
“We the people of the United States are tired of this stuff,” another witness yelled as a bystander warned that this would all end up on YouTube.
Arrested for wearing an Anonymous mask…
You can view the long version of the video here.
This Article (Apparently Wearing an Anonymous Mask in America Can Get You Arrested) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: Erik Christensen. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org
From theantimedia.org Team
Josh Mur
March 11, 2016
(ANTIMEDIA) At the age of 18, young American adults are granted the legal right to sign a contract, purchase a firearm, marry, enlist in the military, sit on a jury, and vote. These rights bear a fresh batch of life-changing choices to youth that the law views them capable of making.
California lawmakers, on the other hand, appear to perceive 18-year-olds capable of no such thing. A list of new anti-tobacco bills was passed by the state Assembly on Thursday, among it, a bill that pushes the legal age to purchase cigarettes and other tobacco products from 18 to 21 throughout California. The motion passed with a 46 to 26 vote. Governor Jerry Brown has yet to sign off on them.
In addition to raising the smoking age, the new bills seek to put further restrictions on e-cigarettes and vaporizers. If these new laws are put into effect, California will become the second state after Hawaii to raise the smoking age. However, a handful of cities ─ San Francisco and New York being the largest ─ have adopted the same new regulation.
As stated earlier, 18-year-olds in America are granted a set of rights, as they are perceived to be ─ or at least capable of being ─ responsible adults worthy of making very serious and/or life-changing decisions. So let’s ask the obvious question here:
How is one seen as competent and responsible enough to join the ranks of the military to risk their lives for the agenda of corrupt power elites, sign a legal contract that could bind them to harmful terms and conditions, choose the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, have a voice in what laws are passed, and who our political leaders are, and sit on a jury with the fate of a peer in the hands of their judgement, but somehow not seen as sufficiently “adult” enough to buy a pack of cigarettes or enjoy a cold beer?
Having gained the support of nearly all of the Democratic party, the bill was largely opposed by Republican lawmakers.
“I don’t smoke. I don’t encourage my children to,” said Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine. “But they’re adults, and it’s our job to treat our citizens as adults, not to nanny them.”
Those in support of the bill argue that raising the smoking age to 21 will significantly reduce smoking, as an approximate 95% of smokers pick up the habit before age 21. In addition, an analysis published in March 2015 suggests raising the smoking age to 21 could possibly reduce smoking by about 12% within a decade, along with saving around 273,000 lives from lung cancer and premature deaths.
While good intentions may be found underneath these bills, it does not change the fact that they directly stifle the freedom of the American adult. One should not have a say in a presidential election if they cannot be seen as capable of choosing whether or not to smoke cigarettes. One should not have the option to carry an assault rifle and risk their life for government policy if one is not considered responsible enough to have a drink.
It would appear such basic principles are much more difficult to grasp than they seem.
This article (California Legislature Votes to Ban Some Adults From Buying Cigarettes) is an opinion editorial (OP-ED). The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of Anti-Media. This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Josh Mur and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.
From theantimedia.org Team
Jake Anderson
March 9, 2016
(ANTIMEDIA) Private genetic databases like 23andMe and Ancestry.com are increasingly used by people for genealogy tracing and medical diagnostic tests. With a million customers each, the two companies receive a great deal of attention from privacy advocates, who for years warned the government would eventually seek access to citizens’ DNA in order to assist with law enforcement.
They were right, and yet another conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact…
It turns out both the FBI and local law enforcement departments routinely seek DNA samples from these companies for familial DNA searches. In fact, according to Ancestry.com’s recently released transparency report, the company received 14 law enforcement requests in 2015. They provided customers’ genetic information in 13 of those cases.
A similar, recently released report by 23andMe discloses there were four law enforcement requests to the company in 2015.
The issue has received increased attention in part because of a frightening article by Wired. The story recounted the legal imbroglio filmmaker Michael Usry endured after Idaho Falls police “matched 34 of 35 alleles” from a crime scene to Usry’s father’s DNA.
Years earlier, his father had donated some DNA to a genealogy project funded by his Mormon church. Ancestry.com purchased the project and made the database of samples publicly available. Though Idaho Falls police ultimately concluded Usry was not involved in the murder of Angie Dodge, they had been able to obtain a search warrant for Michael’s cheek cells based on the sample they found online.
Ancestry.com didn’t realize police would be able to use their information to conduct genetic searches, but as they would soon learn, law enforcement authorities around the country are looking to expand their ability to conduct DNA searches beyond the FBI’s current national genetic database.
Anti-Media reached out to Ancestry.com for more information regarding how the company responds to national security requests. They referred to their transparency report, which states:
“As of December 31, 2015, Ancestry has never received a classified request pursuant to the national security laws of the United States or any other country. In other words, Ancestry has not received a National Security Letter or a request under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”
Could this change in the wake of a terrorist attack? In the midst of the increasingly rancorous debate over civil liberties and national defense — epitomized by the FBI’s court case against Apple — it doesn’t seem like too big of a stretch, given the right political climate, to imagine private DNA databases being turned over to Homeland Security.
In Kuwait, citizens must submit their DNA to a government database to assist with criminal cases. Some actually argue the United States should have a similar mandatory DNA database, though this seems unlikely to gain widespread support given the backlash over electronic privacy violations in the aftermath of controversial NSA surveillance programs.
For now, the debate revolves around whether the United States government and local law enforcement should have the legal authority to access private DNA databases while investigating crimes. There hasn’t been a major Supreme Court ruling on this issue, so for the time being, companies like 23andMe and Ancestry.com will have to deal with police requests on a case-by-case basis.
As 23andMe’s first privacy officer Kate Black has stated:
“In the event we are required by law to make a disclosure, we will notify the affected customer through the contact information provided to us, unless doing so would violate the law or a court order.”
This article (The iPhone Is Just the Beginning: FBI Already Accessing Your DNA) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Image credit: thierry ehrmann. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.
From theantimedia.org Team
Jake Anderson
February 24, 2016
(ANTIMEDIA) The FBI versus Apple Inc. An unstoppable force meets an immovable object — the feverish momentum of American technocracy accelerating into the cavernous Orwellian entrenchment of the surveillance state. You thought the patent wars were intense? The ‘Battle of the Backdoor’ pits one of America’s most monolithic tech conglomerates against the Department of Justice and, ultimately, the interests of the national security state. And this case is likely only the opening salvo in what will be a decades-long ideological war between tech privacy advocates and the federal government.
On its face, the case boils down to a single locked and encrypted iPhone 5S, used by radical jihadist Syed Rizwan Farook before he and his wide Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people in San Bernardino on December 2nd. The DOJ wants Apple to build a backdoor into the device so that it can bypass the company’s state of the art encryption apparatus and access information and evidence related to the case.
From theantimedia.org Team
Derrick Broze
February 24, 2016
(ANTIMEDIA) Philadelphia, PA — A federal appeals court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has ruled that filming the police without a specific challenge or criticism is not constitutionally protected.
The cases of Fields v. City of Philadelphia, and Geraci v. City of Philadelphia involve two different incidents where individuals were arrested for filming the police. Richard Fields, a Temple University student, was arrested after stopping to take a picture of a large group of police outside a house party. Amanda Geraci, a legal observer with CopWatch Berkeley, attended a large protest against fracking in September 2012 and was arrested while filming the arrest of another protester. [Read more…]
From theantimedia.org Team