[the social contract is bullshit] Chicago Cops Don’t Prevent Violence or Protect NonWhite People: 30 shot, 7 fatally Last Weekend in City Run by White Liberals Where Only Criminals and Cops Have Guns

[MORE] How does a reasonable, law-abiding non-white citizen living in a city run by elite white liberals measure the effectiveness of police?

It seems logical to conclude that if a high number of crimes took place in Black neighborhoods then it means that police failed a high number of times to do their job of preventing crimes or protecting people in Black neighborhoods. If it occurs frequently then it would seem then that police in general frequently fail to do fulfill their perceived role of protecting Black people. Nevertheless, the Dependent media, which functions as “government media” report crime numbers as if the police are helpless to do anything about crime. Often the dependent media portrays cops as victims. On a daily basis (through various forms of indoctrination in The Spectacle) we are made to believe that police are primarily engaged in actual police work and are aggressive crime fighters sacrificing themselves to act on behalf of people. Such conduct is perceived as fulfilling their legal obligation to all citizens pursuant to the social contract, an agreement whereby citizens voluntarily agree to obey government authority in exchange for police protection and other services from the government.

Yet, in reality, crime data demonstrates that police don’t protect Black and Latino people and are not really involved in ‘police work’ in our communities. Rather, authorities use the perception and reality of crime to stalk, surveil, manage, control and kill Black and Latino people. Any beneficial “public service” provided by cops is random, incidental or done only under the most egregious or convenient circumstances and even then, it is done primarily to maintain manufactured public relations and provided on a compulsory, involuntary basis. Professor Alex Vitale states, “It is largely a liberal fantasy that the police exist to protect us from the bad guys. He further states, ‘the police have never really been about public safety or crime control.’ As the veteran police scholar David Bayley argues,

“The police do not prevent crime. This is one of the best kept secrets of modern life. Experts know it, the police know it, but the public does not know it. Yet the police pretend that they are society’s best defense against crime and continually argue that if they are given more resources, especially personnel, they will be able to protect communities against crime. This is a myth.”

Bayley goes on to point out that there is no correlation between the number of police and crime rates.” Police in Chicago and elsewhere don’t primarily protect or serve Black or Latino people. In fact, last month a Chicago Tribune analysis found that its easier for Black residents to get pizza delivery than for them to get cops to respond to their 911 calls.

Rather, police exist primarily to manage the behavior of Blacks & Latinos within a free-range prison controlled by Government. Their goal is to place Blacks and Latinos in greater confinement.  Any protection or help from police to Blacks or Latinos is random or incidental. As FUNKTIONARY states, "people who are awake see cops as mercenary guards that remind us daily through acts of force, that we are simultaneously both enemies and slaves of the Corporate State - colonized, surveilled and patrolled by the desensitized and lobotomized drones of the colonizers."

Despite said practical reality it is an undisputed legal truth that police have no legal duty to protect any victim from violence from other private parties, unless the victim was in governmental custody. [MORE] and [MORE]. The Supreme Court has explained that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. Among other things, this means for instance that police departments and their officers have no legal duty to protect any particular person and police cannot be sued for any failure to protect citizens under the Constitution or any federal statute. Unless a state negligence law exists allowing such a lawsuit, victims cannot hold police liable for a failure to protect them from harm from crimes. Courts throughout the nation have upheld and expanded on what is known as the “public duty doctrine.” Said “well established” rule from the Supreme Court that has been expanded upon by courts nationwide is known as the “public duty doctrine.” The DC Court of Appeals 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.”

Most recently in the so-called Parkland “mass shooting” a lawsuit alleging a failure to protect children was dismissed without controversy. A federal court ruled that students were not in “custody” and dismissed all claims concerning a failure to protect by police while children were allegedly killed and injured.

Both the failure of police to provide protection services to Blacks and Latinos and the public duty doctrine are simply more proof the social contract between government and citizens is bullshit. Specifically, the theory is that there is a “social contract” between people and the government in which the government protects the people and enforces the laws, in exchange for citizens’ obedience and taxes. That is, people have agreed to obey the government and do so voluntarily in exchange for government services. Mutual obligations, a promise for a promise, are a necessary element of all contracts. Where persons mistakenly believe they have a contract and one party fails to fulfill an obligation, the other is necessarily excused from performing her obligation. A contract places both parties under an obligation to each other, and one party’s rejection of his contractual obligation releases the other party from her obligation.

With regard to the social contract undeceiver Michael Huemer states,

‘individuals are supposed to be obligated to obey the laws promulgated by the state. Sometimes citizens violate those laws, in which case the state’s agents will punish the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. Given the wide and indefinite range of laws that might be created by the state and the range of punishments to which one might be subjected for violating them, an individual’s concessions to the state under the social contract are quite large. The state, in turn, is supposed to assume an obligation to the citizen, to enforce the citizen’s rights, including protecting the citizen from criminals and hostile foreign governments.’

Citizens are contractually obliged to obey all laws and commands and when they fail to do so the government punishes the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. However, pursuant to the public duty doctrine, authorities are bound to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but no one in particular. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it? ”

Obviously, there is no actual contract between the individual and the state. If such an agreement exists, WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT? “Citizens” were born into this arrangement, no one signed anything. Yet individuals are legally and morally bound to obey authority. Also, the public duty doctrine (among other things) renders the social contract theory meaningless. Thus, the social contract is a device or trick that is parcel to a paradigm in the citizen’s mind that enables the coercive system (government).

Why does any of this matter? If there is no social contract then there is no rational basis for the belief in political authority - the basis for all governments, everywhere. Here, BW is not talking about the purpose of government or how government can be improved. Rather, the problem is whether the government has a right to rule over people and whether people have an obligation to obey authority. What is the basis of the government’s implied right to rule over people in the first place? Is there a rational basis to account for authority or a logical way to account for its existence?

Authority is the belief that some people have the legal and moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have a legal and moral obligation to obey.’ The most cited basis for authority is the social contract. However, as stated, the social contract is an illusion. Other commonly asserted basis for authority have been thoroughly debunked as mythology and are discussed elsewhere.

No person(s) or entity calling itself a government has the right to rule over other human beings. Authority is a granfalloon, an empty representation. FUNKTIONARY explains Authority “has no meaning in reality,” it “is the means by which society uses to control its population.”

Authority doesn’t need to be overthrown because it is simply a belief in people’s minds. The great rebel, Larken Rose explains, “The belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.”

FUNKTIONARY explains that governmental authority at its essence is one man ruling over another by force - not through consensual agreement. The right to forcibly control another means that representatives of authority are legally and morally entitled to attack people offensively; put their hands on people and their property without their consent in order to en-force obedience with a law, rule or command of authority (enforce the law). To be clear, all persons have the natural right to defend themselves or come to the defense of others if they believe another person is in imminent danger from an aggressor. However, authorities have the extra or superhuman entitlement to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on citizens to obtain compliance with their orders. Authority is the moral property that legitimizes the government’s use of force offensively; things that would be recognized as immoral and unjustified if any citizen did them are instead perceived as moral and justified. This means for instance when government agents take a person against her will to a police station it is called an arrest and incarceration, not kidnapping and false imprisonment, or when state officials administer a lethal injection to a man strapped to a gurney it is called an execution not murder, or when persons wearing blue costumes command you to stop walking and stand on the grass or suffer physical harm it is called an investigatory stop not an assault or threat to do bodily harm, etc. Larken Rose explains, “In short, “authority” is permission to commit evil – to do things that would be recognized as immoral and unjustified if anyone else did them.” Pursuant to the belief in authority only government representatives are entitled to impose and enforce rules on the rest of society (the right to rule). Additionally, citizens are believed to have a corresponding legal and moral obligation to obey authority at all times, without regard as to whether they agree with the law, rule or command. This moral property possessed by government is superhuman or extra because it has no natural source (all government power is said to come directly from the people, yet people have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence). However, because there is no rational basis to account for authority, no logical or lawful way to account for its existence then said moral property is void, a granfalloon or an empty representation. Thus, there can be no legitimate right to rule over people and no one is obliged to obey a command merely because it comes from their government.”

FUNKTIONARY, explains that the unprovoked initiation of violence or force ‘is the basis of all social evils and can only be used in the sense of attack not defense, it is the force continuum.’ No persons calling themselves a government can exempt themselves from morality or can be specially entitled to harm other people. Acts that would be considered unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by people are just as unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by representatives of authority.

Contrary to lofty legal truths, in reality the legal system is entirely anchored in physical force/violence and government is non-consensual. Nearly every law or regulation is a command backed by the threat of violence against those who do not comply – here, violence means forced confiscation of property [payment of fines] or arrest or prison. Said threat of violence includes the ability and willingness of authorities to use deadly force against those who disobey. As explained by Dr. Blynd, nearly all “choices” presented to citizens by government are false; you can either comply with authority or go to jail or die. Huemer explains ‘force and violence are the final intervention that the individual cannot choose to defy. One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it.’

It is unfortunate to realize that we are slaves in a system of authority. Elites have indoctrinated people into a false understanding of slavery as a total system in which persons subjected to it have little to no freedoms. If I’m legally entitled to force you to work against your will for 2 hours per day, are you still free? If an agent is entitled to put his hands on another man without his consent to involuntarily control his movements or entitled to attack him, is the man still free? Jeremy Locke explains, “Slavery is not a concept of totality. Slavery exists wherever the freedom of man is destroyed. The ultimate slavery is murder. Slavery stops people from being able to make choices for their own lives. Everything that restricts your mind, your movements and your speech is evil. Slavery is found in both the partial and complete destruction of freedom.” As explained, there is no rational basis to account for governmental authority – the rulership in the US is as illegitimate as the rulership by the Taliban in Afghanistan – there is no substantive distinction for the basis of rulership amongst any known governments in the world; all are mob-like, territorial gangsters governing based on the belief in authority and all are illegitimate.

Clearly, governments are not all the same - some allow more freedom or grant people more privileges (called “rights” by authorities) to do things in “their territory” than others. Nevertheless, all citizens are subject to the force continuum simply by being physically present in the government’s “jurisdiction” or land believed to be under the complete control of authorities (because they said so). Moreover, there is no way to opt out or decline participation in systems of authority in any country; we are born into this non-consensual arrangement of physical coercion and compulsory, un-declinable public “service.” FUNKTIONARY describes this phenomenon as a “Free Range Prison” or “Free Range Slavery.”

FUNKTIONARY explains, ‘There can be no freedom in the presence of so-called authority.’ An external authority who has a legal and moral entitlement to control your body, property, labor and currency against your volition whenever it deems it necessary is your master. Governing people is evil. You may delude yourself into thinking that ‘you want to comply with authority’ but you really have no choice in the matter. You might be hallucinating that you believe you have other options – but options only exist if a higher government authority says they do. Similarly, you may disagree with authority in some manner but you must petition a higher authority to change the situation to agree with you.

In the free range prison whether you reject or object to a law and whether you vote or don’t vote or whether you accepts the benefits of government or not, all persons are still subject to the laws and required to obey authority. Like a plantation system, there is no way to opt out and avoid being subject to another authority. Can a government be free if a person cannot voluntarily opt out of it? If a government is non-voluntary then what is it? Locke explains, “The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain the freedom of life by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death.”

It is also obviously circular thinking to say ‘the government has authority over everything and everybody because it has authority over everything and everybody’ - such statement may indeed be the case but it cannot be a justification for the legitimacy of authority in the first place. Again, the point here is not to have a philosophical discussion about the purpose of government or history of government or how it should run. Rather, the question is - for what reasons does one man (or government) have supreme authority over another? Although explanation and justification for the right to rule is necessary, none exists. As such, you are a slave.

Where a critical mass of unwilling, disobedient slaves see authority for what it is change will occur. These rebels will stop playing along in their fake citizen role and pretending they have a master who tells them what to do and solves their problems. FUNKTIONARY states, “The real threat to "authority" is the masses overcoming info-gaps and verigaps through self-knowledge and the proliferation of symbols of opposition, not crime or destruction of property.”

According to FUNKTIONARY:

“authority” – (so-called)—a cartoon, an alleged image of the Law. 2) a cartoon clothed in flesh and blood. 3) the notion of an implied right and application of that “right” of individuals or groups of same to control or exercise external power over others, which has no meaning in reality. 4) power over…which is thoroughly institutionalized. 5) ruling through coercion. So-called “authority” is the justification for remaining impotent. The real threat to “authority” is the masses overcoming info-gaps and verigaps through self-knowledge and the proliferation of symbols of opposition, not crime or destruction of property. “Authority” is not a force but a farce! “Every great advancement in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.” ~ Aldous Huxley. Government is the hefty price we pay for our lack of being further evolved as humans. “The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority.” - Stanley Milgram. Regarding obedience to authority and carrying out “orders” Milgram states, “Thus there is a fragmentation of the total human act; no one man decides to carry out the evil act and is confronted with consequences. The person who assumes full responsibility for the act has evaporated. Perhaps this is the most common characteristic of socially organized evil in modern society.” At its root, government is based on violence and coercion. Without violent authority, studies show that violent behavior will all but disappear in its wake. Authority breeds the violence that it combats and perpetuates. Violence perpetrated by individuals is learned through noxious social experiences typically suffered under some assumed “authority.” “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government.” - Dr. Martin L. King, Jr., 1967. [MORE]

Trial Begins for White Temple Cop Who Murdered Michael Dean by Shooting the Unarmed Black Man During Traffic Stop. Same Cop Murdered a Black Teen by Running Him Over and Leaving the Car On Top of Him

From [HERE] The trial for Temple Police officer Carmen DeCruz began Monday, after a motion was denied to have the trial pushed back, again. DeCruz was a white cop at the time of the murder.

Twelve will serve as jurors who ultimately decide DeCruz’s fate while the other two serve as alternates.DeCruz is charged with second degree manslaughter for the shooting death of Michael Dean, 28, in Temple in 2019. Dean was Black.

The jury is apparently overwhelmingly white. The media has been describing it as “made up of 1 Black man, 1 mixed-race woman and 12 other people who are white and/or other races.” BW takes this to mean 2 non-white people and 12 whites. Only racists get finicky like that about classifications they created in the first place when they are attempting to conceal or deceive. What “other races?”

DeCruz is accused of shooting Dean during a traffic stop. A police affidavit states DeCruz shot Dean in the head while reaching in Dean's vehicle to grab his keys. Dean was unarmed - no weapon was in the car.

DeCruz was seen on body camera video walking in front of his patrol vehicle during a traffic stop with his handgun drawn. DeCruz made contact with Dean on the passenger side of the car and ordered Dean to turn off the vehicle and give him the keys, according to the affidavit.

DeCruz is seen reaching into the vehicle in an attempt to gain control of the keys with his left hand while holding his firearm in his right hand. DeCruz had the gun pointed at Dean with his finger on the trigger, according to the affidavit.

While DeCruz pulled the keys with his left hand, his right hand also pulled backward and caused the handgun to fire, striking Michael dean in the head, the affidavit said.

Dean was pronounced dead at the scene.

This footage has not been released to the public, and it's something the community closest to the Dean family wishes would be available.

Further complicating matters is DeCruz’s violent past as a police officer. He was named in an excessive force lawsuit for his actions surrounding the apprehension of a teenage suspect in 2017. DeCruz and his partner at the time were accused of intentionally running over a 15-year-old boy and leaving him under their squad car while it idled for 10 minutes and burned the 15-year-old boy’s body. The teenager’s mother filed the lawsuit that specifically named DeCruz and blamed him and his partner for third-degree burns to her son’s “torso, thighs and pelvis while pinned beneath the running vehicle.” [MORE]

"We want to take this delicately to figure out how the city got in this position in the first place," Gary Smith, a member of the Temple NAACP, said.

Smith added that they (NAACP) feel not everything has been made public for the reason of hiding certain facts about the case.

"You see these other instances in America where Black men are shot and the footage from the body camera is shared allover social media," he added.

Six News legal analyst, Liz Mitchell, said because this is an ongoing trial, the footage cannot be shared with the public.

She added that sharing the footage outside of the court room could mess with jury selection.

"It would be even more difficult to find 12 and impartial jurors if the key piece of evidence has already been released to the public," she said.

Mitchell said "key piece of evidence" because she believes the body cam footage is what will prove DeCruz committed manslaughter and not murder.

According to Mitchell, if DeCruz had the intent to murder and cause bodily harm, then he committed murder. But if the state can prove he was reckless in some way, then it's manslaughter.

All the community is asking for now is that justice be brought to the Dean family and all those impacted by this tragedy.

"It could have been anyone's brother, anyone's father, anyone's son and that is why we want accountability," Alexxis McBride, a member of the Temple NAACP said.

Police Killings Set New Record in 2022: Black People Made up 25% of All Persons Killed by Cops [the police officer's right to attack people (initiate violence) is Not Reformable and Immoral

From [HERE] US police brutality hit a new record in 2022 as it killed 1,183 people, with data showing that there were killings on 353 days last year. However, weirdly enough, reports about police brutality and inhumane treatment don't seem to flood the internet and news channels.

STATIST DELUSION. Here is where all statist’s [republicans and democrats] get lost, asking shit like ‘was the use of force appropriate?’ and/or ‘it was way too much force for a tail light!’

In reality, the so-called “right” to attack people is evil regardless of whether it is done lawfully by persons having “authority” or done unlawfully by criminals. Acts that would be considered unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by people are just as unjust or morally unacceptable when performed by government agents.

To be clear, all persons have the natural right to defend themselves and come to the defense of others if they believe another person is in imminent danger from an aggressor. Private security workers and guards also work under said natural law.

In contrast police officers also have the extra or additional “power” to act as offensively as aggressors; the right to attack people or initiate unprovoked acts of violence against people whenever they deem it necessary. Police are said to have such powers when they are acting on behalf of “authority.” As such, police are permitted to lawfully attack (make arrests) people, touch them against their will, assault them, interfere with freedoms in many ways, kidnap people (detain and transport) or imprison them because higher authorities have empowered them to do so. In turn, people are said to have a moral and legal obligation to obey police commands and have no right to even resist an unlawful arrest in most states.

The problem is that there is no rational basis for authority. Authority, the basis for all governments and rulership, is a farce. Government “authority” can be summed up as the implied right to rule over people. It is the government’s ability and moral right to forcibly control citizens, its right to be obeyed and the citizen’s corresponding moral and legal obligation to obey.’ Authority requires that government’s laws, commands and orders to be obeyed on a content-neutral basis (regardless of whether they agree or not.) [MORE] Michael Huemer defines political authority as “the hypothesized moral property in virtue of which governments may coerce people in certain ways not permitted to anyone else and in virtue of which citizens must obey governments in situations in which they would not be obligated to obey anyone else.” Said hypothesized moral property makes government the supreme authority over human affairs.

Authority has no meaning in reality because it does not come from people nor is it derived from any natural source. All governmental power allegedly comes exclusively from the people. Citizens delegate their individual power to government and it’s representatives for them to represent citizens. Such representation works much in the same way agents represent their principals in all kinds of business or other contractual relationships. For instance, a manager at McDonalds represents the owner of McDonalds when she carries out the owners business everyday ordering inventory and hiring workers, etc. She is the agent, the owners are the principals. Naturally, an agent only can possess whatever powers the principal gave to her. For instance, you grant the babysitter access and power to use your living room but not the basement. And it goes without saying that an agent cannot have more power than the principal because all said power originated exclusively from the principal.

Inexplicably, the government has granted itself the authority to do things that no individual could do. While citizens have the inalienable right to act in self-defense or come to the defense of others, citizens have no right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence on other people and no right to forcibly control other people. As such, it is logically impossible for citizens to delegate the right to forcibly control others to the government - because citizens cannot possibly delegate rights that they don’t have. In other words, if you don’t have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence against other people then you cannot delegate or authorize anyone else acting on your behalf to do so. Clearly for example, your neighbor has no right to stop, search and detain you and put you into handcuffs, kidnap you and lock you in a basement for failing to comply with one his commands. So, how could your neighbor delegate a government representative the power to do so?

Larken Rose explains, ‘in the case of “government,” the people whom the politicians claim to represent have no right to do anything that politicians do: impose “taxes,” enact “laws,” etc. Average citizens have no right to forcibly control the choices of their neighbors, tell them how to live their lives, and punish them if they disobey, So when a “government” does such things, it is not representing anyone or anything but itself.’ As stated, it is a logical and legal impossibility for a representative to have more power than the person he is representing. Larken Rose explains, “you can’t give someone something you don’t have.” There is nothing complicated about this. Rose states;

“Despite all of the complex rituals and convoluted rationalizations, all modern belief in “government” rests on the notion that mere mortals can, through certain political procedures, bestow upon some people various rights which none of the people possessed to begin with. The inherent lunacy of such a notion should be obvious. There is no ritual or document through which any group of people can delegate to someone else a right which no one in the group possesses. And that self-evident truth, all by itself, demolishes any possibility of legitimate “government.”

Rose explains if those in “government” have only those rights possessed by those who elected them, then “government” loses the one ingredient that makes it “government”: the right to rule over others (”authority”). If it has the same rights and powers as everyone else, there is no reason to call it “government.” If the politicians have no more rights than you have, all of their demands and commands, all of their political rituals, “law” books, courts, and so on, amount to nothing more than the symptoms of a profound delusional psychosis. Nothing they do can have any legitimacy, any more than if you did the same thing on your own, unless they somehow acquired rights that you do not have. And that is impossible, since no one on earth, and no group of people on earth, could possibly have given them such superhuman rights.”

The point here is not a theoretical discussion about the purpose of government or history of government or how it should run. Rather, the question is - for what reasons does one man (or government) have supreme authority over another? Although explanation and justification for the right to rule is necessary, none exists.

MacArthur Foundation Report: Native Americans Significantly Overrepresented In US Prisons

From [HERE] A recent report released by the MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge reveals a significant overrepresentation of Native American people in the U.S. prison system, which worsens in states with larger native populations. 

According to the report, Native American people are incarcerated 38 percent over the national average and are overrepresented in the prison populations of 19 states compared to other races and ethnicities.

In North Dakota, where Native American people constitute just under 6 percent of the population according to most recent Census data, Native incarceration rates jump to seven times higher than the incarceration rates of white people. 

In Montana, which has a more significant native population at 7 percent, Natives represent 20 to 34 percent of the state’s state prison population.

According to the study, the discrepancies in incarceration rates among natives and other racial groups are tied to the complexity of criminal jurisdiction and historical traumas. 

“Like many modern challenges in Indian Country, over-incarceration of Indigenous people is intimately tied to colonial violence and upheld by policies throughout the years,” said Ciara Hansen, one of the study’s authors who works as a clinical psychologist at Northern Navajo Medical Center. 

“Paternalistic solutions applied to Native communities often miss the important step of seeking to understand the issue from the community’s perspective. This report offers a starting point for discussion and knowledge sharing.”

The report also found that Native Americans die by police brutality at triple the rate of white Americans and well over double Black Americans. In addition, Native American young men were sentenced more harshly than any other racial group.

In one example cited in the report, 2008 sentencing data showed that in South Dakota, which has a high percentage of Native Americans relative to most states, Natives prosecuted for aggravated assault in federal court were sentenced to 62 percent longer prison terms than those charged in state court. 

“The report not only highlights the painful and unacceptable treatment of Native people in the criminal justice system, but also underscores the overreliance on incarceration to solve community issues,” said Bria Gillum, a senior program officer at MacArthur, in the press release announcing the report. 

“It is our hope that the report contributes to the growing conversation about racial disparities in this broken system, sparks deeper collaboration between state and tribal agencies, and leads to investments in diversion services that can end this devastating cycle.”

There has been a 25 percent jump in the number of jails on Native American land since 2000, which the report authors said has led to more natives arrested for more minor crimes and longer sentences. 

The report’s recommendations to curb the trend of over-incarcerating Native Americans include strengthening the tribal justice systems and working in a better context with the community. 

Judge Blocks Illinois New Gun Law that Violates Pre-Existing Rights to Bear and Carry Arms for 1) Self-Defense Against Criminals in Public and 2) to Prevent Tyranny, when All Other Rights Have Failed

TYRANNY PREVENTION: A “CORE” PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

WITH NO GUN "RIGHTS" FREEDOMS CAN BE SHUT OFF LIKE A LIGHT (SEE CANADA/IRELAND/UK/NEW ZEALAND) HISTORICAL ANALYSIS SHOWS DISARMED FORMERLY FREE PEOPLE HAVE NO DEFENSE AGAINST SLAVERY OR GOVT VIOLENCE

From [HERE] An Illinois judge on Friday temporarily blocked Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker from enforcing a newly enacted ban on certain semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.

Effingham County Judge Joshua Morrison slapped the gun control law with a temporary restraining order after former Republican candidate for attorney general Tom DeVore sued to block the law. DeVore said in a press release that he's representing citizens from 87 Illinois counties who are challenging the law, which he called, "an outright attack on the constitutional rights of lawful gun owners across the state." 

Morrison's ruling only applies to 850 plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit in Effingham County and four licensed gun dealers.

Pritzker said he was not surprised by the decision and accused the plaintiffs of advancing "ideology over public safety" in seeking to have the law struck down.

"We are well aware that this is only the first step in defending this important legislation," Pritzker said. "I remain confident that the courts will uphold the constitutionality of Illinois' law, which aligns with the eight other states with similar laws and was written in collaboration with lawmakers, advocates, and legal experts."

In an 11-page ruling, Morrison affirmed that the plaintiffs have a constitutional right to bear arms that is protected by both the Illinois state Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. 

"Plaintiffs are being immediately and irreparably harmed each day in which their fundamental right to bear arms is being denied," Morrison wrote. 

The judge cited a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision from last year that struck down New York state’s concealed carry law. That 6-3 ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen found that the "plain text" of the Second Amendment protected the right of the plaintiffs in that case to carry firearms for self-defense.

"Due to the speed with which this bill was passed, the effect to protected classes could not have been considered, nor could the Legislature have studied if this was the least restrictive way to meet their goal," Morrison also wrote.

Pritzker signed the law on Jan. 10 in response to the mass shooting that killed seven and injured 30 at the Highland Park July Fourth parade. The law bans dozens of specific types of rapid-fire handguns and rifles, .50-caliber guns, attachments and limits cartridges to 10 rounds for long guns and 15 rounds for pistols.

The Illinois State Rifle Association, a gun rights group that filed a separate federal challenge to the law control law, applauded Morrison's ruling. 

"This is a clear indication from the court that the General Assembly and Governor Pritzker rammed this law through improperly. The ISRA firmly believes the law is an infringement on all law-abiding residents’ 2nd Amendment rights," the group said. 

Florida Court Upholds Law Banning Local Governments from Making Restrictions on the Right to Bear and Carry Arms for Self-Defense in Public [the 2nd Amendment Makes No Distinction btw Home and Public]

From [HERE] The Florida Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a state law on Thursday that prevents local officials from implementing restrictions on gun and ammunition sales. 

Florida passed a law in 1987 that preempts cities and counties from creating restrictions on guns that go beyond state law, then added civil penalties and fines for local officials who violate that law in 2011. 

Several local governments challenged the penalty provision of the law after 17 people were shot and killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018. Former Democratic Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, who left office earlier this month, joined multiple municipalities in suing the state. 

The penalty provision calls for a fine of up to $5,000 against any local official for "knowing and willful" violations of the statute. 

In a 4-1 ruling, the Florida Supreme Court ruled against those local officials, with the majority writing that "local governments have no lawful discretion or authority to enact ordinances that violate state preemption."

Catherine Austin Fitts: The Coming "Central Bank Digital Currency" is Not Money. It's a System of Control

Follow the Money to Understand “Single Source Propaganda:” Two Investment Firms, Vanguard and BlackRock, Own Nearly the Entire Mainstream Media and Most of Big Pharma

From [HERE] If you’ve been wondering how the world economy has been hijacked and humanity has been kidnapped by a completely bogus Covid narrative, look no further than this video by a Dutch creator.

​What she uncovers is that the stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. They all own each other. This means that “competing” brands, like Coke and Pepsi aren’t really competitors, at all, since their stock is owned by exactly the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies, banks and in some cases, governments. This is the case, across all industries. As she says:

“The smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies whose names we have often seen…They are Vanguard and BlackRock. The power of these two companies is beyond your imagination. Not only do they own a large part of the stocks of nearly all big companies but also the stocks of the investors in those companies. This gives them a complete monopoly".

​Laurence Douglas Fink is an American Jewish billionaire businessman. He is the chairman and CEO of BlackRock, an American multinational investment management corporation. BlackRock is the largest money-management firm in the world with more than $6.5 trillion in assets under management, giving the firm enormous power over the global financial system.

​Vanguard Group, coincidentally, is a shareholder of Black Rock, which controls and manages 1/3 of the world’s capital.  Vanguard Group, coincidentally, is owned by the Jewish trillionaire Rothschilds, as seen in the link below.

https://www.holdingschannel.com/all/stocks-held-by-rothschild-investment-corp-il/

​A Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028, together will have investments in the amount of 20 trillion dollars. That means that they will own almost everything.

​Watch the video for facts and evidence about the global control of Black Rock and Vanguard.  The video above was created by Dutch researchers and their website is:

https://linktr.ee/vrouwenvoorvrijheid [MORE]

Uncle Brother Seeks More Restrictions in the Free Range Prison: Vaccine Passports, Digital ID, a Social Credit System, Surveillance and Digital Currency Will Enable Total Control of Sheeple

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• An international vaccine passport, digital identity, a social credit system and a central bank digital currency (CBDC) form a digital control system that will lock down the population in perpetuity

• Facial recognition is an essential part of the control structure, as it’s the “password” to your digital identity

• By the end of 2022, there will be 1 billion data collecting surveillance cameras in the world, all connected to the internet and artificial intelligence (AI). Cameras and audio recording devices in cell phones, automobiles and smart appliances also collect and share data

• All these data are then used to give each person an individual score, based on their behavior, expression and interaction with the world. Ultimately, your social credit score, will dictate what you can and cannot do, what you can buy and where you can go

• Artificial intelligence (AI) is an absolutely crucial component, without which the control system cannot work. The easiest way to push against this system is to starve AI of data by refusing to use technologies that collect and share your personal data

From [HERE] In the video above, Maria Zeee with ZeeeMedia interviews computer scientist Aman Jabbi about the coming international vaccine passport, digital identity, the social credit system being built in the West, and central bank digital currency (CBDC).

All these factors are now coming together to control the global population. As noted by Zeee, this digital prison, which is already mostly built, will be the final lockdown of mankind.

Your Digital Identity Will Be Your Digital Prison

In the video, Jabbi goes through a presentation that explains the digital prison that is your digital identity — in other words, how your digital identity ties in with the coming social credit system and will control what you can and cannot do in your everyday life.

As noted by Jabbi, surveillance cameras with facial recognition software have already been erected around the world. They are an essential part of the control structure, and this surveillance will be linked together with digital identity, the social credit score system, carbon footprint tracking, CBDCs and more.

Facial recognition has been sold as a great convenience and security feature. With facial recognition, you don’t need to remember pins or passwords, and since no one has your exact face, it’s supposed to keep your personal accounts more secure.

But, as with most other technologies sold under the guise of convenience and security, facial recognition is ultimately a tool for mass control and an essential part of your individual digital prison. As explained by Jabbi, the Chinese control system is based on facial recognition in combination with a social credit system.

He describes the Chinese social credit system as a feedback system that responds based on your behavior. Unbeknownst to most Westerners, an identical system has already been set in motion behind the scenes in Western countries — they just haven’t told you yet.

Weaponized Surveillance

By the end of 2022, there will be 1 billion data collecting surveillance cameras in the world, all connected to the internet and artificial intelligence (AI). The United States actually has the most surveillance cameras per capita. China is second place and the U.K. in third.

In addition to all of that data collection, cameras and audio recording devices in cell phones, automobiles and smart appliances also collect and share data, even when you’re at home.

All these data are then used to give each person an individual score based on their behavior, expression and interaction with the world. Ultimately, that score —  your social credit score — will dictate what you can and cannot do, what you can buy and where you can go.

As noted by Jabbi, there are also additional control mechanisms already built into the hardware being erected. For example, many smart light poles have built-in charging stations for drones, which in the future will be used for law and behavioral enforcement purposes. We will largely be policed by AI and machines.

These smart light poles can also be weaponized. Built-in are LED incapacitators. Sometimes referred to as “puke rays” for their ability to induce severe nausea, LED incapacitators are weapons designed like a flashlight that emit an extremely bright, rapid and well-focused series of "differently-colored random pulses." According to Jabbi, these lights can also induce brain damage, spinal damage, sickness and likely even death.

LED combined with radar on some smart poles can also be used to identify people carrying guns, and could theoretically be used as a weapon to selectively take out people carrying weapons.

ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY:

totalitarianism – a neologism coined by Mussolini—best understood by the phrase “The Nightmare State,” whose agents (neocrats) seek totality of control over its subject-victims (“citizens”), including their erotic emotions and minds. 2) Big Brother’s Fantasy State. 3) total impersonalized terror. 4) fascism disguised as democracy. (See: Fascism & Demockcracy)

A New Chapter in the ‘Social Contract’

Digital identity has been described by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as a new chapter in the social contract. The problem, as noted by Jabbi, is that the WEF’s new social contract is one that none of us has agreed to. It’s being revised by the WEF and its allies and thrust upon the rest of us, without our consent.

The vast majority of people don’t even know what this new social contract actually entails, or how it will affect their personal day-to-day lives and individual decision-making ability. That, for obvious reasons, has never been fully delineated because, if fully understood by everyone, virtually no one on earth would accept it. After all, few people with normal intelligence relishes having their lives dictated by someone else.

Source: World Economic Forum

As shown in the graphic above, your digital identity will be required to unlock all aspects of life, from logging onto the Internet to accessing social services, travel, food, shopping and financial services. If your social credit score is too low, one or more of these aspects can be turned off and made unavailable to you. “So, by default, you’re always a prisoner,” Jabbi says.

Your digital identity is confirmed through facial recognition, and is tied to your social score, carbon footprint score and CBDCs. As your social and carbon footprint scores go down, so does your purchasing ability.

As noted by Zeee, the international vaccine passport proposed at the 2022 G20 meeting is, at least right now, THE key to the entire effort to get everyone into the digital ID system. So, preventing the adoption of vaccine passports is a central component of resistance to the digital prison system in its entirety.

“Once we accept digital identity, it’s Game Over for humanity.” ~ Aman Jabbi

You must also reject the vaccine passport unless you’re willing to be a medical lab rat for the rest of your life. Zeee cites documents stating 500 new vaccines will be ready by 2030 that are targeting most common diseases. It is likely that having an up-to-date vaccination status will be one of the requirements to maintain a valid passport, which will also serve as your digital identity.

In other words, vaccine refusal can be used to nullify or “lock” your digital ID, leaving you unable to do, go or buy anything. The question is, what will those vaccines be? Basically, you’ll have no choice but to comply, even if you believe or know that a vaccine can injure or kill you, as is the case with the COVID jabs.

Zero Trust System

As explained by Jabbi, the new social contract created by the WEF and its allies is a zero-trust system. In a physical prison, prisoners are under a zero-trust policy. In other words, the guards don’t trust the prisoners and there are security measures in place to make sure they behave. The new open-air prison system envisioned by the WEF is based on the same premise.

Everywhere you go, you must prove who you are and that your compliance metrics are in alignment with the prevailing rules. So, to buy food, you have to not only identify yourself so that your purchase can be permanently logged as one of your purchases, but you also have to meet certain compliance standards, or else your CBDC won’t work.

The default in this system is denial, so everything you want to do — absolutely everything — must be unlocked by your digital ID. As noted by Jabbi, “Once we accept digital identity, it’s Game Over for humanity.”

Geofencing and Smart Cities Form the Walls of Your Prison

To enforce your conditional access to life, geofencing will be used. Smart light poles equipped with LED incapacitators can be used to prevent you from going beyond your designated geofence, but there are also other geofencing mechanisms. For example, your CBDC can be programmed to not work outside your district, and your smart car can be programmed to shut down past a certain perimeter. Jabbi also reviews the inexorable push toward smart cities, which will:

• Limit your mobility and eliminate car ownership

• Control you through weaponized surveillance

• Ration water, electricity and gas consumption

• Surveil your speech

• Track your actions and whereabouts 24/7

Starve the Beast

Jabbi cites a formula created by the WEF’s philosophical guru Yuval Noah Harrari, to describe technocrats’ ever-growing ability to hack humans: B x C x D = AHH

B stands for biological knowledge, C is computing power, D is data and AHH is the level of ability to hack a human being. As noted by Jabbi, the ability to hack humans is dependent on AI being fed a constant stream of data.

It’s a “beast system” in the sense that AI is the beast, and it needs to be fed. Its food is data, gathered through a vast array of data conduits such as cameras, recording devices, facial recognition, GPS and sensors of all kinds that make up the Internet of Bodies. You can learn more about this in “Manufactured Dystopia — Globalists Won’t Stop Hacking Humans.”

AI is an absolutely crucial component for success of the digital prison. Without it, it cannot work. The answer then, is to starve the beast, and we do this by withholding our data. “No amount of legislation can stop this,” he says, “it has to be done by the people.” In short, we must refuse to use the technologies that gather our data.

We won’t be able to avoid them all. Smart light poles and traffic cameras, for example, cannot be avoided unless you avoid certain areas, which could include your own street. But there are many we can avoid, such as smart watches, fitness trackers, smart thermostats, smart TVs, AI assistants and Ring surveillance cameras just to name a few.

We can also fight, on a local level, to prevent the expansion of facial recognition cameras and 5G, and we can refuse the coming vaccine passport, and the push toward virtual reality. As noted by Jabbi, one way in which people are surreptitiously led into the digital prison is by relying on apps that offer convenience, such as apps that allow you to order food or transportation.

Eventually, they’ll phase out apps on your phone and transfer them to virtual reality googles, so that you have to be in the virtual world in order to use them. It’s important to understand why this is done. It’s to force you deeper into the digital prison system, which includes digital clones and living much of your life in a virtual reality.

China Demonstrates Coming Prison State

At present, China is being rocked by massive protests against the Zero-COVID policy that is used to imprison tens of millions of people in their homes for weeks on end. You’d think an American company like Apple would stand for American values like freedom but, no, it does not. It’s working with the Chinese government to quell dissent.

As reported by Bloomberg 1 November 9, 2022, Apple is limiting its iPhone file-sharing tool, restricting AirDrops from non-contacts to 10 minutes. The wireless file-sharing feature was used to share pictures and videos from the protests, thereby encouraging more people to join.

According to Bloomberg, while the change was only made to phones sold in China, Apple says it plans to roll out the same limitation globally. Why? Are they predicting anti-government protests elsewhere?

According to a Twitter user named Songpinganq, 2 the video above shows iPhone workers clashing with police over the country’s Zero-COVID policy. In response, the Chinese government is alleged to have remotely switched all of the protesters’ COVID passports to “red,” which prevents them from entering public spaces.

If they try to enter a building, for example — including residential complexes — an alarm will go off and they’ll be detained and escorted to a quarantine camp which, by the way, they have to pay for. That’s how easy it is for the government to eliminate undesirables from society once this kind of control system is in place.

(For the record, I cannot confirm that the featured video is indeed iPhone workers, or that they’re specifically protesting the COVID measures. Regardless, the basic premise remains true, which is that government would be able to control large masses of people remotely, through their digital identity/vaccine passport.)

The video 3 below is said to be from a Chinese quarantine camp. A health worker walks through the complex measuring the detainees’ body temperature. The second video 4 shows the inside of a quarantine cubicle. [MORE]

Suit Seeking $50M Filed for Keenan Anderson. LAPD Murdered Black School Teacher by Tasing and Smothering Him as He Begged for His Life. Unlawfully Stopped for Drunk Driving While He Walked in Street

From [HERE] On behalf of Keenan Anderson lawyers have filed a $50-million wrongful death claim against the city of Los Angeles. The Black man was murdered in the street by LAPD cops earlier this month on January 3, 2023.

The suit claims the 31-year-old teacher died as a result of “serious injuries” from an LAPD officer who repeatedly used a taser on Anderson after a traffic accident. The claim is requesting $35 million due to damages against Anderson’s son and, according to CNN,  $15 million for Anderson’s estate, citing the city “failed to properly train the involved officers” who used “unreasonable deadly force.”

The Los Angeles Times reported that attorneys Ben Crump and Carl Douglas claim the force used by officers amounted to a “serious injury and damages to his mind and body, and four and one-half hours later [he] dies as a result of the injuries and damages he sustained at the hands of the LAPD police officers.”

The Jan. 3 interaction with the Los Angeles Police Department began after Anderson was allegedly involved in a traffic collision.

The first officer on the scene called him a “possible DUI driver” and asked for backup, but things escalated quickly.

The video shows Anderson appearing to run from police. He was then ordered to the ground and a struggle ensued as additional officers arrived on the scene. That is, Keenan was on foot not operating a vehicle. There can be no probable cause to arrest for DUI/DWI when there was no vehicle present and if officers didn’t observe any driving. At any rate, the legal standard (at least in regard to white citizens) for arrest is “probable cause” not any “possible cause.” At the time of his arrest, Anderson apparently had not committed any crime.

At one point, Anderson can be heard saying, “They’re trying to George Floyd me.”

He was taken to the hospital, but the Los Angeles Police Department said Anderson suffered a medical emergency and died about four hours later.

The beloved teacher was the cousin of Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors.

Since the incident, the LAPD says all but one of the unidentified six officers involved have returned to work and claim the focus of the incident has been the application taser and is “being looked at closely.” The estate’s legal team is planning to ask the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to investigate the case, as this is third officer-involved death in Los Angeles this year.

Attorneys say Video Shows Memphis Cops Savagely Beat Defenseless Black Man Tyre Nichols to Death After Traffic Stop. Authorities Refuse to Release Public Video to Public in City Dominated by Liberals

From [HERE] Tyre Nichols was "defenseless" during the "savage" beating by Memphis police officers that preceded his death earlier this month, attorneys for his family said at a Monday press conference.

Earlier in the day, law enforcement officials privately met with Nichols' family members and their attorneys to show them video footage of the police stop, which has not yet been released to the public.

Attorney Antonio Romanucci described a violent scene. "He was a human piñata for those police officers," Romanucci said. "It was an unadulterated, unabashed nonstop beating of this young boy for three minutes."

Attorney Ben Crump said the video reminded him of the infamous video of Los Angeles police beating Rodney King in 1991.

Nichols, who was Black, died on Jan. 10, three days after he was stopped by Memphis police for reckless driving. He fled the scene of the traffic stop but was ultimately taken into custody after what police said were two "confrontations" with officers.

Authorities said the 29-year-old Nichols complained of "shortness of breath" after his arrest and was taken to the hospital in critical condition. Nichols' family said the police beat him so badly that he became unrecognizable.

Crump, one of the family's attorneys, said Nichols was tased, pepper sprayed and restrained during the incident, part of which occurred about 80 yards from where Nichols lived with his mother and stepfather. Crump said Nichols could be heard calling out for his mother just before the video ended.

"Yet again, we're seeing evidence of what happens to Black and brown people from simple traffic stops," he said. "You should not be killed because of a simple traffic stop."

Officers Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, Emmitt Martin III, Desmond Mills Jr. and Justin Smith were fired, MPD announced Friday.

FUCK ALL POLICE. Although do-gooders often claim diverse police forces are a cure for reform and police brutality, Black cops brutalize and harm Black people at a rate nearly equal to white cops. Yale legal historian James Foreman explains that Black people have been calling for the hiring of Black police officers since the 1860’s. Scholar Alex Vitale states, “Reformers often call for recruiting more officers of color in the hopes that they will treat communities with greater dignity, respect, and fairness. Unfortunately, there is little evidence to back up this hope. Even the most diverse forces have major problems with racial profiling and bias, and individual black and Latino officers appear to perform very much like their white counterparts.” He states, “there is now a large body of evidence measuring whether the race of the individual officers affects their use of force. Most studies show no effect. More distressingly, a few indicate that black officers are more likely to use force or make arrests, especially of Black civilians.” [MORE]

Authorities promised Nichols' family that they would release video of the incident to the public in one to two weeks, Crump said.

Nichols mother, RowVaughn Wells, said her son didn't do drugs or carry guns, and questioned why police felt they had to violently arrest him.

Wells remembered her son as a "beautiful soul" who loved to take photographs of the sunset. "He had my name tattooed on his arm, and that made me proud, because most kids don't put their mom's name, but he did," she said.

A photo that has circulated in news reports and on social media shows a badly bruised Nichols lying in a hospital bed after his arrest.

Multiple investigations are underway

Last week the Memphis Police Department said it had concluded its administrative investigation into Nichols' death and announced it had fired five officers: Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, Emmitt Martin III, Desmond Mills, Jr. and Justin Smith. Like Nichols, all of the officers are Black.

Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn 'CJ' Davis said the officers had violated multiple police department policies, including excessive use of force, duty to intervene and duty to render aid.

"The Memphis Police Department is committed to protecting and defending the rights of every citizen in our city," Davis said in a statement. "The egregious nature of this incident is not a reflection of the good work that our officers perform, with integrity, every day."

The Shelby County District Attorney's Office said it understood the "reasonable request from the public" to view the video of Nichols death and that it was working to determine how quickly it could release the footage and would do so as soon as possible.

"However, we must ensure we abide by applicable laws and ethical rules so that we do not jeopardize an ongoing investigation or prosecution," the office said.

The Justice Department and the FBI are investigating Nichol's death, and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation has also launched its own inquiry.

Released Twitter Files Reveal Increased Government Control of the Platform

From [HERE] During his examination of the Twitter Files, investigative reporter Matt Taibbi discovered a pattern of increasing government control over the social media platform, he told RT’s John Kiriakou on Saturday’s episode of ‘The Whistleblowers’.

Since purchasing Twitter for $44 billion in October, Elon Musk has released batches of documents shedding light on the platform’s previously opaque censorship policies, enlisting independent journalists to break each document dump. Independent journalist Matt Taibbi was the first chosen, publishing communications that revealed a company-wide effort to suppress reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop – the contents of which implicated the Biden family in numerous foreign corruption schemes.

“I wasn’t very interested in that story per se,” Taibbi told Kiriakou. “The question I was really interested in answering was what level of communication and coordination exists between…Twitter and federal law enforcement, and perhaps agencies beyond the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, or the White House.”

While researching Twitter’s decision to ban then-President Donald Trump’s account in early 2021, Taibbi said that he began noticing instant messages between Twitter executives “where you would see little indentations at the top of the messages that said ‘this is flagged by DHS, this is flagged by the FBI.’”

“And that right away told us something very significant, that Twitter was in the business of processing requests that came from federal law enforcement agencies,” he said.

Taibbi discovered that in the runup to the 2020 election, Twitter would receive lists of thousands of accounts to suspend. These lists were handed to the company by the FBI, CIA, NSA, Pentagon, State Department, Treasury and others, and sometimes came in the form of excel spreadsheets, which employees were expected to ban without question.

“There were so many requests, they got one batch one day and when they completed it there was a round of applause in the chat,” Taibbi told Kiriakou.

At one point, when Twitter employees received a list of accounts from the State Department to ban for spreading so-called Russian “disinformation,” they argued that they should take no action, as the department had provided no evidence. However, a Twitter executive who previously worked for the CIA told them to flag the accounts anyway, as the site’s “government partners are becoming more aggressive” with their censorship demands.

“That decision was significant, because it was one of the moments when Twitter basically realized ‘We can’t say no any more,’” Taibbi explained.

In the time since Taibbi released his first story on the Hunter Biden laptop, further reporting has revealed that Twitter assisted the US military’s online influence campaigns, censored “anti-Ukraine narratives” on behalf of multiple US intelligence agencies, suppressed “legitimate content” on Covid-19 on behalf of the White House, and participated in the “Russiagate” hoax. [MORE]

Dr McCullough: People Have Been Tricked Into Taking Unsafe COVID Shots. There is Overwhelming Evidence that They Cause Heart Damage. Where are the Criminal Charges for Inducing and Defrauding People?

Calls Mount to Stop COVID Injections in South Africa Over Numerous Adverse Side Effects and Deaths from Experimental Shots that Don't Stop Transmission or Prevent COVID, a mild Virus

[MORE]

DeSantis Moves to Permanently Ban COVID Shot Passports, Mask Mandates in Schools and Mandated COVID Shots as a Condition of Employment

From [HERE] Once again, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is breaking rank from the global health cabal and declaring that his state will carve its own path to health and health freedom. 

In this instance, he’s proposing a new policy that would permanently ban COVID vaccine passports, mask mandates in schools and mandated COVID shots as a condition of employment. It would also prohibit businesses from mandating masks. 

In a news release, DeSantis said, “When the world lost its mind, Florida was a refuge of sanity, serving strongly as freedom’s linchpin. These measures will ensure Florida remains this way and will provide landmark protections for free speech for medical practitioners.”

Fired Workers Sue NYC Authorities, Seek $250 Million and End to Irrational COVID Shot Mandate

From [HERE] New York City public-sector workers who lost their jobs for refusing to comply with the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on Thursday filed a $250 million lawsuit against the city and Mayor Eric Adams seeking to end the mandate.

The 72 fired workers are demanding the city overturn the mandate, reinstate their jobs and compensate them with punitive damages.

The workers argue the mandate should be found “arbitrary and capricious” given that “President Joe Biden, Governor Kathy Hochul and Senator Chuck Schumer have all declared that the pandemic is over,” and that it was already rescinded for private sector employees and students, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed in the Bronx County Supreme Court of the State of New York, also alleges the plaintiffs were discriminated against with “willful or wanton negligence, or recklessness” and were mocked and ridiculed by their colleagues.

Many of the plaintiffs — formerly with the New York Police Department (NYPD), the New York Fire Department, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and other agencies — worked for the city for more than 20 years but now are unemployed, have lost their homes and their ability to support their families, the lawsuit states.

Attorney James Mermigis, who represents the plaintiffs, told The Defender:

“Anybody that goes into the city does not have to be vaccinated except for NYC public sector workers, including firemen, policemen, teachers.

“I just think it is absurd, especially once Mayor Adams lifted the mandate for private employees, that these people, who were heroes during COVID-19, still have the mandate.”

According to the lawsuit, Adams admitted, “I don’t think anything dealing with COVID is makes sense [sic], and there’s no logical pathway of what one can do[sic].”

The lawsuit also alleges the COVID-19 vaccines don’t prevent disease transmission and that it is well-established that the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits.

It also argues the plaintiffs have immunity from prior infection that should exempt them from any mandate, because “the scientific community has conclusively established that natural immunity provides strong and durable protection.”

According to the lawsuit, the city used, “a discriminatory practice to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with Petitioners in their exercise or enjoyment of their closely held religious beliefs,” by failing to engage in “cooperative dialogue” with them regarding their petitions for religious exemption, which were denied.

The plaintiffs seek $250 million in punitive damages.

“[Punitive damages] punish the city for its behavior towards its employees in the hopes that they will establish policies in the future that will prevent this from happening again,” Mermigis said. [MORE]