REAL NEWS : July 30, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : July 30, 2012

================================================================================================

 The Real Microchip Controversy

From Unexplainable.Net

 By David Martinez – July 28, 2012

This past week, media outlets around the internet were reporting that in the Obama Health Care Bill was a requirement that all US citizens and babies were to receive a RFID (radio frequency identification) microchip or Medchip implanted in them by 2013.

The majority of these reports cite a reference to H.R. 3200 that establishes a “National Medical Device Registry” and a “class II device that is implantable, life supporting, or life sustaining.”

These devices would then be used to harbor an individual’s identification and health information.

This sent the online world into a frenzy with headlines popping up that read “Human Bugging Becomes Reality” to “The Mark of the Beast is Upon Us.”

But there was one problem. That bill never passed.

That bill was an early generation of the bill that did pass, which is H.R. 3590.

So while the language has changed over the course since its inception, there are no plans for American citizens to line up and receive microchips injections as if they were getting their annual flu shot.

Instead the federal government could only collect data pertaining to medical devices, not the person.

But like all bills and laws the terminology of the contents are not only vague but also quite overwhelming to someone that doesn’t have a degree in law or some higher schooling.

But to get an understanding of the difference between H.R. 3200 and H.R. 3590, here’s an example.

Had H.R. 3200 passed, every American could or would be implanted with an RFID microchip that contains your identification and health information.

If you did not have said microchip, receiving medical attention would be extremely difficult because health providers would state that you would have to have it.

But like all technology it could be used for or against you.

These microchips, in theory, could also pinpoint your location or maybe even turn into a bugging device to find out what you shouldn’t be doing.

And if the Patriot Act has taught us anything, it’s that to protect the country, the government can use whatever means necessary.

Even if that means using a microchip implanted in your body against you.

But H.R. 3590 passed.

This made sure that the Secretary of Health and Human Services would only collect data from medical devices, such as pacemakers, and not collect data from people.

But even though it looks like Big Brother has been thwarted, the door for this reality might have been just left wide open.

Legal analysts state that the Secretary of Health and Human Services could argue that for the proper collection of data of medical devices they would also have to track the health and lifestyle of everyone with these medical devices.

To make sure that the device is working properly it would then be necessary to monitor every aspect of a person’s life to rule out the chance that the device has been tampered with.

This would mean that collection of data would have to not only extend to the device itself but to the person themselves or even the people around them. And this creates a loophole that will make it legal to track an individual and document there activities.

The need for data collection has its ups and downs.

Yes, we need it to take care of ourselves but also to take care of the people we care about.

But at what cost?

Having the government know every move a person makes and attribute it to collecting data for a medical device is not only unlawful but also mischievous.

It goes against our Fourth Amendment right to privacy and illegal search and seizures.

But would you gamble on your health or your child’s health if you were to have one of these medical devices?

For the majority of us, we wouldn’t.

Then the government can monitor and track us all they want as long as we can keep the ones we care about safe.

=========================================

{XANIEL’S NOTE : TO DAVID MARTINEZ ,

Although I agree with almost all of what you say here, I highly disagree with your last sentence.

The only true way to keep our children safe, medical or otherwise, is to keep the Government far, far away from them.

Because let’s face it, the only true threat to our children and the rest of us,

is our Government as it stands today, as you basically pointed out all through your post.

I, myself,  make NO EXCEPTIONS, medical, children or otherwise !

And I have that right as does everyone else,

no matter how many unconstitutional laws they may pass against ‘ WE THE PEOPLE ‘  }~~~Xaniel777

END

 

 

 

 

 

 

FILMING POLICE

 

From Liberty Fight

By Martin Hill 
LibertyFight.com
February 25, 2012

The issue of filming police officers in the United States has become an extremely contentious one.

Despite the fact that we have freedom of the press and the God-given natural rights we are endowed with, police nationwide are telling people that it is illegal to film police.

Some states have even tried to use “wiretapping laws” to prosecute people who record audio of police.

This is a gross mis-use and abuse of legitimate wiretapping laws, which were meant to cover telephone conversations which require consent of both parties.

Police often commit crimes against citizens, in public and private. Officers often beat, taze, and even rape and kill innocent people.

They conduct illegal searches, plant evidence, make up phony charges, seize and destroy people’s cell phones and cameras, and then lie in court about all of it.

Police supervisors will then often coerce or intimidate people into not filing formal complainst against officers.

Many innocent people who film police and police abuses are then arrested, charged, and left to fight phony charges.

Along with this comes the monetary expense, loss of freedom, and stress that often accompanies facing criminal charges.

We should not stand for this.

We need to exercise our rights, or we will lose them.

======================================

 For those of you who may be confused about our right to film on-duty police officers,

here is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division dated May 14, 2012 outlining the “individuals’ right to record “police activity”: 
http://www.pixiq.com/sites/default/files/united_states_letter_re_photography_5_14_2012_0.pdf

ALSO:

U.S. Department of Justice Slaps Baltimore Police Over Right to Record Issue 5/16/12 
http://www.pixiq.com/article/department-of-justice-slaps-baltimore-pd

First Circuit Court of Appeals Rules that Citizens Can Videotape Police 
http://www.dailytech.com/First+Circuit+Court+of+Appeals+Rules+that+Citizens+Can+Videotape+Police/article22587.htm

“On Friday, August 26, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is New England’s highest federal court just below the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that citizens are allowed to videotape law officials while they conduct official duties.”

Federal Courts Rule it is Not Illegal to Film Police 9/1/11
http://technorati.com/technology/article/federal-courts-rule-it-is-not/

“This specific case in question was Simon Glik vs.The City of Boston (and several police officers), in which a teenage Simon Gilk was arrested after videotaping Boston Police abusing a homeless man. While Mr. Gilk was not interfering with the police, he was arrested on wiretapping charges.”

Appeals Court Rules It Is Not Illegal To Film Police
http://www.infowars.com/appeals-court-rules-it-is-not-illegal-to-film-police/

“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity].,” said the Court.

“Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs,” stated the ruling, adding that this has been the case all along, and that the right to film police officers is not just restricted to the press.

Here is the text of the Glik ruling:
http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5618/federal-court-rules-videotaping-police-is-a-first-amendment-right/

For those of you pushing the propaganda that filming police is “wiretapping”, that is bogus too:

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Illinois’ Eavesdropping Law As Likely Violating The First Amendment
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120509/16490418853/federal-appeals-court-rejects-illinois-eavesdropping-law-as-likely-violating-first-amendment.shtml

====================================================

Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate.

His work has been featured on LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened, Infowars, PrisonPlanet, National Motorists Association, WorldNetDaily, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 Los Angeles, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI 640, The Press Enterprise, Antiwar.com, IamtheWitness.com, FreedomsPhoenix, Rense, BlackBoxVoting, and many others.

Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com

END

 

 

 

 

 

 

These Streets are Watching (Full Version)

From Underground Documentaries

July 19, 2012

These Streets are Watching is a 50 minute video on police accountability in three communities; Denver, Cincinnati and Berkeley. 

The video documents incidents of possible police brutality.  Independent filmmaker, Jacob Crawford, weaves three cities responses to police brutality into a single tale of community empowerment and direct action.

The film conveys basic legal concepts that can provide practical help to groups and individuals seeking an understanding of their rights when dealing with police.

The film is divided into sections that explain citizen’s basic rights, tactics for documenting police activity and ideas for further action and organizing.

END

 

 

 

 

 

 

Syria: Washington’s Latest War Crime

 

From Veterans News Now

by Paul Craig Roberts

Posted by Editor – July 26, 2012

Washington’s cover for its violent overthrow of other governments is always moralistic verbiage. First the target is demonized, and then Washington’s naked aggression is described as “bringing freedom and democracy,” “overthrowing a brutal dictator,” “protecting women’s rights.” Any assortment of cant words and phrases seems to work.

The funeral of former Syrian Defence Minister General Hassan Ali Turkmani, Defence Minister Daoud Rajha and Assef Shawkat, the brother-in-law of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, at the unknown soldier monument in Damascus July 20, 2012 in this handout photograph released by Syria’s national news agency SANA.

One wonders what Syrians are thinking as “rebels” vowing to “free Syria” take the country down the same road to destruction as “rebels” in Libya.

Libya, under Gaddafi a well run country whose oil revenues were shared with the Libyan people instead of monopolized by a princely class as in Saudi Arabia, now has no government and is in disarray with contending factions vying for power.

Just as no one knew who the Libyan “rebels” were, with elements of al Qaeda reportedly among them, no one knows who the Syrian “rebels” are, or indeed if they are even rebels (Antiwar.com).

Some “rebels” appear to be bandit groups who seize the opportunity to loot and to rape and set themselves up as the governments of villages and towns. Others appear to be al Qaeda. (Antiwar.com)

Bomb killed Syrian Defence Minister, General Daoud Rajha. AFP

The fact that the “rebels” are armed is an indication of interference from outside.

There have been reports that Washington has ordered its Saudi and Bahrain puppet governments to supply the “rebels” with military weaponry.

Some suspect that the explosion that killed the Syrian Defense Minister and the head of the government’s crisis operations was not the work of a suicide bomber but the work of a US drone or missile reminiscent of Washington’s failed attempts to murder Saddam Hussein.

Regardless, Washington regarded the terror attack as a success, declaring that it showed the rebels were gaining “real momentum” and called on the Syrian government to respond to the attack by resigning. (reuters.com)

The following is from a leaked intelligence document describing a previous Western terrorist intervention in Syria just in case any reader is so naive as to think that “our government would never do that.”

“In order to facilitate the action of liberative (sic) forces, …a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. …[to] be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention, …

Once a political decision has been reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals. …Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus …

Further: a “necessary degree of fear .. frontier incidents and (staged) border clashes”, would “provide a pretext for intervention… the CIA and SIS [MI6] should use … capabilities in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.” (Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957) (globalreasearch.ca)

Obama has not said why his government is so desperate to overthrow the Syrian government. 

The current president was an eye doctor in London who was brought back to Syria to replace his father, who had passed away, as president of the country.

Washington is reticent about its real motives, which it masks with high-sounding humanitarian rhetoric, but Washington’s motives are transparent.

One motive is to get rid of the Russian naval base in Syria, thus depriving Russia of its only Mediterranean base.

A second motive is to eliminate Syria as a source of arms and support to Hizbullah in order that Israel can succeed in its attempts to occupy southern Lebanon and acquire its water resources.

Hizbullah’s fighters have twice defeated the Israeli military’s attempts to invade and to occupy southern Lebanon.

A third motive is to destroy the unity of Syria with sectarian conflict, as Washington destroyed Libya and Iraq, and leave Syria to waring factions to dismember the country, thus removing another obstacle to Washington’s hegemony.

Syria, a secular Arab state, like Iraq was, is ruled by a political party composed of Alawis, more or less Shia Muslims.

The Alawis comprise about 12% of the Syrian population and are regarded as heretics by the Sunni Muslims who comprise about 74% of the Syrian population.

Thus the orchestrated “uprising” appeals to many Sunnis who see the opportunity to take over. (In Iraq it was a Sunni minority that ruled a Shia majority, and in Syria it is the opposite.)

The divisions among Arabs make Arabs vulnerable to Western interference and rule.

The Sunni-Shia split makes it impossible for an Arab country to unite against an invader or for one Arab country to come to the aid of another.

In 1990 the Shia Syrian government lined up with the US against the Sunni Iraq government in the First Iraq War.

Neither Lawrence of Arabia, Nasser, nor Gaddafi succeeded in creating an Arab consciousness.

Washington’s cover for its violent overthrow of other governments is always moralistic verbiage.

First the target is demonized, and then Washington’s naked aggression is described as “bringing freedom and democracy,” “overthrowing a brutal dictator,” “protecting women’s rights.”

Any assortment of cant words and phrases seems to work.

The administration is flailing away at Russian support for Assad, calculating that losing Russian support might make the Assad regime give up the fight and yield to a negotiated transition.

Hillary Clinton has been especially strident in advocating the overthrow of the Syrian government. 

The silly woman even issued threats to Russia and China for daring to block Washington’s attempt to use a UN resolution as cover for invading Syria.

Washington misrepresents the Syrian government’s resistance to being overthrown as a government conducting terror against its own people.

But Washington had no condemnation for the terror attack, whether its own or that of a suicide bomber, that killed high-level Syrian government officials.

Washington’s double standard prompted the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, to accuse Washington of having “a sinister position.”

Read more

Indeed, Washington does. But what is surprising about Washington’s sinister position after Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan? Undoubtedly, after Syria is overthrown, Washington will move on to Iran.

Russia itself is already being surrounded by US missile bases, and the Russian government has a disloyal and traitorous political opposition financed by American money.

China is confronting a rapid buildup of US air, naval, and troop bases in the Pacific. How long before China’s government has a disloyal opposition financed by Washington?

The hegemon is on the march, but what Syrian Sunnis see is a chance to overthrow the Alawite Shia.

The Syrian Sunnis will ally with Washington despite the fact that Washington overthrew the Iraqi Sunnis.

Few Arabs, it seems, mind being puppets of a foreign regime that hands out billions of dollars.

Washington loosely refers to Syrian President Assad as a “dictator” or “brutal dictator,” but obviously if Assad is a dictator he is not very effective in that role.

Normally, dictators don’t permit an opposition to rise, much less arm itself.

It would be more accurate to say that the ruling party is authoritarian, but the ruling party has introduced elements of democracy with the new constitution.

As Iraq has proved, Arab governments have to be authoritarian if their Sunni and Shia populations are not to be constantly engaged in civil war. Both Bush and Obama claim that Washington brought “freedom and democracy” to Iraq.

However, the ongoing violence in Iraq is as intense or more intense than under the American occupation.

Here are the reports for the last three days:

July 23: “A wave of bomb attacks and shootings in Baghdad and north of the capital has killed at least 107 people. At least 216 were wounded.”

July 24: “A second day of intensified attacks left at least 145 Iraqis killed and 379 more wounded.”

July 25: “Attacks continue across Iraq: 17 killed, 60 wounded.”

This is what Washington did for Iraq.

Far from bringing “freedom and democracy,” Washington brought endless mayhem and death.

And this is precisely what Washington is in the process of bringing to Syria.

Original Source: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/07/26/syria-washingtons-latest-war-crime/

---

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. 

Visit his blog:  Paul Craig Roberts / Institute for Political Economy (IPE)

Read more :

• War On All Fronts

Related Posts:

• U.S. Refines Plan to Remove Assad

• Intense Anti-Assad Propaganda

• Lendman : Syria Roulette

• War On All Fronts

• The Collapsing US Economy and the end of the world

 

END

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former Top IDF Officials Worry that Netanyahu is Bent on an Iran Strike

 

From The Intel Hub

 July 29, 2012

Haaretz
July 29, 2012

ANALYSIS: It looks like Netanyahu and Barak are set on an Iran strike, but some of Israel’s former defense top brass agree that, right now, an attack would do more harm than good.

“I’m terribly confused. For the first time, after many years of experience, I feel I have a better grasp of the calculations that are motivating the enemy than of our own.” Thus an experienced intelligence analyst who spent many years in the inner sanctum of Israel’s security system.

Realities in the Middle East have changed drastically during the past two years, he observed.

It seems that for the first time in a very long time, there is nothing Israel can really do to curb threatening developments – from the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the potential collapse of the Assad regime in Syria.

Yet in one area, Israeli action can have significant, dramatic repercussions, ones that will influence life in the region as a whole – and that area is Iran.

In recent weeks I’ve held discussions with five retired defense establishment officials, each of whom held a top post.

In fact, between them, they held virtually every major command post that one can imagine in the Israel Defense Forces.

The talks were held separately (some of these figures loathe one another, due to disagreements which are personal, not strategic in nature).

The troublesome thing about the conversations was their consistent, uniform tone: All these interlocutors are very worried about what they perceive as the prime minister’s, and the defense minister’s, increasing inclination to attack Iran.

None of the five has publicly voiced opposition to such an attack, nor did they always see eye to eye about specific details of the Iranian issue.

Most of them take exception to the outspoken statements by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet security service head Yuval Diskin, who expressed opposition to oppose bombing Iran under any circumstances (Dagan), and characterized the Netanyahu-Barak position on this subject as being irrational and “messianic” (Diskin).

What unites the five is doubt about the timing: An attack during the next two months, they say, without international backing and in defiance of American preferences, would bring more harm to Israel than good.

Read Entire Article

RELATED ARTICLES :

• Fake ‘Attack Iran’ Story, Distraction from Mossad’s Exposed Spying Program

   

• Israel Likely Behind Bulgaria False Flag

   

• Netanyahu Ties to Romney

   

• Letters From the Underground Mail Bag: Subterranean Labyrinths, Underground Bases, and Hollowed O … AlienDigest.com

END

 

 

 

 

 

 

Numerous Top Bankers Call for Break Up of Giant Banks

 

From Washington’s Blog

Posted on July 27, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog

Banking Titans Call for Break Up of “Too Big to Fail”

The following bankers are calling for the big banks to be broken up:

• Former Citi CEO Sandy Weill

• Former Citi CEO John Reed

• Former Citi chairman Richard Parsons

• Former Merrill Lynch chairman and CEO David Komansky

• Former Morgan Stanley CEO Philip Purcell

• Former managing director of Goldman Sachs – and head of the international analytics group at Bear Stearns in London- Nomi Prins

• Numerous other bankers within the mega-banks (see this, for example)

• Former Natwest and Schroders investment banker, Philip Augar

• The President of the Independent Community Bankers of America, Camden Fine

Top Economists and Financial Experts Agree

It’s not just bankers.

The following top economists and financial experts believe that the economy cannot recover unless the big, insolvent banks are broken up in an orderly fashion:

• Nobel prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz

• Nobel prize-winning economist, Ed Prescott

• Nobel prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman

• Former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan

• Former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker

• Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich

• Dean and professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School, and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, R. Glenn Hubbard

• Former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, Simon Johnson (and see this)

• Former 20-year President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City – currently FDIC Vice Chair – Thomas Hoenig (and see this)

• President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Richard Fisher (and see this)

• President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Thomas Bullard

• Deputy Treasury Secretary, Neal S. Wolin

• The Congressional panel overseeing the bailout (and see this)

• The former head of the FDIC, Sheila Bair

• The head of the Bank of England, Mervyn King

• The Bank of International Settlements (the “Central Banks’ Central Bank”)

• The leading monetary economist and co-author with Milton Friedman of the leading treatise on the Great Depression, Anna Schwartz

• Economics professor and senior regulator during the S & L crisis, William K. Black

• Leading British economist, John Kay

• Economics professor, Nouriel Roubini

• Economist, Marc Faber

• Professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the Chicago Booth School of Business, Luigi Zingales

• Economics professor, Thomas F. Cooley

• Economist Dean Baker

• Economist Arnold Kling

• Chairman of the Commons Treasury, John McFall

Click here for background on why so many top bankers, economists and financial experts say that the big banks should be broken up.

END

 

 

 

 

 

Americans No Longer Trust The Mainstream Media

 

From Alexander Higgins Blog

Posted by Alexander Higgins – July 29, 2012

When it comes to Americans having trust in the mainstream media, the numbers don’t lie and the numbers show an alarming number of people no longer trust the media.

Stay up to date with the latest news :

Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/kr3at

Facebook: http://facebook.com/alexhiggins732

Live TV And Videos: Higgins TV

Website: The Alexander Higgins Blog

Headlines: Real-time News Headlines

Related Posts :

• Former MSNBC Anchor Says MSM News Is Controlled By Advertisers

• ABC News Side Note – Ron Paul Wins 32 of Minnesota’s 40 Delegates

• C-Span Caught Live On Air Claiming Pro Ron Paul Tweets Endorsed Romney

• Politico Rubs Their Fake Delegate Counts In Our Face

• CNN Caught Lying About Delegate Numbers!

• The Real GOP Delegate Map The Media Won’t Show You

• RNC Confirms Ron Paul Will Be Up For Presidential Nomination In Tampa

• RNC Blocking Ron Paul Republicans from Tampa Bay

End

( Fair Use Notice ):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~~~ Xaniel777

©2009/2010/2011/2012Danimartextras