Heavily Vaccinated (80%) Taiwan Experiences Record COVID Infections, Hospitalizations & Deaths

FROM [HERE] and [HERE] Taiwan is also experiencing record numbers of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. While Taiwan is 80.3% fully vaccinated, with one of the highest boost rates worldwide at about 65%, an unprecedented number of SARS-CoV-2 infections surge alongside record fatalities.

Dr Blaylock: COVID Plandemic is 1 of the most manipulated events in history, characterized by a stream of official lies from government, medical associations/boards, media and international agencies

From [HERE] and [HERE] “The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.[3,6,57] We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence.

For the first time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scientifically based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care and “prevention”—including remdesivir, use of respirators and ultimately a series of essentially untested messenger RNA vaccines. For the first time in history medical treatment, protocols are not being formulated based on the experience of the physicians treating the largest number of patients successfully, but rather individuals and bureaucracies that have never treated a single patient—including Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, EcoHealth Alliance, the CDC, WHO, state public health officers and hospital administrators.[23,38]

The media (TV, newspapers, magazines, etc), medical societies, state medical boards and the owners of social media have appointed themselves to be the sole source of information concerning this so-called “pandemic”. Websites have been removed, highly credentialed and experienced clinical doctors and scientific experts in the field of infectious diseases have been demonized, careers have been destroyed and all dissenting information has been labeled “misinformation” and “dangerous lies”, even when sourced from top experts in the fields of virology, infectious diseases, pulmonary critical care, and epidemiology. These blackouts of truth occur even when this information is backed by extensive scientific citations from some of the most qualified medical specialists in the world.[23] Incredibly, even individuals, such as Dr. Michael Yeadon, a retired ex-Chief Scientist, and vice-president for the science division of Pfizer Pharmaceutical company in the UK, who charged the company with making an extremely dangerous vaccine, is ignored and demonized. Further, he, along with other highly qualified scientists have stated that no one should take this vaccine.

Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most cited experts in his field, who has successfully treated over 2000 COVID patients by using a protocol of early treatment (which the so-called experts completely ignored), has been the victim of a particularly vicious assault by those benefiting financially from the vaccines. He has published his results in peer reviewed journals, reporting an 80% reduction in hospitalizations and a 75% reduction in deaths by using early treatment.[44] Despite this, he is under an unrelenting series of attacks by the information controllers, none of which have treated a single patient.

Neither Anthony Fauci, the CDC, WHO nor any medical governmental establishment has ever offered any early treatment other than Tylenol, hydration and call an ambulance once you have difficulty breathing. This is unprecedented in the entire history of medical care as early treatment of infections is critical to saving lives and preventing severe complications. Not only have these medical organizations and federal lapdogs not even suggested early treatment, they attacked anyone who attempted to initiate such treatment with all the weapons at their disposal—loss of license, removal of hospital privileges, shaming, destruction of reputations and even arrest.[2]

A good example of this outrage against freedom of speech and providing informed consent information is the recent suspension by the medical board in Maine of Dr. Meryl Nass’ medical license and the ordering of her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation for prescribing Ivermectin and sharing her expertise in this field.[9,65] I know Dr, Nass personally and can vouch for her integrity, brilliance and dedication to truth. Her scientific credentials are impeccable. This behavior by a medical licensing board is reminiscent of the methodology of the Soviet KGB during the period when dissidents were incarcerated in psychiatric gulags to silence their dissent.”

Read the rest of the article.

How to Remote Control Humans via Injection – Dr Charles Morgan Speaking to Cadets at West Point

From [HERE] Dr. Charles Morgan speaks to cadets and faculty at West Point about a range of topics, including psychology, neurobiology, and the science of humans at war. Dr. Morgan’s neurobiological and forensic research has established him as an international expert in post-traumatic stress disorder, eyewitness memory, and human performance under conditions of high stress.

CDC Bought Cell Phone Data to Track Americans During Lockdowns in the Free Range Prison

Story at a glance:

• A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed documentation that the organization had freely received, and later purchased, location data with the stated intent of monitoring activity in curfew zones or visits to pharmacies.

• A review of the documents also disclosed a list of 21 cases where the data could possibly be used, not all of which involved tracking COVID-related efforts. The data were gathered by SafeGraph after the company’s code was installed in a variety of apps commonly downloaded to smartphones.

• The data are reportedly anonymized, yet SafeGraph decided to no longer share data location about clinics that offer abortion services, which begs the question “Why?” if the data are anonymous?

• Google banned SafeGraph code in the Play Store in July 2021, just six months before four attorneys general filed a lawsuit after a three-year investigation showing Google has been secretly tracking people since 2014.

From [CHD] If you’ve ever felt like Google knows what you’re going to do before you know what you’re going to do, it’s because they are tracking you.

If you’re using any of Google’s apps or products on your Android phone, iPhone or computer, you are likely being tracked.

Internal documents from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show your cell phone data was used to track your movements during lockdowns and vaccine campaigns.

CNET reports that some apps created by Google can store your location data and just opening the maps app or using a Google search will log your location and time.

Google analyzes the data to predict your behavior and sells the information to advertisers.

But advertisers are not the only ones interested in knowing where you are and what you’re doing.

As the pandemic unfolded in Australia, officials decided not to take the word of their citizens. Instead, citizens are forced to download an intrusive app that uses facial recognition and geolocation to ensure they stay quarantined in their homes.

In October 2021, The Guardian reported that human rights groups were concerned that the data being collected in Australia could be used for “secondary purposes” and stored for longer than necessary.

The Human Rights Law Center and Digital Rights Watch have expressed concern about the technology being used without privacy protections for their citizens.

The groups also expressed concerns that the information will be stored indefinitely rather than destroyed when there’s no reason for it to be retained.

China has taken the use of its citizens’ data one step further as they have developed measures to keep citizens in line with the party rhetoric.

Officially, the government is using facial recognition, shaming and brutality to enforce quarantines in the hope of achieving zero COVID cases, infections or deaths in the country.

In other words, China appears to be operating under the misguided belief that COVID is not endemic and can be controlled.

Yet, this is a highly unlikely story for a country with advanced technology and science laboratories. More likely, China and Australia are using these draconian methods to force submission and obedience on their citizens.

Internal documents reveal that the CDC may be in the early stages of something similarly tyrannical.

CDC pays for data to track your phone

On May 3, Vice reported that they’d learned through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that the CDC had purchased cell phone data from the data broker SafeGraph.

In early 2020, SafeGraph announced in their online blog that they’d made their “foot traffic data free for nonprofit organizations and government agencies at the local, state and federal level” — but, in addition, they also created “multiple new COVID-19 datasets and dashboards.”

They did this, they said, “to play our part in the fight against the COVID-19 health crisis — and its devastating impact on the global economy.”

One year later, SafeGraph, whose large investors include PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and ex-Saudi intelligence chief Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, began charging for the data and the CDC paid $420,000 to the company.

The CDC said the data were “critical for ongoing response efforts, such as hourly monitoring of activity in curfew zones or detailed counts of visits to participating pharmacies for vaccine monitoring.”

Zach Edwards is a cyber-security researcher who commented to Vice Motherboard in an online chat after reading the documents from the CDC:

“The CDC seems to have purposefully created an open-ended list of use cases, which included monitoring curfews, neighbor-to-neighbor visits, visits to churches, schools and pharmacies, and also a variety of analysis with this data specifically focused on ‘violence.’”

In the documents obtained through the FOIA, the CDC described 21 cases in which they could potentially use the data that they had purchased.

Although the data were purchased to ostensibly track COVID data, not all were related to these efforts and it’s apparent someone was hoping to prove the effectiveness of CDC decisions through:

• Examination of the volume of mobile phones grouped in proximity each month and compare 2019 to 2020 data to see the impact of these orders. Project how much worse things would have been without the bans.

• Examination of the effectiveness of the public policy on Navajo Nation.

• Research points of interest such as visits to pharmacies in a vaccine distribution plan or grocery stores.

• Research points of interest for physical activity and chronic disease prevention such as visits to parks, gyms, or weight management businesses.

• Exposure to certain building types, urban areas, and violence.

SafeGraph defended its actions and data release by claiming it is an aggregate of information rather than specific to individuals to prevent issues with user privacy.

In the past, the company shared data on over 18 million cell phones they say were geographically representative.

They gather the data by asking or paying app developers to include the SafeGraph code. The location data is then funneled to SafeGraph, where they resell it or package the data into products.

SafeGraph claims that the data is anonymous, yet Vice Motherboard found otherwise after purchasing location data for $200 that was not supposed to pinpoint specific devices.

Edwards pointed out the data could be identified down to a specific office and theoretically specific users could also be identified.

This is not the first time the CDC has used the mobile cell phone network to gather data on the population. In 2010, they used it to identify population displacement and return after the earthquake in Haiti.

Their data analysis corresponded with a retrospective survey but was not reproduced in other natural disasters because of the limitations in gathering data from telecommunication companies.

SafeGraph seems to have circumvented this issue.

Google blocked SafeGraph

The concern that the location data may breach privacy was supported by SafeGraph’s decision in May to no longer share location data about clinics that offer abortion services.

Despite the long-standing claim that the data were anonymized, the company thought it was “good that we were called out.” and the decision was made “in light of potential federal changes in family planning access.”

How is it that SafeGraph believes the data sold to the CDC was anonymized, yet earlier that month they agreed to stop selling location data near health clinics that offer abortion services?

Is one more anonymous than the other?

The New York Post reported an example of how data have been able to be de-anonymized when a Catholic priest from Wisconsin was forced to resign after a Catholic news site was able to link data from his cell phone to dating apps.

The Post also reported that the internal documents from the CDC cell phone data revealed “extremely accurate insights related to age, gender, race, citizenship status, income and more.”

June 2021, Google banned SafeGraph code from their Play Store. Any developers who had it installed were required to either remove their app or remove the code.

Yet, this is likely not effective since, as Vice reports, SafeGraph has also gotten location data from a spin-off company that also works with app developers.

The intent to track user data was announced early in the pandemic by Bill Gates, who had gone on record saying that life would not go back to normal until we had the ability to vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19.

To that end, he pushed for disease surveillance and a vaccine tracking system that could ultimately involve embedding vaccination records in our bodies.

The Rockefeller Foundation is also working on coordinating efforts of social control by implementing tracking and tracing measures that clearly are meant to become permanent.

On April 21, 2020, the Foundation released a white paper that called for testing and tracing all Americans using a national database that connects to other health records.

While these announcements are not obviously tied to data gathering by Google or other third parties, it’s also naive to think they can accomplish those goals without initially integrating data from the largest data source in the world — Google.

Google has been secretly tracking people

Google’s ban on SafeGraph code seems opposite to company policy and an interesting twist of events in 2021 since four attorneys general alleged in 2022 that the tech giant has secretly been tracking people without their knowledge or permission.

Karl A. Racine, attorney general for the District of Columbia, said in a statement, “The truth is that contrary to Google’s representations it continues to systematically surveil customers and profit from customer data.”

Racine led the complaints based on a three-year investigation that showed Google was recording movements even after users had indicated they didn’t want their movement tracked by changing settings on their device.

“Google falsely led consumers to believe that changing their account and device settings would allow customers to protect their privacy and control what personal data the company could access,” Racine said.

Racine initiated the investigation after a 2018 AP news report revealed Google was tracking people’s movements even when they opted out. His investigation found that these misleading claims regarding user privacy protection had been ongoing since at least 2014.

Yet, a Google spokesperson alleged that the lawsuit was based on “inaccurate claims and outdated assertions about our settings.”

The AP investigation included a real-world example from privacy researcher Gunes Acar, whose location data was tracked to dozens of locations over several days and the data saved to his Google account. Acar had turned off the “location history” on his cell phone.

In the past, Google location data had been used in criminal cases, including a warrant issued by police in Raleigh, North Carolina, to track down devices in the area of a murder.

It is reasonable to assume that Google has access to your location when your data and location are turned on. However, at issue is the company’s continued tracking even when location history is turned off.

“If you’re going to allow users to turn off something called ‘location history,’ then all the places where you maintain location history should be turned off,” Jonathan Mayer, a former chief technologist for the Federal Communications Commission’s enforcement bureau, told the AP. “That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have.”

Aside from hiding location tracking under settings users wouldn’t expect, like “Web & App Activity” — which is turned on by default — Google is accused of collecting and storing location information via Google services, Wi-Fi data and marketing partners, again after the device or account settings had been changed to stop location tracking.

Massachusetts and Google force installs tracking app

CNBC reported that efforts in Congress to monitor Big Tech have been stalled by “both partisan and inter-party squabbles,” while state attorneys general have shown a united front on issues against Facebook and Google.

When asked, Racine attributed the alignment to the relationship the AGs have with their constituents.

“State attorney generals are the people’s lawyers. And when acting as the people’s lawyers, they’re doing their best work. And they do their best work by frankly, engaging and listening to the residents of their jurisdictions.”

This remarkably resembles the way that Congressional men and women were elected to do their jobs.

Another signal that Google’s ban on SafeGraph code was not likely to protect user privacy was its partnership with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Apple to create a smartphone app called MassNotify.

The app tracks and traces people in Massachusetts and advises users of others’ COVID-19 status. The tool claimed to have been developed “with a focus on privacy.”

But Massachusetts residents were surprised when the app suddenly appeared on their Android phones without consent “to alert users who may have been exposed to COVID-19.”

Reportedly, the user must enable the feature for it to function, but the partnership with Google makes this claim suspect.

In China, COVID-19 tracking apps have been used as surveillance tools in collaboration with its social credit system, raising red flags that this force-installed app could be tracking residents’ movements and contacts without their knowledge and consent.

The MassNotify app uses Google’s and Apple’s Bluetooth-based Exposure Notifications Express program which was first released in April 2020. The program can act as a blueprint from which states can implement their own tracking systems.

Other states have required users to download the app, but MassNotify was integrated into the operating system of Android phones directly.

In a May 2020 Forbes article, Simon Chandler pointed out that while contact tracing apps “may be cryptographically secure,” they still “threaten our privacy in broader and more insidious ways,” namely encouraging you to keep your cellphone with you at all times and tracking your whereabouts while you do, further “normalizing” the constant use of technology to dictate your freedoms and behavior.

As has been demonstrated by investigations and Google’s actions, your smartphone can easily be used to track your location and possible actions.

This information can then be used to make predictions about your behavior and the likelihood you’ll make decisions that are for or against the current government dictates.

There are minimal steps left before people in currently “free” countries are living under constant surveillance, control and brutality as people in China and Australia find themselves. It is crucial to support your local and state government officials who support freedom.

"Im Not Going to Help You!" Video Shows White AZ Cops Watch a Black Man Drown to Death [Citizens Must Obey Laws but Cops Have No Duty to Protect Any Citizen. Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it?]

From [FTP] and [HERE] As Americans are quickly finding out after the horrifying shooting in Uvalde, Texas — during which police refused to go into the school to save the children — law enforcement has no legal duty to protect citizens. Case law going back decades in the Supreme Court has clearly established this premise and it has been used to defend cops who were charged over their cowardice. 

While there are certainly many police officers who will put themselves in harms way to do good and save lives, Uvalde, Parkland, and the following case out of Tempe, prove that there are still plenty of cops who will not.

According to the Tempe city government, police responded to a reported disturbance involving Sean Bickings, 34, and his wife. According to police, when they arrived, they spoke to Bickings and his companion, who cooperated fully and denied that any physical argument had taken place. Neither were being detained for any offense.

While police ran the couple’s names through a database to check for outstanding warrants, for some reason Bickings “decided to slowly climb over a 4-foot metal fence and enter the water” in Tempe Town Lake, according to a statement from the city. Police informed him that swimming wasn’t allowed in the lake — but Bickings wasn’t swimming — he was drowning.

As Bickings begged for help, he drifted away as police watched from safety. He would eventually go under and never resurface. Tempe Fire’s Dive and Rescue team would later find his body.

City Manager Andrew Ching and Police Chief Jeff Glover referred to Bickings’ death as a tragedy in the city’s statement. But it was more than that. It was a fatal reminder that police have no legal duty to protect life.

POLICE OFFICER’S FACES ARE BLURRED OUT TO PROTECT THE UNACCOUNTABLE SYSTEM OF AUTHORITY.

As FOX29 reports, in a transcript of conversations released by Tempe Police, an officer, only identified as ‘Officer 1,’ was noted as telling Bickings that he won’t be going into the lake.

“I’m drowning,” Bickings, noted as ‘victim’ in the transcript, said.

“Come back over to the pylon,” an officer, noted as ‘Officer 2′ in the transcript, said.

“I can’t. I can’t (inaudible),” said Bickings.

“OK, I’m not jumping in after you,” said Officer 1.

Instead of jumping in after Bickings, the officer threatened to detain his wife for being frantic.

“If you don’t calm down, I’m going to put you in my car,” the officer stated.

“I’m just distraught because he’s drowning right in front of him and you won’t help,” she said.

For several more minutes, Bickings’ wife begged the officers for help until he finally stayed under, never resurfacing.

According to the city’s statement, Tempe has asked the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and Scottsdale Police to examine the Tempe Police response to the drowning.

The three Tempe police officers who responded to the call and witnessed the drowning have been placed on non-disciplinary paid administrative leave pending the investigations, as is customary in critical incidents.

Although We Must Obey, the Supreme Ct Has Ruled COPS Have NO LEGAL DUTY to PROTECT. Who are the Mind and Gun Controlled Fools Here?

Police watching people drown and refusing to help is not that uncommon. As TFTP reported, Johnny “JJ” Baldwin, 24, suffered a similar fate in Franklin County, Tennessee.

According to police, they began pursuing Baldwin after they claimed he made a minor traffic violation. When Baldwin stopped, he ran before falling in Tims Ford Boiling Fork Creek.

Ten feet away as Baldwin took his last breaths, police taunted him as he drowned.

“Your dumb a** jumped in the river,” would be the last thing Baldwin would hear.

Media Liars Pretend Uvalde Cops Will Be Held Liable for Doing Nothing During Massacre. The Supreme Ct Has Ruled Cops Have No Legal Duty to Protect Any Particular Citizen ["the public duty doctrine"]

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY

freedom peddlers – political agitators who fail to address the structured incapacity of most people for freedom and their inclination towards freedumb. Freedom peddlers talk about how free things are—but fail to mention the price of upkeep.

freedumb – the state of unrecognized psychological captivity (brain hemispheric hostage) that sheeple remain in because they don’t speak the language of reality nor constantly edit truth from perfecting heart to perfecting power—and when truth is spoken around them, refrain from being open, or impervious to it thus being forever chained to its distortions and limitations. 2) the mindset that proposes “since we are liberated, we are also free.” 3) the mindset that operates upon the notion that you can have individuality without accountability or responsibility. 4) the pretense that reality is truth and viceversa. People cherish unwarranted assumptions and relish their freedumb because they have been socialized into selfcensorship along with misidentification with the ego-mind—the absence of knowledge of Self. (See: Phfreedom, Truth, Unfreedom, Dumbelievers, Self, Belief Systems, Objective Truth, Individuality, Objective Reality, True Self & Reality)

DISARMED PEOPLE CAN’T SHOOT BACK AT THE GOVERNMENT OR PREVENT TYRANNY. DISARMED OR INADEQUATELY ARMED PEOPLE ARE SLAVES.

MIND YOUR WANTS BECAUSE UNCLE BROTHER WANTS YOUR MIND. MSNBC’s Laurence O’Donnell and other media hoaxed “journalists” and news entertainers continue to lie about how police in Uvalde will be held accountable for their failure to do anything to protect children during the so-called massacre. However, decades ago the Supreme Court ruled police have no legal duty to protected any victim from violence by other private parties unless the victim was in police custody. [MORE] and [MORE] This means that police cannot be sued for any federal constitutional claim for a failure to protect citizens. Unless a state negligence law exists allowing such a lawsuit, victims cannot hold police liable for a failure to protect from harm from private parties.

The only legal question for victims such as the ones in Ulvalde is whether the students were in the “custody” of the government during the “massacre.” In other mass shootings such as Parkland where a failure to protect children was claimed, the court ruled that students were not in “custody” and dismissed all claims against the police for a failure to protect students.

Said legal precedent applies regardless of circumstances such as whether police were present or aware of dangers - the Supreme Court has held that police have no legal duty to protect. Numerous federal and state courts have applied what is known as “the public duty doctrine.”

Despite reality concealment by puppeticians and their Dependent Media the public duty doctrine is a legal reality that, as explained by the DC Court of Appeals, is “well established” throughout the nation. Most recently in the so-called Parkland mass shooting a failure to protect children was claimed and then dismissed without controversy. A federal court ruled that students were not in “custody” and dismissed all claims.

The case of Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (1981), in which police were present and should have been aware of danger to the victims, clearly articulates the public duty doctrine. Read the facts of the case below, free your mind from Dependent Media idiocy:

In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her. Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly. Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a. m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" — it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Denying all claims of liability against the government and the police for a failure to protect the victims the court explained,

“the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.

This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. Riss v. City of New York, supra. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”

The Supreme Court has also ruled that police are not liable under the Due Process clause for a failure to protect even where the police are have adopted a department policy of non-action. In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), the Court explained that police have broad discretion to arrest people whenever they want to; even when a court’s restraining order has explicitly ordered the arrest of a violator (as it did in that case) the police have discretion as to whether they will or not arrest.

So, what the fuck is the dependent media talking about? Uncle Brother is after your mind.

The illusion of accountable police helps to sell propaganda to disarm citizens. Most importantly it sells the statist myth of a social contract between citizens and government. Said myth is the basis of all political authority. The “clogic” is ‘people don’t need guns because the police will protect them.’ Such belief is also part of other woefully ignorant “propagenda” such as ‘guns are primarily for hunting’ or primarily for self defense.  Contrary to indoctrination from freedumb advocates in the dependent media, the 2nd Amendment exists for when all other rights have failed. An armed population is necessary to check authority and tyranny. As stated by 9th circuit judge Alex Kozinski,

“tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history—Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

. . . The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 569-570 (9th Cir. 2003) quoted in FUNKTIONARY

Sound far fetched? Brazen cops so frequently abuse their uncontrollable powers that no Black person could make a rational argument that so-called 4th Amendment rights afford any meaningful protection from cops. Cops interfere with Black people’s freedom of movement and right to be left alone any time they desire. Said situation can get worse - already, police in these white, friendly liberal run territories aren’t protecting black people, they surveil and kill them; Minneapolis, Chicago, NYC, Houston, Baltimore, Kansas City, St. Louis etc.

In reality, Citizens with no guns or less guns or inferior guns are much easier to control and dominate.

It should go without saying but criminals are criminals because they are willing to break laws/commit crimes. Laws, including gun laws, do not alter the conduct of mass murderers or prevent them from getting or using guns. Mr. X is ready to kill anybody in sight but he will obey gun laws? Gun laws simply prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons, nothing more.

A responsible, capable and intelligent citizen should be ready and able to defend himself and come to the defense of others when necessary, especially because the police have no legal obligation to do so. Who would think that under the most violent terroristic circumstances such as an alleged “madman” murdering children, the police would choose not to offer protection?

Lax gun laws? How about an unaccountable government that can’t protect even the most vulnerable citizens unable to defend themselves? Rather than take guns away from people, it is rational for more people to arm themselves and be accountable for protecting themselves and their community; you should have the right to shoot back especially since vaginal cops have no legal obligation to protect you. [MORE]

Disarming law abiding Black people prevents them from being able to defend themselves against criminals and the government. As such, gun controls and gun bans disempower Black people and readily subject Black communities to police and criminal violence, rendering Blacks helpless, solely dependent and slave-like in their relations with government authorities who prey on them and control them under the pretense of protection. It is obvious that one of Uncle Brother’s goal is for all citizens to relinquish individual responsibility for defending themselves and to depend upon their public masters to do so in their provision of “public service” that cannot be refused.

Discussing such authoritarian programming, Larken Rose states,

One of the main problems that the peasants must be trained not to deal with themselves is violent conflict. It is imperative that they view you (and your enforcers) as the only protection against rob­bery, assault, and murder. In short, they must be indoctrinated in such a way that they do not even want to be able to defend them­selves. The reason is simple: if the peasants feel capable and enti­tled to "enforce justice" themselves, they might just decide to enforce a little justice against you. And that obviously won't do. 

They must be trained to give up their belief in their right to defend themselves, which is not an easy thing to do. You must attack "peasant justice" in any ways you can think of, such as: 1) '"Vigilante justice can never be as just or fair as our system"; 2) '"You can't possibly protect yourselves; let us do it"; 3) "If you have a gun. you 'II only hurt yourself: 4) "'If the peasants were allowed to use force, there would be chaos'"; 5) "Private protection agen­cies would just deteriorate into competing gangs of thugs"; and so on. Often privately-enforced justice is referred to as the people "taking the law into their own hands" which reinforces the idea that only enforcers of "the law" should ever use force, and of course the lowly peasants can't be allowed to do that." [MORE]

In a Step Toward a Humane Civilization, Zambia’s President Calls for Abolishing the Death Penalty and Pardons Thousands

From [EJI] Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema announced Tuesday that his government has made a “big decision” to end the death penalty in Zambia.

“We will work with Parliament to run this process as we transition away from the death penalty and focus on the preservation and rehabilitation of life while still delivering justice for all,” he said in a video on the eve of Africa Freedom Day—a holiday that symbolizes “our collective commitment to secure a better future for all.”

President Hichilema also announced that he has pardoned 2,652 people detained in various correctional facilities and commuted the death sentences of 30 people to life in prison.

“We believe in showing strength through our compassion,” the president said, “and we believe in rights for all citizens, including the right to life.”

“This is important,” he said. “We believe in it.”

The government has also started to address overcrowding in the nation’s prisons through programs like community sentencing alternatives for minor offenses, Acting Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security Ambrose Lifuna toldAfricanews.

In a statement today, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights welcomed the announcement as “a major step forward for human rights” in Zambia.

The Human Rights Office urged lawmakers to quickly and explicitly prohibit the death penalty in the nation’s penal code, criminal procedure code, and constitution.

Zambia has not carried out any executions since 1997, but its courts continue to sentence people to death. At least nine death sentences were imposed last year, including mandatory death sentences for aggravated robbery, Amnesty International reported this week.

Amnesty’s annual death penalty report noted that, despite at least 269 commutations of death sentences and three exonerations from death row last year, 257 people were known to be under a sentence of death in Zambia at the end of 2021.

President Hichilema’s pledge to abolish capital punishment adds to a growing global consensus for universal abolition of the death penalty, the UN Human Rights Office observed. It encouraged the government to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the abolition of the death penalty.

More than two-thirds of the world’s countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice by the end of 2021, according to Amnesty. It reports that 108 countries—a majority of the world’s states—had abolished the death penalty in law for all crimes and 144 countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice, while only 55 countries still retained the death penalty at the end of last year.

Two Black lawyers plead guilty to new charges for throwing Molotov cocktail into police car during protest

From [HERE] Two New York lawyers have pleaded guilty to new charges as part of a plea deal for throwing a Molotov cocktail into a police car during a 2020 George Floyd protest. This case is in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Urooj Rahman and Colinford Mattis pleaded guilty last year to one count of making and possessing a destructive device. Under the revised agreement sent to US District Judge Brian Cogan, they were charged with conspiracy to commit arson and possess an explosive device. As part of the deal, the government will recommend a sentence of 18-24 months of imprisonment. US Attorney  for the Eastern District of New York Breon Peace wrote the agreement letter.

In the agreement letter, prosecutors said that 18-24 month terms reflected the “nature and circumstances of the offense and the histories and personal characteristics of these defendants.”

During the protest, Rahman threw a Molotov cocktail through an empty police car’s broken window and fled in a vehicle driven by Mattis. As a result of the guilty pleas entered Thursday, both defendants will lose their law licenses.

Bilderberg Elites [members of the Pathocracy] Met in DC Last Week

From [HERE] The 68th Bilderberg Meeting will take place from 2 – 5 June 2022 in Washington, D.C., USA. About 120 participants from 21 countries have confirmed their attendance. As ever, a diverse group of political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia, labour and the media has been invited. The list of participants is available on bilderbergmeetings.org.

The key topics for discussion this year are:

1. Geopolitical Realignments
2. NATO Challenges
3. China
4. Indo-Pacific Realignment
5. Sino-US Tech Competition
6. Russia
7. Continuity of Government and the Economy
8. Disruption of the Global Financial System
9. Disinformation
10. Energy Security and Sustainability
11. Post Pandemic Health
12. Fragmentation of Democratic Societies
13. Trade and Deglobalisation
14. Ukraine

Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg Meeting is an annual conference designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, between 120-140 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, labour, academia and the media are invited to take part in the Meeting. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; approximately a quarter from politics and government and the rest from other fields.

The Bilderberg Meeting is a forum for informal discussions about major issues. The meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor any other participant may be revealed.

Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken and no policy statements are issued.

Bilderberg Attendees 2022

Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Former Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG; Treasurer Bilderberg Meetings

Adeyemo, Adewale (USA), Deputy Secretary, Department of  The Treasury

Albares, José Manuel (ESP), Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation

Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore Inc.

Altman, Sam (USA), CEO, OpenAI

Applebaum, Anne (USA), Staff Writer, The Atlantic

Arnaut, José Luís (PRT), Managing Partner, CMS Rui Pena & Arnaut

Auken, Ida (DNK), Member of Parliament, The Social Democrat Party

Azoulay, Audrey (INT), Director-General, UNESCO

Baker, James H. (USA), Director, Office of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense

Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), Chairwoman and CEO, Temaris & Associés SAS

Barroso, José Manuel (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International LLC

Baudson, Valérie (FRA), CEO, Amundi

Beurden, Ben van (NLD), CEO, Shell plc

Bourla, Albert (USA), Chairman and CEO, Pfizer Inc.

Buberl, Thomas (FRA), CEO, AXA SA

Burns, William J. (USA), Director, CIA

Byrne, Thomas (IRL), Minister of State for European Affairs

Campbell, Kurt (USA), White House Coordinator for Indo-Pacific, NSC

Carney, Mark J. (CAN), Vice Chair, Brookfield Asset Management

Casado, Pablo (ESP), Former President, Partido Popular

Chhabra, Tarun (USA), Senior Director for Technology and National Security, National Security Council

Donohoe, Paschal (IRL), Minister for Finance; President, Eurogroup

Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer SE

Dudley, William C. (USA), Senior Research Scholar, Princeton University

Easterly, Jen (USA), Director, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

Economy, Elizabeth (USA), Senior Advisor for China, Department of Commerce

Émié, Bernard (FRA), Director General, Ministry of the Armed Forces

Emond, Charles (CAN), CEO, CDPQ

Erdogan, Emre (TUR), Professor Political Science, Istanbul Bilgi University

Eriksen, Øyvind (NOR), President and CEO, Aker ASA

Ermotti, Sergio (CHE), Chairman, Swiss Re

Fanusie, Yaya (USA), Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security

Feltri, Stefano (ITA), Editor-in-Chief, Domani

Fleming, Jeremy (GBR), Director, British Government Communications Headquarters

Freeland, Chrystia (CAN), Deputy Prime Minister

Furtado, Isabel (PRT), CEO, TMG Automotive

Gove, Michael (GBR), Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Cabinet Office

Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Co-Chair Bilderberg Meetings; Professor of Economics, Leiden University

Hallengren, Lena (SWE), Minister for Health and Social Affairs

Hamers, Ralph (NLD), CEO, UBS Group AG

Hassabis, Demis (GBR), CEO and Founder, DeepMind

Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation

Henry, Mary Kay (USA), International President, Service Employees International Union

Hobson, Mellody (USA), Co-CEO and President, Ariel Investments LLC

Hodges, Ben (USA), Pershing Chair in Strategic Studies, Center for European Policy Analysis

Hoekstra, Wopke (NLD), Minister of Foreign Affairs

Hoffman, Reid (USA), Co-Founder, Inflection AI; Partner, Greylock

Huët, Jean Marc (NLD), Chairman, Heineken NV

Joshi, Shashank (GBR), Defence Editor, The Economist

Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies Inc.

Kissinger, Henry A. (USA), Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.

Koç, Ömer (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding AS

Kofman, Michael (USA), Director, Russia Studies Program, Center for Naval Analysis

Kostrzewa, Wojciech (POL), President, Polish Business Roundtable

Krasnik, Martin (DNK), Editor-in-Chief, Weekendavisen

Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Chairman, KKR & Co. Inc.  

Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Co-Chair Bilderberg Meetings; Chair, The Museum of Modern Art

Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group SA

Kukies, Jörg (DEU), State Secretary, Chancellery

Lammy, David (GBR), Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, House of Commons

LeCun, Yann (USA), Vice-President and Chief AI Scientist, Facebook, Inc.

Leu, Livia (CHE), State Secretary, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, Umicore and Mediahuis; Chairman DSM N.V.

Liikanen, Erkki (FIN), Chairman, IFRS  Foundation Trustees

Little, Mark (CAN), President and CEO, Suncor Energy Inc.

Looney, Bernard (GBR), CEO, BP plc

Lundstedt, Martin (SWE), CEO and President, Volvo Group

Lütke, Tobias (CAN), CEO, Shopify

Marin, Sanna (FIN), Prime Minister

Markarowa, Oksana (UKR), Ambassador of Ukraine to the US

Meinl-Reisinger, Beate (AUT), Party Leader, NEOS

Michel, Charles (INT), President, European Council

Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist

Mullen, Michael (USA), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates LLC

Netherlands, H.M. the King of the (NLD)

Niemi, Kaius (FIN), Senior Editor-in-Chief, Helsingin Sanomat Newspaper

Núñez, Carlos (ESP), Executive Chairman, PRISA Media

O’Leary, Michael (IRL), Group CEO, Ryanair Group

Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), Chairman, TITAN Cement Group

Petraeus, David H. (USA), Chairman, KKR Global Institute

Pierrakakis, Kyriakos (GRC), Minister of Digital Governance

Pinho, Ana (PRT), President and CEO, Serralves Foundation

Pouyanné, Patrick (FRA), Chairman and CEO, TotalEnergies SE

Rachman, Gideon (GBR), Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, The Financial Times

Raimondo, Gina M. (USA), Secretary of Commerce

Reksten Skaugen, Grace (NOR), Board Member, Investor AB

Rende, Mithat (TUR), Member of the Board, TSKB

Reynders, Didier (INT), European Commissioner for Justice

Rutte, Mark (NLD), Prime Minister

Salvi, Diogo (PRT), Co-Founder and CEO, TIMWE

Sawers, John (GBR), Executive Chairman, Newbridge Advisory Ltd.

Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

Schinas, Margaritis (INT), Vice President, European Commission

Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Former CEO and Chairman, Google LLC

Scott, Kevin (USA), CTO, Microsoft Corporation

Sebastião, Nuno (PRT), CEO, Feedzai

Sedwill, Mark (GBR), Chairman, Atlantic Futures Forum

Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), MEP, European Parliament

Sinema, Kyrsten (USA), Senator

Starace, Francesco (ITA), CEO, Enel S.p.A.

Stelzenmüller, Constanze (DEU), Fritz Stern Chair, The Brookings Institution

Stoltenberg, Jens (INT), Secretary General, NATO

Straeten, Tinne Van der (BEL), Minister for Energy

Suleyman, Mustafa (GBR), CEO, Inflection AI

Sullivan, Jake (USA), Director, National Security Council

Tellis, Ashley J. (USA), Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs, Carnegie Endowment

Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital LLC

Treichl, Andreas (AUT), President, Chairman ERSTE Foundation

Tugendhat, Tom (GBR), MP; Chair Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons

Veremis, Markos (GRC), Co-Founder and Chairman, Upstream

Vitrenko, Yuriy (UKR), CEO, Naftogaz

Wallander, Celeste (USA), Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs

Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chair, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB

Walmsley, Emma (GBR), CEO, GlaxoSmithKline plc

Wennink, Peter (NLD), President and CEO, ASML Holding NV

Yetkin, Murat (TUR), Journalist/Writer, YetkinReport

Yurdakul, Afsin (TUR), Journalist, Habertürk News Network

Labor Activists Launch New Organization to Challenge AFL-CIO Foreign Policy

From [HERE] Labor activists from across the country, members of a number of unions, publicly announced the creation of LEPAIO, the Labor Education Project on the AFL-CIO International Operations, over the weekend of April 8-9. They held a press conference outside AFL-CIO headquarters on 16th Street in Washington, D.C., on April 8th, and followed with a four-hour educational conference at the University of the District of Columbia the following day.

This is the first project to focus on AFL-CIO operations around the globe since efforts to pass the “Build Unity and Trust Among Workers World-wide” resolution at the AFL-CIO’s 2005 National Convention in Chicago.

This new project, LEPAIO, is hoping to build support leading to the AFL-CIO’s 2022 National Convention in Philadelphia on June 12-15.

Speakers at the educational conference spoke on a number of issues, noting that the education conference on April 9th came on the 20th anniversary of the attempted (but failed) coup against democratically elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez.

Speakers Margaret Flowers, William Camacaro, and James Patrick Jordan spoke of the on-going U.S. attacks on Venezuela that continue today, particularly through economic sanctions supported by the AFL-CIO.

This writer later noted the similarities between the 2002 attempted coup in Venezuela and the 1973 Chilean coup that overthrew democratically elected Salvador Allende, about which the AFL-CIO’s involvement in the latter through its American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD) had been revealed by the late Fred Hirsch of Plumbers and Pipefitters #393 in San Jose, California, in 1974.These talks were followed by a heart-felt talk by David Hemson about how the progressive non-racial unions of South Africa were created, beginning with the mass strikes in Durban in 1973. Hemson had been one of the original organizers there.

Hemson spoke about how the AFL-CIO had supported the apartheid regime, especially through the on-going support of Zulu Chief Gatscha Buthelezi. Buthelezi and his people had physically attacked COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) members and affiliated unions in an internal war in the early 1990s in the province of Kwa-Zula/Natal. The AFL-CIO, ironically, had given Buthelezi the George Meany-Lane Kirkland Award for Human Rights in 1982.

Three More Senators Violated the STOCK Act

From [HERE] The deadline for members of Congress to file their annual financial disclosures for 2021 was last week, May 16. But as usual, most members availed themselves of a 90-day extension that will give them until sometime in August to release their reports. The disclosures list their households assets, as well as other information like outside positions and travel reimbursements, and are often dumped online as hundreds of pages of illegible paper scans.

In the Senate, just 23 senators filed their 2021 annual disclosures by last week’s deadline. A review of this batch of disclosures shows that last year at least three more senators appear to have violated the STOCK Act’s requirement that they disclose certain financial transactions made by their households within 45 days. 

Two senators, Democrats John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Gary Peters of Michigan, filed periodic transaction reports (PTRs) on May 16, 2022 for transactions they made in 2021. The transactions were also included in their 2021 annual disclosures. The third, Republican Jerry Moran of Kansas, has not yet addressed his missing periodic transaction report from last year for stock transactions that appeared in his 2021 annual disclosure for the first time.

The three are just the latest of dozens of members of Congress who have been found to have violated the STOCK Act’s timely reporting requirement recently. According to a tally maintained by Business Insider, at least 60 other senators and representatives have failed to report their trades in accordance with the law.

The STOCK Act, signed into law in 2012, requires members of Congress and other government officials to file PTRs within 45 days when they, their spouse, or their dependent children execute transactions worth more than $1,000 of stocks, bonds, and other securities.

Senator Hickenlooper’s errant PTR details five transactions his household made in 2021 that are listed in his annual disclosure: two sales of between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of stock in Liberty Broadband Corporation and Liberty Media Corporation by his spouse on March 15; a sale of between $100,000 and $250,000 in Liberty Broadband by his spouse on Sept. 1; a sale of between $250,000 and $500,000 in Liberty Media by his spouse on Nov. 12; and his own purchase on May 11 of between $15,000 and $50,000 worth of non-public stock in Skylark Lounge Holdings LLC, a Denver bar and music lounge.  

Alyssa Roberts, communications director for Sen. Hickenlooper, told Sludge, “We missed filing these on time by mistake but we’ve implemented steps to prevent it from happening again.”

Sludge asked Roberts if Hickenlooper had taken a position on the various legislative items that have been introduced to limit the trading or ownership of individual securities by members of Congress while in office. 

“Senator Hickenlooper supports legislation to restrict members of Congress from trading individual stocks,” said Roberts. “He believes we should prevent conflicts of interest and build on the disclosure and transparency already in place.” 

This statement stops short of endorsing the Ban Conflicted Trading Act or any of the three similar bills that have been introduced in the Senate, and Hickenlooper has not joined as a co-sponsor of any of them.

Hickenlooper was an active stock trader in 2021, his first year in the Senate, filing seven PTRs for transactions including a six-day sell-off of technology company stocks in late October and early November. He reported fully unloading his holdings in Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Facebook, and other tech companies, with a total maximum value of over $4 million. 

The stock price of Liberty Broadband has declined around 23% since Hickenlooper’s spouse’s first partial sale of the asset on March 15, 2021, and the stock price of Liberty Media has declined by about 6% since that date. 

Hickenlooper’s spouse, Robin Pringle Hickenlooper, has worked as senior vice president of corporate development at the Englewood, Colorado-based Liberty Media Corporation since 2010. Liberty Media’s assets include the Atlanta Braves baseball franchise and associated real estate projects, the Liberty SiriusXM Group that holds interests in SiriusXM and Live Nation Entertainment, and other sports companies in the Formula One Group. She sits on the SiriusXM board of directors, which is chaired by Liberty Media CEO Gregory B. Maffei, and she serves on the board of Chipotle.

Also on May 16, Sen. Gary Peters’ office filed a PTR for an Aug. 27, 2021 purchase listed in his annual disclosure of between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of stock in FS KKR Capital Corp., a credit solutions company. The senator did not file a PTR for the transaction last year as required by law. Sludge’s inquiries to Peters’ office about the transaction and STOCK Act compliance did not receive a response.  [MORE]

Elon Musk Is Not A Renegade Outsider – He’s A Massive Pentagon Contractor

From [DAVID ICKE] Elon Musk’s proposed takeover of Twitter has ruffled many feathers among professional commentators. “Musk is the wrong leader for Twitter’s vital mission,” read one Bloomberg headline. The network also insisted, “Nothing in the Tesla CEO’s track record suggests he will be a careful steward of an important media property.” “Elon Musk is the last person who should take over Twitter,” wrote Max Boot in The Washington Post, explaining that “[h]e seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.” The irony of outlets owned by Michael Bloomberg and Jeff Bezos warning of the dangers of permitting a billionaire oligarch to control our media was barely commented upon.

Added to this, a host of celebrities publicly left the social media platform in protest against the proposed $44 billion purchase. This only seemed to confirm to many free speech-minded individuals that the South African billionaire was a renegade outsider on a mission to save the internet from authoritarian elite control (despite the fact that he is borrowing money from the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia in order to do so).

Musk has deliberately cultivated this image of himself: a real life Tony Stark figure who thinks for himself and is not part of the established order. But behind this carefully constructed façade, Musk is intimately connected to the U.S. national security state, serving as one of its most important business partners. Elon, in short, is no threat to the powerful, entrenched elite: he is one of them.

Convicted Racist Suspect, Millionaire Democratic Donor Ed Buck Ordered to Pay [only] $250,000 in fines/restitution to the Families of the 2 Black Men He Murdered After Luring Them Into His Home

From [HERE] Millionaire Democratic donor Ed Buck, who last year was convicted for the drug-related deaths of two men, was ordered to pay a $200,000 fine and $47,000 in restitution on top of his 30-year prison sentence.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder at a hearing Friday denied Buck’s request to stay payment of the fine to the government and the restitution to his surviving victims and the families of the deceased men for their funeral costs until after his appeal had been decided.

“It would be unfair to these people to wait when they had to pay out monies that were substantial to them,” Snyder said.

The judge said the $400,000 fine the prosecution had asked for seemed “excessive” in the light of his prison sentence. 

Buck’s lawyer, Mark Werksman, argued against the imposition of any fine, saying that his client owned $100,000 to his 94-year-old mother that she had advanced him for his defense and that he was still facing civil lawsuits by his victims.

Buck, 67, has denied he was responsible for the deaths of Gemmel Moore and Timothy Dean. They died as a result of what prosecutors said was Buck’s “deadly practice of luring people, typically young Black men, and those experiencing homelessness, addiction, and/or poverty, to his West Hollywood apartment” and injecting them, sometimes against their will, with methamphetamine and other drugs. 

Born in Ohio, Buck has said that he made enough money from “several business ventures,” to retire in his 30s. He moved to West Hollywood in 1991 and lived in the same drab three-bedroom rent-controlled apartment for the next 30 years. He was a fixture in West Hollywood politics, often giving public comment at the City Council meetings, and running unsuccessfully for the part-time council in 2007. He is credited with helping to convince the council to ban the sale of fur in West Hollywood, making it the first city in the country to do so.

He donated more than half a million dollars to various Democratic politicians including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Gavin Newsom, candidates and political action committees between 2008 and 2017.

Buck has said that in his mid-forties, he was prescribed amphetamine to treat his narcolepsy, which eventually grew into a methamphetamine addiction.

During the two-week trial, a chorus of victims testified about their experiences with Buck who, according to prosecutors, “treated them like lab rats in his twisted experiments.” Buck cultivated relationships with numerous Black men, some of whom were prostitutes, others drug addicts, others poor — at times all three. They were enticed into Buck’s orbit by the promise of money, shelter and drugs.

Just 45% of Black Families Own Their Home, Compared with 74% of White Families–And the Gap Has Increased Over the Last Decade

From [HERE] The homeownership rates for both Black and white families rose slightly over the last 10 years, with part of the increase taking place during the pandemic. 

The racial homeownership gap persists. The homeownership rate for Black families rose only slightly over the last decade, with part of the increase taking place during the pandemic–but it still falls far short of the white homeownership rate. 

Just 44.7% of Black families nationwide own their home, up slightly from 44% just before the pandemic began. That’s compared with 74% of white families, up marginally from 73.7% two years ago. 

The huge homeownership gap between Black and white families–29.3 percentage points–has also barely changed over the last decade, from 30.4 percentage points in the first quarter of 2012. At that time, 43.1% of Black families owned their home, versus 73.5% of white families. 

That’s according to U.S. Census data as of the first quarter. The words “family” and “household” are used interchangeably in this report to refer to people living in homes together. This report uses 2012 as a point of comparison because that’s when the U.S. housing market started to recover from the Great Recession. 

“The good news is that the Black homeownership rate didn’t decline during the pandemic, even though Black Americans were hit hardest by coronavirus-related layoffs and are recovering slower financially,” said Redfin Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather. “But that’s only a glimmer of hope in a flawed system, where Black families are at an unfair financial disadvantage due to the legacy of racism and discrimination that has caused several generations to miss out on building wealth through homeownership.”

Washington, D.C. and Birmingham, AL have the highest Black homeownership rates; Salt Lake City has the lowest

Just over half (51%) of Black families in both Washington, D.C. and Birmingham, AL own their home, the highest Black homeownership rates in the U.S. of all metros with more than 1 million residents. They’re followed by Richmond, VA (50%), New Orleans (49%), Philadelphia (49%) and Atlanta (49%). 

The metro-level data in this report is from a Redfin analysis of the U.S. Census’ 2016-2020 5-year American Community Survey, released in March 2022–the most recent metro data available. Note that the national data above is more recent, from the first quarter of 2022. 

Washington, D.C. also has the smallest racial homeownership gap, with 72% of white families owning their home. Austin and Los Angeles have the next-smallest gaps. Forty-three percent of Black families in Austin own their home, versus 65% of white families. In Los Angeles, the gap is 33% versus 57%.

On the other side of the spectrum, just 23% of Black families in Salt Lake City own their home, the lowest Black homeownership rate in the U.S. It’s followed by Milwaukee (25%), Minneapolis (27%), Las Vegas (31%) and San Diego (31%). 

Salt Lake City, Minneapolis and Milwaukee also have the largest racial homeownership gaps, with 73% of white families in Salt Lake City owning their home, 77% in Minneapolis and 70% in Milwaukee. San Diego and Las Vegas have smaller gaps, as white families in those places also have low homeownership rates compared with other metros (61% and 63%, respectively). 

In most metros, Black families are less likely to own their home than they were a decade ago

The homeownership rate for Black families dropped from 2012 to 2020 in 36 of the 52 metros in this analysis, with the biggest declines in Milwaukee (25% in 2020, down from 33% in 2012), Salt Lake City (23%, down from 30%) and Memphis (45%, down from 51%). 

The homeownership rate increased most in New Orleans, where 49% of Black families owned their home in 2020, up from 47% in 2012, Minneapolis (27%, up from 25%) and Boston (35%, up from 33%). 

The Black homeownership rate hasn’t changed in Baltimore, Denver, Hartford, CT or Tampa, FL. 

Systemic racism, wage gaps, soaring home prices continue to drive the racial homeownership gap

Racist housing policies like redlining and discriminatory housing covenants are a major reason why Black families have missed out on property-value gains. Redlining effectively blocked many Black families from obtaining mortgage loans in the first half of the twentieth century, and a Redfin analysis found that the typical family in formerly redlined neighborhoods have missed out on $212,000 worth of home equity over the last 40 years. That’s money that could have been used to buy more property, and/or passed on to children and grandchildren. 

Other factors contributing to the comparatively low Black homeownership rate also stem from systemic racism. There’s a persistent wage gap, with Black men nationwide earning 87 cents for every dollar earned by white men and Black women earning just 63 cents to the dollar, according to one study. Student debt is another obstacle, with the typical Black college graduate owing nearly double the typical white college graduate four years after graduating. Predatory lending during the Great Recession is yet another factor: Nearly 8% of Black households with mortgages lost their homes to foreclosure between 2007 and 2009, versus 4.5% of white families. 

Soaring home prices exacerbate the problem, with U.S. sale prices up 34% just since the beginning of the pandemic, and that’s especially problematic for prospective Black homebuyers. Prices rose at double the rate in majority-Black neighborhoods than those in majority-white neighborhoods from 2012 to 2018.

There are some reasons for optimism about Black real estate wealth. The total value of homes owned by Black people in the U.S. increased 31.1% year over year to a record $2.3 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2021, and their total home equity increased $1.5 trillion, up 45%, according to the Federal Reserve. 

“It’s worth celebrating the fact that the real estate wealth held by Black Americans is on the rise, and hopefully that wealth will strengthen Black communities” Fairweather said. “But unfortunately, because most Black Americans don’t currently own a home, most of them aren’t earning money through homeownership. Moving forward, the public and private sectors should work together on a major policy overhaul to help Black families buy homes, as that is one of the most important steps in reducing inequality in this country.” [MORE]

Gun Control? Estate of Andrew Brown Jr., who was Fatally Shot 14X by NC Cops Agrees to $3 Million Settlement. Who Will the Government Murder and Pay Next?

From [HERE] The estate of Andrew Brown, Jr. has settled its lawsuit against a North Carolina county sheriff’s office over his shooting death during an arrest last year, according to an attorney for the estate.

Brown’s family settled with Pasquotank County for $3 million, according to attorney Bakari Sellers, who represents the family and is also a CNN political analyst. CNN reached out to the Pasquotank County Sheriff’s Office for comment on the settlement. 

Brown, a 42-year-old Black man, was killed April 21, 2021, in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, by Pasquotank County deputies attempting to serve a warrant for his arrest. His death resulted in protests against the shooting as critics accused police of a lack of transparency.

Pasquotank County District Attorney Andrew Womble later concluded the shooting – which Brown’s family described as an execution – was justified, saying Brown “recklessly” drove at the officers on the scene while trying to flee arrest.

Much of the attempted arrest was captured on body cameras worn by some of the deputies involved, however North Carolina law restricted its release without a court order. In a press conference nearly a month after Brown’s death, Womble showedvideos captured by deputies. 

Three of the seven deputies on scene fired a total of 14 shots at Brown, according to Womble. A state autopsy later confirmed Brown died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head. 

“While the district attorney concluded that no criminal law was violated, this was a terrible and tragic outcome, and we could do better,” Pasquotank County Sheriff Tommy Wooten said, adding that two deputies did not turn on their body cameras during the incident. 

The three deputies who fired at Brown would be reinstated and retrained, Wooten said at the time. One of them has since retired and the other two were back on the force. 

Brown’s family and their attorneys said the same body-camera and dash-camera videos show Brown was trying to drive away from officers and was not a threat.

Attorneys for Brown’s estate filed a $30 million civil rights lawsuit in July, claiming deputies violated Brown’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force.

An amended complaint further alleged the arrest warrant for Brown was unlawful because it was not signed by a judge. The suit also said the two ranking officers initially on the scene when Brown was confronted told investigators that they did not fire their weapons because they did not see any indication that Brown had a weapon. One of them told investigators he did not think Brown’s car was going to hit him, the lawsuit said.

The FBI has announced a federal civil rights investigation into the shooting.

Lawsuit: After a Black Man Complained that Minneapolis Cops Assaulted Him During a Traffic Stop, Police Use Fabricated Evidence to Obtain a Warrant, Raid His House and Get Him Locked Up for 7 Months

From [HERE] Minneapolis man who was the subject of a botched drug raid has filed a federal lawsuit against several police officers, alleging they needlessly beat him during a traffic stop and one of them later "fabricated and/or misrepresented evidence to a Hennepin County judge" to obtain a warrant for his home.

The lawsuit alleges Minneapolis officers Tony Partyka, Neal Walsh and other unidentified officers violated Moore's civil rights by "unnecessarily and recklessly using excessive force to pull Moore from his vehicle, throw him to the ground" and beat him on the side of the road during a routine traffic stop, leaving Moore with a broken nose and other injuries.

A few months later, Partyka violated Moore's civil rights again "as retribution for Moore's complaints to the Minneapolis police department" about the use of force when he led a SWAT raid into Moore's north Minneapolis home with a no-knock warrant, according to the suit.

Hennepin County Judge Paul Scoggin ultimately threw out the drugs and other evidence recovered in the search, after Moore's public defenders exposed what Scoggin called a "reckless disregard for the truth" on the part of Partyka.

"Unfortunately for Moore, the warrant was only quashed after he had unjustly been forced to spend over seven months in jail when he was arrested after the illegal search of his residence," the lawsuit states.

The Minneapolis City Attorney is reviewing the lawsuit, but declined to comment on the allegations, said city spokesman Casper Hill.

The Star Tribune first reported on Moore's saga in May 2021, after the charges against him were dropped. Chief among the questions that unraveled the case: Did Partyka embellish — or fabricate — key information from a trusted informant? [MORE]

White Florida Cop Charged with Manslaughter after Murdering James Lowery. Shot Unarmed Black Man in the Back of the Head as He Fled. Cops Refuse to Release Video, Media Refuses to Release Image of Cop

THE GREAT UNDECEIVER NEELY FULLER EXPLAINS THAT RACISM WHITE SUPREMACY IS PRIMARILY CARRIED THROUGH DECEPTION [MORE]

From [HERE] Titusville, Florida police officer Joshua Payne turned himself in yesterday (June 1) in connection to a fatal shooting that occurred late last year.

On December 26, 2021, Payne shot and killed 40-year-old James Lowery, a Black man, while chasing him on foot. The officer is now in Brevard County Jail and will face a manslaughter charge.

At the time of the incident, Payne and other officers were responding to a 911 domestic violence report. Police arrived near Gayle Avenue after a call stated that a woman was being beaten on the road.

According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Lowery matched the domestic battery complaint description of the suspect. Reports state that as the officer attempted to stop the suspect, the 40-year-old fled the scene.

Payne allegedly shot Lowery twice with his taser, but the suspect continued to run away. A report from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement says that Lowery reached the gate of a nearby home and tossed a bag of narcotics over the fence. The report adds that as the officer told the suspect to “get down,” the man climbed the fence to escape.

At that moment, sources say the officer pulled the trigger on his gun and taser, striking Lowery in back of his head. He died from his wounds.

Payne, who was hired in July of 2020, was placed on unpaid suspension after the incident.

Earlier this year, civil rights attorney Ben Crump filed a lawsuit against the Titusville Police Department. The famed lawyer is working on behalf of Lowery’s family.

Crump released a statement that read, “We are encouraged by the state attorney’s decision to file charges against Officer Payne for his deadly actions, but we will not stop fighting until there is a conviction. Officer Payne targeted, stalked, tased and shot James in the back of the head despite the fact that he wasn’t involved in the case that was being investigated, wasn’t armed, and was in no way threatening the officer.” It continued, “Officer Payne’s actions, as laid out in black and white in the affidavit, were nothing short of criminal. Nothing will bring James back to his family and loved ones, but we can bring them a measure of justice by holding Officer Payne accountable. And today’s charges bring us one step closer.”

Ben Crump and Quanell X Call for the Arrest of the White Houston Cop who Murdered Jalen Randle. Thus Far, the Harris County DA, a Racist Suspect Democrat, has Failed to Act

From [HERE] Nationally-renowned civil rights and personal injury attorney Ben Crump held a news conference Thursday with the family of Jalen Randle to discuss what they are calling the disturbing and violent record of Houston Police Officer Shane Privette, who shot and killed the Black man on April 27.

Crump and the family said that body camera footage from the incident clearly shows that Randle, with no visible weapon, was running away from police when he was shot in the back of the neck. Randle’s family feels he was not provided enough time to respond to the officer’s command before being gunned down.

Kim Ogg is is the Harris County District Attorney in Texas and took office in 2017. She is a racist suspect and a democrat. The DA’s office stated to news media;

“In every officer-involved shooting, our Civil Rights Division prosecutors conduct a thorough, independent review of all the evidence and present every bit of evidence to a Harris County grand jury to determine if a criminal charge is warranted.

“We also await the results of the Houston Police Department’s investigation.”

Last Monday, community activist Quanell X, representatives from the Rainbow Push Coalition and other civil rights advocates held another news conference, this time in front of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, calling for #JusticeForJalen. 

The family addressed the media after having a meeting with Ogg, saying that the meeting was “cordial” and they feel confident that they would get the movement they are seeking in the case. 

Crump, who gained national recognition in the Trayvon Martin case, said he plans on bringing a civil lawsuit against the Houston Police Department on behalf of Randle’s estate. He and the family reviewed the bodycam video, and heard what they feel proves that Privette intended to kill Randle.

“His motive was to kill my son,” Randle’s mother, Tiffany Rachal, said. “I am devastated, I am angry and for no one to come out to say anything to us is absurd to me.”

Rachal claims Privette could be heard in the video saying, “He won’t live to leave this neighborhood,” just minutes before the shooting, but law enforcement officials said important information is being left out.

Ray Hunt, executive director of the Houston Police Officers’ Union, also listened to the tape and told KPRC 2 that it is very clear that Privette flubbed his words. Hunt said he finds it interesting that Crump nor the family completed Privette’s sentence at the press conference.

According to Hunt, “He ain’t gonna liv-leave this neighborhood…” Privette could be heard saying, correcting himself, “…he’s gonna bail at that… (interrupted).”

Twenty seconds later, Privette comes back on the audio, saying, “he’s going to go back to that house.”

Despite the opposing sides, the family feels their loved one’s death was unnecessary, and this is not the first time Privette’s actions have come under scrutiny.

The officer was indicted by a grand jury in 2019 for first-degree aggravated assault on a Black citizen that occurred during an on-duty incident. KPRC 2 Investigates reported on the case back then.

According to records, on Nov. 14, 2017, Dwayne Walker was being arrested for manufacture and/or delivery of less than a gram of a controlled substance.

During the arrest, Privette allegedly struck Walker in the face with his knee in a gas station parking lot. Walker sustained various bruises and an excessive force investigation was launched. Charges against Privette were later dropped in 2019.

Nonetheless, Crump and the family believe Privette should not have been allowed to work as a law enforcement officer in the community after the previous incident. The civil rights attorney is calling on District Attorney Kim Ogg to file charges against Privette.

“How long will it take for them to arrest the officer who killed Jalen Randle? Shot to the back of the head, what else needs to be said?” Crump asked.

In May, police released video showing different angles of the shooting from body-worn cameras from various officers, including Privette. From where the video begins, the statement that is being called into question is not on the recording.