The Transportation Security Administration is admitting their mistake and claiming that agents “did not follow correct screening protocols,” after they “humiliated” a wheelchair-bound six-time Olympic champion at the Denver Airport over the weekend.
Amy Van Dyken-Rouen is a famed Olympic swimmer who was in an ATV crash in 2014 that left her paralyzed from the waist down, she now uses a wheelchair for mobility.
With the positive in my journey, there is also negative. Need to make changes for all in ??. @denairport @tsa pre check officer was rude, and in correct. Said every airport in country BUT Den is doing it wrong. Had a full body pat down, and was humiliated by him as well. Thank you STSO Keith Rogers!!! I'm going to find out if the rest of the country is wrong, or if HE is wrong. I'll get back to you. ?
On Sunday, Van Dyken-Rouen was at the Denver International Airport where she was subjected to a full body search, despite having TSA’s Pre-Check pass. She immediately took to Instagram to detail the incident and speak out against their actions.
“With the positive in my journey, there is also negative. Need to make changes for all in ??. @denairport @tsa pre check officer was rude, and in correct. Said every airport in country BUT Den is doing it wrong. Had a full body pat down, and was humiliated by him as well. Thank you STSO Keith Rogers!!! I’m going to find out if the rest of the country is wrong, or if HE is wrong. I’ll get back to you,” Van Dyken-Rouen wrote in the Instagram caption.
She also spoke to the Denver ABC affiliate and told them that, “they go around your breasts, they basically go under your butt and the just grab things, not grab, they touch things that are not appropriate and it’s really embarrassing.”
On Monday, the TSA released a statement that the officers involved in the incident were being retrained.
“TSA works closely with the disability community to develop screening procedures that integrate the unique needs of those with disabilities or medical issues into the process. TSA reviews passenger complaints, and in this case determined that our officers did not follow correct screening protocols when Ms. Amy Van Dyken came through the security checkpoint at Denver International Airport (DEN) this weekend. TSA’s federal security director has reached out to Ms. Van Dyken. The officers involved are undergoing retraining, and TSA Denver is providing refresher training to all of its officers as well,” the statement said.
Van Dyken-Rouen hopes that by speaking out she will help prevent the same embarrassment from happening to others.
“It’s really sad, I just want to help other people out who don’t have a voice, just fair treatment for everybody, respect for everybody, that’s all we need,” Van Dyken-Rouen stated.
By Jerry Gallegos
The taxpayers of Kentucky will be forced to put their money towards a creationist theme park built by evolution-denying Christian fundamentalist Ken Ham, who seeks to spread the seed of misinformation to the malleable minds of children.
The Courier-Journal reports that the Kentucky Tourism Development Finance Authority approved the “long-pending” application of the Christian ministry Answers in Genesis for the tax breaks this Monday.
“A state board restocked last week with new appointees by Gov. Matt Bevin has quietly approved the long-sought tax incentives worth up to $18 million for the controversial Noah’s Ark theme park due to open this summer in Grant County,” the Journal reported.
The Lexington Herald Leader also reported that the tax break “initially was approved by the Kentucky Tourism Development Finance Authority in 2014 under Gov. Steve Beshear’s administration, but it was later canceled after tourism officials learned that the theme park would hire only Christians.”
“Ark Encounter officials sued the state in federal court, saying the state’s decision to withhold the tax break violated its free speech. In January, U.S. District Judge Greg Van Tatenhove ruled that the theme park was eligible to receive the tax incentive, which has neutral requirements that can be met by religious and secular groups alike.”
by Vijay Prabhu
Tor and VPN users will be target of government hacks under new spying rule
We had reported a landmark judgement by the United States Supreme Court, which will give FBI powers to hack any computer in the world using a single warrant. The same judgement contains a innocuous para related to Tor and VPN users.
The newly approved rule change by the U.S. Supreme Court will allow FBI to search and seize any computer around the world, found to be using privacy tools like VPN or Tor. The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday quietly approved a rule change to Rule No.41, that would allow a federal magistrate judge to issue a search and seizure warrant for any target using anonymity software like Tor to browse the internet.
Rule 41 will become a law in December if the U.S. Congress doesnt take any legislative action against it. As said in our previous article, the new ruling bestows enormous powers to FBI to be able to search computers remotely—even if the bureau doesn’t know where that computer is located—if a user has anonymity software installed on it.
The rule changes, which the FBI said were necessary to combat cyber crime, come amid escalating tensions between the intelligence community and technology and privacy advocates, and just a day after the U.S. House of Representatives advanced a bill that would require the government to obtain a probable cause warrant from a judge before seizing data stored with tech companies such as Facebook, Google, and Dropbox.
“Whatever euphemism the FBI uses to describe it—whether they call it a ‘remote access search’ or a ‘network investigative technique’—what we’re talking about is government hacking, and this obscure rule change would authorize a lot more of it,” said Kevin Bankston, director of the policy advocacy group Open Technology Institute (OTI), which previously testified against the changes.
“Congress should stop this power-grab in its tracks and instead demand answers from the FBI, which so far has been ducking Congress’ questions on this issue and fighting in court to keep its hacking tactics secret.”
The new rule will affect millions of Tor and VPn users. Many Facebook users are already preferring Tor to surf FB. As of April, over one million people use Tor just to browse Facebook, the social media giant noted in a blog post.
Chief Justice John Roberts submitted the change to Congress as part of the court’s annual collection of amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which inform every federal prosecution in the country.
Rule 41, in its current form, stipulates that magistrate judges can only authorize searches within their own jurisdiction. The amendment would allow them to issue warrants to hack into and seize information on a computer if its location has been “concealed through technical means.”
Absence of opposition to the rule could mean that we have a subversive spying campaign against Tor and VPN users around the world without even the user knowing it.
None of the allegations against Abu Zubaydeh turned out to be true. That didn’t stop the CIA from torturing him for years.
By Rebecca Gordon
Donald Rumsfeld said he was “if not the number two, very close to the number two person” in Al Qaeda.
The Central Intelligence Agency informed Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee that he “served as Usama Bin Laden’s senior lieutenant. In that capacity, he has managed a network of training camps…. He also acted as al-Qaeda’s coordinator of external contacts and foreign communications.”
CIA Director Michael Hayden would tell the press in 2008 that 25 percent of all the information his agency had gathered about Al Qaeda from human sources “originated” with one other detainee and him.
George W. Bush would use his case to justify the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation program,” claiming that “he had run a terrorist camp in Afghanistan where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained” and that “he helped smuggle al-Qaeda leaders out of Afghanistan” so they would not be captured by US military forces.
None of it was true.
This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com.
And even if it had been true, what the CIA did to Abu Zubaydah—with the knowledge and approval of the highest government officials—is a prime example of the kind of still-unpunished crimes that officials like Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld committed in the so-called Global War on Terror.
So who was this infamous figure, and where is he now? His name is Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, but he is better known by his Arabic nickname, Abu Zubaydah. And as far as we know, he is still in solitary detention in Guantánamo.
A Saudi national, in the 1980s Zubaydah helped run the Khaldan camp, a mujahedeen training facility set up in Afghanistan with CIA help during the Soviet occupation of that country. In other words, Zubaydah was then an American ally in the fight against the Soviets, one of President Ronald Reagan’s “freedom fighters.” (But then again, so in effect was Osama bin Laden.)
Zubaydah’s later fate in the hands of the CIA was of a far grimmer nature. He had the dubious luck to be the subject of a number of CIA “firsts”: the first post–9/11 prisoner to be waterboarded; the first to be experimented on by psychologists working as CIA contractors; one of the first of the Agency’s “ghost prisoners” (detainees hidden from the world, including the International Committee of the Red Cross which, under the Geneva Conventions, must be allowed access to every prisoner of war); and one of the first prisoners to be cited in a memo written by Jay Bybee for the Bush administration on what the CIA could “legally” do to a detainee without supposedly violating US federal laws against torture.
Zubaydah’s story is—or at least should be—the iconic tale of the illegal extremes to which the Bush administration and the CIA went in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. And yet former officials, from CIA head Michael Hayden to Vice President Dick Cheney to George W. Bush himself, have presented it as a glowing example of the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” to extract desperately needed information from the “evildoers” of that time.
Zubaydah was an early experiment in post–9/11 CIA practices and here’s the remarkable thing (though it has yet to become part of the mainstream media accounts of his case): it was all a big lie. Zubaydah wasn’t involved with Al Qaeda; he was the ringleader of nothing; he never took part in planning for the 9/11 attacks. He was brutally mistreated and, in another kind of world, would be exhibit one in the war crimes trials of America’s top leaders and its major intelligence agency.
Yet notorious as he once was, he’s been forgotten by all but his lawyers and a few tenacious reporters. He shouldn’t have been. He was the test case for the kind of torture that Donald Trump now wants the US. government to bring back, presumably because it “worked” so well the first time. With Republican presidential hopefuls promising future war crimes, it’s worth reconsidering his case and thinking about how to prevent it from happening again. After all, it’s only because no one has been held to account for the years of Bush administration torture practices that Trump and others feel free to promise even more and “yuger” war crimes in the future.
EXPERIMENTS IN TORTURE
In August 2002, a group of FBI agents, CIA agents, and Pakistani forces captured Zubaydah (along with about 50 other men) in Faisalabad, Pakistan. In the process, he was severely injured—shot in the thigh, testicle, and stomach. He might well have died, had the CIA not flown in an American surgeon to patch him up. The Agency’s interest in his health was, however, anything but humanitarian. Its officials wanted to interrogate him and, even after he had recovered sufficiently to be questioned, his captors occasionally withheld pain medication as a means of torture.
When he “lost” his left eye under mysterious circumstances while in CIA custody, the agency’s concern again was not for his health. The December 2014 torture report produced by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (despite CIA opposition that included hacking into the committee’s computers) described the situation this way: with his left eye gone, “[i]n October 2002, DETENTION SITE GREEN [now known to be Thailand] recommended that the vision in his right eye be tested, noting that ‘[w]e have a lot riding upon his ability to see, read, and write.’ DETENTION SITE GREEN stressed that ‘this request is driven by our intelligence needs [not] humanitarian concern for AZ.’”
The CIA then set to work interrogating Zubaydah with the help of two contractors, the psychologists Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell. Zubaydah would be the first human subject on whom those two, who were former instructors at the Air Force’s SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training center, could test their theories about using torture to induce what they called “learned helplessness,” meant to reduce a suspect’s resistance to interrogation. Their price? Only $81 million.
CIA records show that, using a plan drawn up by Jessen and Mitchell, Abu Zubaydah’s interrogators would waterboard him an almost unimaginable 83 times in the course of a single month; that is, they would strap him to a wooden board, place a cloth over his entire face, and gradually pour water through the cloth until he began to drown. At one point during this endlessly repeated ordeal, the Senate committee reported that Zubaydah became “completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.”
Each of those 83 uses of what was called “the watering cycle” consisted of four steps:
“1) demands for information interspersed with the application of the water just short of blocking his airway 2) escalation of the amount of water applied until it blocked his airway and he started to have involuntary spasms 3) raising the water-board to clear subject’s airway 4) lowering of the water-board and return to demands for information.”
The CIA videotaped Zubaydah undergoing each of these “cycles,” only to destroy those tapes in 2005 when news of their existence surfaced and the embarrassment (and possible future culpability) of the Agency seemed increasingly to be at stake. CIA Director Michael Hayden would later assure CNN that the tapes had been destroyed only because “they no longer had ‘intelligence value’ and they posed a security risk.” Whose “security” was at risk if the tapes became public? Most likely, that of the Agency’s operatives and contractors who were breaking multiple national and international laws against torture, along with the high CIA and Bush administration officials who had directly approved their actions.
In addition to the waterboarding, the Senate torture report indicates that Zubaydah endured excruciating stress positions (which cause terrible pain without leaving a mark); sleep deprivation (for up to 180 hours, which generally induces hallucinations or psychosis); unrelenting exposure to loud noises (another psychosis-inducer); “walling” (the Agency’s term for repeatedly slamming the shoulder blades into a “flexible, false wall,” though Zubaydah told the International Committee of the Red Cross that when this was first done to him, “he was slammed directly against a hard concrete wall”); and confinement for hours in a box so cramped that he could not stand up inside it. All of these methods of torture had been given explicit approval in a memo written to the CIA’s head lawyer, John Rizzo, by Jay Bybee, who was then serving in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. In thatmemo Bybee approved the use of 10 different “techniques” on Zubaydah.
It seems likely that, while the CIA was torturing Zubaydah at Jessen’s and Mitchell’s direction for whatever information he might have, it was also using him to test the “effectiveness” of waterboarding as a torture technique. If so, the agency and its contractors violated not only international law, but the US War Crimes Act, which expressly forbids experimenting on prisoners.
What might lead us to think that Zubaydah’s treatment was, in part, an experiment? In a May 30, 2005, memo sent to Rizzo, Steven Bradbury, head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, discussed the CIA’s record keeping. There was, Bradbury commented, method to the CIA’s brutality. “Careful records are kept of each interrogation,” he wrote. This procedure, he continued, “allows for ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of each technique and its potential for any unintended or inappropriate results.” In other words, with the support of the Bush Justice Department, the CIA was keeping careful records of an experimental procedure designed to evaluate how well waterboarding worked.
This was Abu Zubaydah’s impression as well. “I was told during this period that I was one of the first to receive these interrogation techniques,” Zubaydah would later tell the International Committee of the Red Cross, “so no rules applied. It felt like they were experimenting and trying out techniques to be used later on other people.”
In addition to the videotaping, the CIA’s Office of Medical Services required a meticulous written record of every waterboarding session. The details to be recorded were spelled out clearly:
“In order to best inform future medical judgments and recommendations, it is important that every application of the waterboard be thoroughly documented: how long each application (and the entire procedure) lasted, how much water was used in the process (realizing that much splashes off), how exactly the water was applied, if a seal was achieved, if the naso- or oropharynx was filled, what sort of volume was expelled, how long was the break between applications, and how the subject looked between each treatment.”
Again, these were clearly meant to be the records of an experimental procedure, focusing as they did on how much water was effective; whether a “seal” was achieved (so no air could enter the victim’s lungs); whether the naso- or oropharynx (that is, the nose and throat) were so full of water the victim could not breathe; and just how much the “subject” vomited up.
LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS
It was with Zubaydah that the CIA also began its post–9/11 practice of hiding detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross by transferring them to its “black sites,” the secret prisons it was setting up in countries with complacent or complicit regimes around the world. Such unacknowledged detainees came to be known as “ghost prisoners,” because they had no official existence. As the Senate torture report noted, “In part to avoid declaring Abu Zubaydah to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which would be required if he were detained at a US military base, the CIA decided to seek authorization to clandestinely detain Abu Zubaydah at a facility in Country _______ [now known to have been Thailand].”
TORTURED AND CIRCULAR REASONING
As British investigative journalist Andy Worthington in 2009, the Bush administration used Abu Zubaydah’s “interrogation” results to help justify the greatest crime of that administration, the unprovoked, illegal invasion of Iraq. Officials leaked to the media that he had confessed to knowing about a secret agreement involving Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (who later led Al Qaeda in Iraq), and Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein to work together “to destabilize the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq.” Of course, it was all lies. Zubaydah couldn’t have known about such an arrangement, first because it was, as Worthington says, “absurd,” and second, because Zubaydah was not a member of Al Qaeda at all.
In fact, the evidence that Zubaydah had anything to do with Al Qaeda was beyond circumstantial—it was entirely circular. The administration’s reasoning went something like this: Zubaydah, a “senior al-Qaeda lieutenant,” ran the Khaldan camp in Afghanistan; therefore, Khaldan was an Al Qaeda camp; if Khaldan was an al Qaeda camp, then Zubaydah must have been a senior al Qaeda official.
They then used their “enhanced techniques” to drag what they wanted to hear out of a man whose life bore no relation to the tortured lies he evidently finally told his captors. Not surprisingly, no aspect of the administration’s formula proved accurate. It was true that, for several years, the Bush administration routinely referred to Khaldan as an Al Qaeda training camp, but the CIA was well aware that this wasn’t so.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s torture report, for instance, made this crystal clear, quoting an August 16, 2006, CIA Intelligence Assessment, “Countering Misconceptions About Training Camps in Afghanistan, 1990-2001” this way:
Khaldan Not Affiliated With Al-Qa’ida. A common misperception in outside articles is that Khaldan camp was run by al-Qa’ida. Pre-11 September 2001 reporting miscast Abu Zubaydah as a ‘senior al-Qa’ida lieutenant,’ which led to the inference that the Khaldan camp he was administering was tied to Usama bin Laden.
Not only was Zubaydah not a senior Al Qaeda lieutenant, he had, according to the report, been turned down for membership in Al Qaeda as early as 1993 and the CIA knew it by at least 2006, if not far sooner. Nevertheless, the month after it privately clarified the nature of the Khaldan camp and Zubaydah’s lack of Al Qaeda connections, President Bush used the story of Zubaydah’s capture and interrogation in a speech to the nation justifying the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program. He then claimed that Zubaydah had “helped smuggle Al Qaida leaders out of Afghanistan.”
In the same speech, Bush told the nation, “Our intelligence community believes [Zubaydah] had run a terrorist camp in Afghanistan where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained” (a reference presumably to Khaldan). Perhaps the CIA should have been looking instead at some of the people who actually trained the hijackers—the operators of flight schools in the United States, where, according to a September 23, 2001 Washington Post story, the FBI already knew “terrorists” were learning to fly 747s.
In June 2007, the Bush administration doubled down on its claim that Zubaydah was involved with 9/11. At a hearing before the congressional Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger, discussing why the Guantánamo prison needed to remain open, explained that it “serves a very important purpose, to hold and detain individuals who are extremely dangerous…[like] Abu Zubaydah, people who have been planners of 9/11.”
In September 2009, the US government quietly withdrew its many allegations against Abu Zubaydah. His attorneys had filed a habeas corpus petition on his behalf; that is, a petition to exercise the constitutional right of anyone in government custody to know on what charges they are being held. In that context, they were asking the government to supply certain documents to help substantiate their claim that his continued detention in Guantánamo was illegal. The new Obama administration replied with a 109-page brief filed in the US District Court in the District of Columbia, which is legally designated to hear the habeas cases of Guantánamo detainees.
The bulk of that brief came down to a government argument that was curious indeed, given the years of bragging about Zubaydah’s central role in Al Qaeda’s activities. It claimed that there was no reason to turn over any “exculpatory” documents demonstrating that he was not a member of Al Qaeda, or that he had no involvement in 9/11 or any other terrorist activity—because the government was no longer claiming that any of those things were true.
The government’s lawyers went on to claim, bizarrely enough, that the Bush administration had never “contended that [Zubaydah] had any personal involvement in planning or executing…the attacks of September 11, 2001.” They added that “the Government also has not contended in this proceeding that, at the time of his capture, [Zubaydah] had knowledge of any specific impending terrorist operations”—an especially curious claim, since the prevention of such future attacks was how the CIA justified its torture of Zubaydah in the first place. Far from believing that he was “if not the number two, very close to the number two person in” Al Qaeda, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had once claimed, “the Government has not contended in this proceeding that [Zubaydah] was a member of al-Qaida or otherwise formally identified with al-Qaida.”
And so, the case against the man who was waterboarded 83 times and contributed supposedly crucial information to the CIA on Al Qaeda plotting was oh-so-quietly withdrawn without either fuss or media attention. Exhibit one was now exhibit none.
Seven years after the initial filing of Zubaydah’s habeas petition, the DC District Court has yet to rule on it. Given the court’s average 751-day turnaround time on such petitions, this is an extraordinary length of time. Here, justice delayed is truly justice denied.
Perhaps we should not be surprised, however. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, CIA headquarters assured those who were interrogating Zubaydah that he would “never be placed in a situation where he has any significant contact with others and/or has the opportunity to be released.” In fact, “all major players are in concurrence,” stated the agency, that he “should remain incommunicado for the remainder of his life.” And so far, that’s exactly what’s happened.
The capture, torture, and propaganda use of Abu Zubaydah is the perfect example of the US government’s unique combination of willful law-breaking, ass-covering memo-writing, and what some Salvadorans I once worked with called “strategic incompetence.” The fact that no one—not George Bush or Dick Cheney, not Jessen or Mitchell, nor multiple directors of the CIA—has been held accountable means that, unless we are very lucky, we will see more of the same in the future.
We are currently in the 21st century. We are in the second decade of the 21st century and there are not one, not two, but three Jungle Book movies on the horizon. And that means that it’s time to remind everyone that Rudyard Kipling was a piece of racist, imperialist trash.
In 1967, French literary critic Roland Barthes published “The Death of the Author,” an essay whose title has become synonymous with judging works on their own merits and ignoring any biographical details about their creators. I expect a lot of people to bring this up when talking about the modern movie incarnations of The Jungle Book.
I also expect people to defend The Jungle Book from the other side. To say that it can’t be read with modern ideas in mind. It was written in 1894 by a white British man who was born in India. That’s just how they thought back then.
Both arguments only work up to a point. The death of the author doesn’t excuse the inherent racism and imperialism baked into The Jungle Book. And the argument about when the book was written and by whom doesn’t excuse either Disney or Warner Bros. from making adaptations of it in the 21st century. Unless these movies are loaded with historical context, or are subversive critiques of Kipling, they’re still adapting, for entertainment, a story that has fundamental issues.
It is impossible to separate The Jungle Book from Kipling’s most famous imperialist work: “The White Man’s Burden.” “The White Man’s Burden” is seven stanzas long and is a glimpse into the way Europeans justified their colonial ambitions. The poor white man, said Kipling, is doomed to the hard work of going to foreign places and raising up the local savages into civilized society. It was originally written for Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee and then altered to serve as a British man’s advice for how America should treat the newly acquired Philippines. It begins like this:
Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half child.
And it continues in that vein for another six verses. “The White Man’s Burden,” from title to execution, is so over the top in its exhortations of white superiority that it could be mistaken for parody. But it isn’t. We have everything else that Kipling’s written to prove that.
We have Kim, a book where a white boy, born and orphaned in India, is the best spy and Buddhist there is. In part, he’s a great spy because of how well he apes Indian people, so that’s fun. We have the poem that he used for the Diamond Jubilee instead of “White Man’s Burden,” “Recessional” which contains these lines:
If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe—
Such boasting as the Gentiles use
Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!
My god, don’t forget that you are British and not a “lesser breed.”
And, of course, we have The Jungle Book itself. The Jungle Book is just as drenched with racism and colonialism as anything else Kipling wrote on the subject. The thread running throughout the stories is that Mowgli is superior to the animals that raised him by virtue of being man, not beast. That’s a neat parallel to Britain and India. There’s a fun little story in The Second Jungle Book about a superstitious Indian village that worships a horrible old crocodile, only for a British man to blow it to pieces. Because they are more rational, you see.
I’m not saying that Kipling should be censored, but I am saying that he cannot be presented without context. There are messages in The Jungle Book that are very hard to remove. Hell, Disney managed to add to the problems in the 1960s when it added a character called King Louie, who is widely seen as a racist caricature of black people. (Kipling’s book has monkeys, which are the worst of the animal lot, being incapable of having government and only able to mimic others without a decent culture of their own.)
And, at the end of the day, we’re still left with a story where a white person exoticizes a country and its people. How does this idea pass muster in 2016?
Because The Jungle Book is in the public domain, so Disney and Warner Bros. don’t have to pay anyone to use it. Honestly, exploiting the work of someone else for your own advancement is a sentiment that matches Kipling pretty well.
In this video Luke Rudkowski does a standup in front of pro government rally in Rio De Janeiro breaking down the major arguments of a possible Coup D’etat in Brazil. We go over both sides of the argument for and against the current president Dilma Rousseff who the congress decided to impeach her and now the senate in Brazil is deciding if she will face a criminal trial. The situation in Brazil is extremely complex and this is only a small portion of information relayed to us by the locals. Stay tuned for more international news coverage as we will report everything that we see.
Support WeAreChange by Subscribing to our channel HERE http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…
Visit our main site for more breaking news http://wearechange.org/
Rep WeAreChange Merch Proudly: http://wearechange.org/store
OH YEAH since we are not corporate or government WHORES help us out http://wearechange.org/donate
We take BITCOIN too
In this video Luke Rudkowski talks to Edson Chinchilla, one of the leaders behind the libertarian movement in Brazil about a public government run corporation Petrobras. Petrobras is government run oil company that a monopoly in the market and because of that is ripe with corruption and scandals that is leading to the impeachment of the Brazilian president Dilma.
To find out more about Edson Chinchilla go to https://www.facebook.com/EdSchultzsky…
Support WeAreChange by Subscribing to our channel HERE http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…
Visit our main site for more breaking news http://wearechange.org/
Rep WeAreChange Merch Proudly: http://wearechange.org/store
OH YEAH since we are not corporate or government WHORES help us out http://wearechange.org/donate
We take BITCOIN too
Kathleen O’Donnell, 61, of Pennsylvania, claims that officers were sent to her day job to harass her after she wrote about Kathryn Knott, 25, the daughter of former Bucks County Police Chief Karl Knott.
In December, Kathryn Knott was found guilty of simple assault, conspiracy, and reckless endangerment after participating in a group attack on a gay couple in Philadelphia. She was sentenced to 5-10 months in prison, two years probation and will have to pay $2,000 in fines. The two others who participated in the brutal attack, Kevin Harrigan, 27, and Philip Williams, 25, both pleaded guilty and received probation.
During the mob beat down, one of the victims suffered a broken jaw as the three assailants, Knott and two male friends of hers, shouted anti-gay slurs.
O’Donnell, outraged over the incident, created a parody account with the name “Knotty is a Tramp,” where she blogged about any and all information that she could find on the woman, her father, and the case. She noted that the chief’s daughter often used anti-gay rhetoric in her social media posts.
O’Donnell claims that the Knott father and daughter duo called in a favor to the Bucks County District Attorney’s office to strong arm and intimidate her into stopping her writing.
According to Philly.com, Karl Knott was at the time, the chief of Chalfont Borough police in Bucks County and now is captain at the Central Bucks Regional Police Department
In August 2015, O’Donnell claims that two Bucks County district attorney detectives, Martin McDonough and Mark Zielinski, went to her day job and met with her boss. The detectives reportedly informed him that O’Donnell had been making “harassing comments” about Kathryn Knott, and that the postings sometimes came from her work computer.
O’Donnell claims that she was then approached by the detectives, who according to the lawsuit, “threatened” her and warned that if she did not cease her postings she “she would be arrested for ‘fraudulently impersonating Ms. Knott.’ “
The very same day, after the detectives left, O’Donnell was fired from her job.
District Attorney Heckler remains unapologetic about the incident, claiming that the blog “was perceived as potentially threatening and potentially inciting others” to harm the chief’s daughter.
“We would not have been looking into the matter unless it involved what we believed to be potentially incriminating behavior,” Heckler told Raw Story, “We certainly didn’t bully up on her because Chief Knott is a police officer and we were looking out for a buddy.”
O’Donnell is now suing Kathryn Knott, Karl Knott, Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler and the detectives who visited her job for 150,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.
Growing List of Celebrities Speaking Out About Chemtrails / Geoengineering: Chuck Norris, Vin Diesel
Growing List of Celebrities Speaking Out About Chemtrails / Geoengineering: Chuck Norris, Vin Diesel
(Era of Wisdom) First, the alt media exploded with info about Merle Haggard exposing chemtrails/geoengineering when he passed away. Then, it was Prince: now we can add Vin Diesel and Chuck Norris to that list.
Chuck Norris took a particularly bold stance, and wrote an entire article entitled “Sky Criminals.”
According to Inquisitr:
“Norris, 76, recently wrote an article at World Net Daily to talk about conspiracies surrounding chemtrails and the U.S. government. He argued that people are not taking the issue seriously when there is evidence pointing to the government as having already used chemtrails.”
This is an excerpt from Norris’ article. The full article can be found at this link.
“Country legend Merle Haggard, who died of a lung infection (double pneumonia) on April 6, sang in his song, “What I hate”: “What I hate is looking up and seeing chemtrails in a clear blue sky today.”
Several months ago, I wrote a column titled, “Why are geo-engineering researchers being stonewalled?” In it, I gave an array of evidence from scientists that geoengineering and, specifically, covert chemtrailing is taking place in the skies above us and unbeknownst to us.
For those who are unfamiliar with the subject and stratospheric lunacy, let me reiterate a few definitions:
Geoengineering is the artificial modification of Earth’s climate systems through two primary technologies: Solar Radiation Management, or SRM, and Carbon Dioxide Removal, or CDR.
CDR technologies include “bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, biochar, direct air capture, ocean fertilization and enhanced weathering,” according to Wikipedia.
SRM technologies “seek to reflect sunlight and thus reduce global warming. Proposed examples include the creation of stratospheric sulfate aerosols.”
Stratospheric sulfate aerosols “create a global dimming effect [that] has made them a possible candidate for use in solar radiation management climate engineering projects to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) by artillery, aircraft and balloons has been proposed.”
Chemtrailing is the “public’s term for the classified [covert] and ongoing artificial modification of Earth’s climate systems using reflective nano-materials (aerosols) to reflect sunlight. The aerosols are dispersed via jet aircraft trails that expand into reflective artificial clouds.”
Sarah Zielinski, an award-winning science writer and editor, wrote a piece in December 2015 for the Smithsonian, titled, “Airplane Contrails May Be Creating Accidental Geoengineering.”
In the article, Zielinski explained, “Geoengineering involves the manipulation of an environmental process in such a way, usually deliberate, that it affects the Earth’s climate.”
Zeilinski cites Charles Long from the NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, who reported at a press conference this past week at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco: “This haze is caused by airplanes, and it is gradually whitening blue skies. We might be actually conducting some unintentional geoengineering here.”
Many other scientists would say – as we shall see in a moment – intentional geoengineering.
Long went on to explain, “Its existence demonstrates yet another way that humans might be altering the climate system, and you can see this with your own eyes.”
I know, because my wife, Gena, and I have seen it in the skies over our own Texas ranch.
Chuck Norris provides real solutions to our county’s problems and a way to reawaken the American dream in his best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism.”
Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research concluded, “It seems quite possible that [Long is] seeing something that’s real.”
Long still calls the haze “a mystery,” but at the moment primarily blames air traffic exhaust and other aerosols as the most likely culprits of those particles.
But is the origin of it all so unintentional and innocent? Or are there deliberate sky criminals who are also chemtrailing above us with other chemical agents?
Long himself is puzzled how certain areas around the country like one in Oklahoma have significant sky whitening yet don’t get as much known air traffic.
When Snopes was investigating the recent accusations that NASA was spraying lithium (the anti-manic psychiatric medication) into the atmosphere and, hence, onto Americans, the liberal fact-finding website even had to confess that, “Buried among the tinfoil were a few actual facts: it was true that a 2003 study examined the feasibility of mass vaccination by air.””
Although Chuck Norris aimed straight into the eyes of the elite and spat truth, the manner in which celebrities are speaking out is generally hushed, kind of carefully quiet.
Vin Diesel recently posted a picture to Facebook apparently making a somber nod toward the chemtrail conscious public, crossing his fingers in the shape of a couple chemtrails behind him.
The top comments praised his acknowledgment of them.
According to True Activist:
“By now, everyone has seen white streaks in the sky. They stretch from horizon to horizon, and ultimately turn the skies into murky haze. While one would think that the streaks are nothing but plane vapor, skeptics have unearthed some convincing evidence suggesting that they are instead intentional pollution, meant to poison communities and cities for the purpose of population control.”
“The topic of chemtrails, like many subjects, is very controversial. Understandably, one may be wary about accepting any so-called ‘evidence’. However, it appears that famous actor Vin Diesel may just be drawing attention to the presence of chemtrails in the photo below.
In the picture the Fast and Furious star recently posted to Facebook, he is seen crossing his fingers like the white streaks seen behind him in the sky.”
The truth is, the consequences of not speaking up far outweigh the consequences of not holding on to some petty remnant of perceived credibility in remaining silent about this, and I think the celebrities with good hearts and minds know this.
Some question whether Merle Haggard or Prince died of some illness related to chemtrail activity. That notion is caught in the burden of proof, and ultimately some have suspicion but no evidence. This theory seems to allude to the idea that specific individuals may be targeted by chemtrails.
Why would the idea of specific individuals being targeted by toxic aerosols be implausible? The military sprayed San Francisco with harmful bacterial agents in the past, sprayed aerosols can be used for various purposes.
My own mind began to theorize about this when on March 15th, my area was decimated by chemtrails, and one that went directly over my house in Sacramento appeared to “change gears” in the sky, switching from a thicker plume to thinner one right after it went overhead. A video of that can be found here, and below is a screencap. However, I doubt I am important enough to be targeted.
This is an anecdotal observation, but nonetheless one that should make any thinking mind turn its gears.
The best we can do, is every single thing we can possibly do: talk to everyone about geoengineering, point it out in the sky every day.
The worst thing we can do is give up. Our ancestors did not survive incomprehensibly difficult conditions to hand us this world on a silver platter, only to have us indulge in mindless comfort until the day it all ends forever.
No, we fight. Every single inch we are given to wake people up, let’s stretch that into a million miles: let’s extend our poisoned fists forward and march toward our right to live until the death, just like our ancestors did for us.
– See more at: http://www.eraofwisdom.org/growing-list-of-celebrities-speaking-out-about-chemtrailsgeoengineering-chuck-norris-vin-diesel/#sthash.noTms4Uo.dpuf
FIVE months after Craig Steven Wright, an Australian computer scientist and businessman, was outed against his will as Satoshi Nakamoto, he says he is indeed the creator of bitcoin. On May 2nd he published a blog post offering cryptographic proof, backed up by other information, to make his case. Along with two other media organisations, The Economist had access to Mr Wright before the publication of his post. Our conclusion is that he could well be Mr Nakamoto, but that nagging questions remain. In fact, it may never be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt who really created bitcoin. Whether people, particularly bitcoin cognoscenti, actually believe Mr Wright will depend greatly on what he does next, after going public.
In December, after he was outed, Mr Wright stayed silent. So why has he now changed his mind? “I’m not seeking publicity, but want to set the record straight,” he explains. He says he called himself “Nakamoto” after a 17th-century Japanese philosopher and merchant, Tominaga Nakamoto, who was highly critical of the normative thought of his time and favoured free trade. (He doesn’t want to say why he picked “Satoshi”: “Some things should remain secret.”)
If Mr Wright is indeed Mr Nakamoto that would not only help to illuminate the origins of bitcoin—it could also have a big impact on the future of the controversial cryptocurrency. Although the rhetoric has become less strident in recent weeks, the project has been held back by a deep split between those who want to keep bitcoin pure and those who want to modify its workings to allow it to grow rapidly—even if that means making it more like a conventional payment system. Having launched the bitcoin project with the publication of a paper in 2008, and then the first release of bitcoin software in 2009, Mr Nakamoto stepped back from active involvement in 2010. His return from obscurity would most certainly change the dynamics of the debate about bitcoin’s future direction.
Having been named as Mr Nakamoto once before, unconvincingly, Mr Wright has a steep hill to climb to convince the world that he is indeed who he claims to be. Evaluating his claim involves the application of a multi-step paternity test. First comes the factual evidence: can Mr Wright prove that he is in possession of cryptographic keys that only Mr Nakamoto should have? Second, does he have convincing explanations for the holes in the story which came to light when he was first outed in December? Third, does he possess the technical knowledge that would have enabled him to develop a system as complex and clever as bitcoin? And fourth, to what extent does he fit the image that people have of Mr Nakamoto; in particular, what do those computer scientists who have collaborated online with Mr Nakamoto think of Mr Wright’s claim to be him? These are the questions that the bitcoin community will be arguing about in the coming days—and which Mr Wright must answer convicingly if he is to convince the world of his claim.