---BREAKAWAY CIVILIZATION ---ALTERNATIVE HISTORY---NEW BUSINESS MODELS--- ROCK & ROLL 'S STRANGE BEGINNINGS---SERIAL KILLERS---YEA AND THAT BAD WORD "CONSPIRACY"--- AMERICANS DON'T EXPLORE ANYTHING ANYMORE.WE JUST CONSUME AND DIE.---
Although the Pharisees of paper money successfully
forced down the price of gold, like those who lobbied Pontius Pilate to
crucify Jesus, the consequences of their actions will backfire beyond
their wildest imagination.
The decision of the paper money cabal to
force down the price of gold is akin to Japan's decision to attack
Pearl Harbor. Although the attack was successful, the eventual
consequences were not what Japan had envisioned. Recently, an article, The Gold Correction: What's the Big Deal?,
at Seeking Alpha posted the following chart. However, measured from its
September 2011 high of $1901.35, gold's fall is 28 %, a drop remarkable
similar to its 2008 correction of 27.7 %.
THE 2008 CORRECTION AND/OR MANIPULATION The 2008 correction of gold occurred
during a period of extreme financial and systemic distress. Global
markets were in disarray, Wall Street banks were collapsing and
trillions of dollars of Fed money was necessary to protect the bonuses
of investment bankers whose bad bets had caused the collapse-just the
environment when gold would be expected to rise. Instead, gold fell. In 2008, as today,
the same hands were on the scale forcing the price of gold lower. In the
fall of 2007, gold had rise from $680 to $1,033, An astounding 51.9 %
increase. This is exactly what the paper money cabal feared most, a
concomitant rise in the price of gold during a period of extreme
financial stress. If gold quickly rose during a period of
heightened investor fear, it would signal to fearful investors that
although paper assets were at risk, gold offered not only a safe haven
but outsized gains as well; and the investors' subsequent fear-fueled
greed would easily dismiss any resistance the paper money cabal might
offer. To counter the allure of gold in such heightened circumstances, in my article, Gold Buying Opportunity of a Lifetime posted March 18, 2009, I wrote:
When gold made its run in the fall
of 2007 from $680 to $1,033 in spring 2008, the Swiss National Bank sold
22 tons of gold to cap gold's riseÉOne year later (after the collapse
of global stock markets in the fall of 2008), gold made another run at
$1,000; but this time when gold hit $1,009 on February 20th [2009] ,LeMetropole reported central banks sold 220 tons of gold to force gold below $900.
In 2009, the paper money cabal had also
pushed gold lease rates into negative territory to prevent gold from
rising above $1,000. On March 17, 2009, in his article, Gold Price Manipulation More Blatant, Patrick Heller wrote:
On Friday, March 6, gold
lease rates turned negative for the day. What that means is that anyone
who wanted to lease gold would actually be paid a fee in addition to
getting a free gold loan.
No sane person would choose to lose money loaning physical
gold, in addition to the risk of never getting the gold back from the
other party. However, if someone (such as the U.S. government) wanted to
suppress the price of gold, this is one tactic to try to accomplish
that purpose.
I can come to no other conclusion than that a large quantity
of physical gold surreptitiously appeared on the market on March 6 with
the sole purpose to drive down the price of gold. The quantities were
large enough that they almost certainly could not come from private
parties. With most of the world's central banks now being net buyers of
gold reserves, they would not be the source of this gold. By process of
elimination, the suspicion falls upon the U.S. government as the
ultimate party responsible for this blatant action to manipulate the
price of gold.
Of course, the U.S. government would not want to be
identified as the cause of this leasing anomaly. Instead, such
manipulation was almost certainly conducted by multiple trading partners
of the U.S. government.
This sledge hammer tactic worked at driving the price of
gold further away from the $1,000 level - at least temporarily.
Mr. Heller need look no further than
Alan Greenspan for confirmation that central banks-in collusion with
bullion banks-were, in fact, manipulating gold with lease rates. Eleven
years before, on July 24, 1998, before the House Committee on Banking
and Financial Services, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had testified:
Central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise.
Although Greenspan was to fail as an
economist he excelled as a politician, and as disingenuous as Alan
Greenspan's tenure was, Greenspan's testimony as to the readiness of
central banks to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise is an admission sufficient to quiet those who would still believe otherwise. Regarding the central bank leasing of gold, in The Gold Market: Seen Through A Glass Darkly, I wrote:
After gold's explosive
ascent in 1980, central bankers began seriously 'manage' the price of
gold. A lower price of gold would indicate not only an abatement of
monetary problems but investors would be less inclined to trade their
paper banknotes for the safety of gold when they could more profitably
leverage their paper banknotes in the bankers' paper markets.
Since the early 1980s,
supplies of newly mined gold have constantly fallen short of market
demand for gold; but notwithstanding supply and demand fundamentals,
gold prices nonetheless fell for 20 straight years. In 1980, the average
price of gold was $615. By 2001, it was only $271. Clearly, the free
market price of gold was being distorted by 'outside' forces.
THE REAL QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE FED IS MANIPULATING GOLD BUT WHERE THE GOLD IS COMING FROM There has been conjecture that gold
stolen by Japan from China prior and during WWII is the source of the
supply of gold coming onto the market. In 2012, GATA's Chris Powell
discounted that possibility in his post, If U.S. had 'Yamashita's Gold', they'd put it in Cracker Jack boxes. While I concur with Powell that if the
US had access to such gold in 1968, they would have employed it to
prevent the collapse of the London Gold Pool. It is my belief, however,
that such gold did exist but, in 1968, "Yamashita's gold", i.e. China's
stolen gold, was still a tightly held secret of the US government privy
to only the top echelons of the CIA and a few others. More importantly, however, in the 1960s
China's stolen gold, i.e. 'Yamashita's gold', had not yet been laundered
into the international banking system. The laundering of the illicit
horde of gold was not to happen until the 1980s, the decade when, not
coincidentally, American Barrick, a junior oil and gas producer, was to
become Barrick Gold. No less than the esteemed Professor
Antal E. Fekete recognized the possibility of gold laundering by Barrick
when he questioned Barrick's inexplicable and self-defeating strategy
of unhedged forward selling of gold at prices far below the market. In his August 2006 article, To Barrick Or To Be Barricked, That Is The Question,
Professor Fekete suggested Barricks strategy could, in fact, be an
operation to cover up the laundering of gold. The professor wrote:
Is Barrick a front to cover up gold-laundering? ..unlessBarrick was a front
to cover up gold laundering by governments, in which case unilateral
forward selling was not a mistake but a deliberate policyÉThe suspicion
that Barrick is a front to cover up a gigantic gold-laundering
operation, presumably on behalf of a government (or governments) that
need more time to complete a gold acquisition program in the order of
thousands of tons of gold, is hard to escape.
In my book, Light In A Dark Place, I quote from EP Heidner's Collateral Damage
which confirms what Professor Fekete had surmised-but Barrick wasn't
laundering gold to complete a gold acquisition program as believed by
Professor Fekete - Barrick was, in fact, laundering China's stolen gold
to bring it into the international banking system.
US Intelligence operations had been siphoning off the gold [China's stolen gold] for
three decades. However in 1986 Vice President George Bush took over the
gold from Marcos and the gold was removed to a series of banks, notably
Citibank, Chase Manhattan, Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation, UBS
and Banker's Trust, and held in a depository in Kloten, Switzerland. In 1992, George Bush[former Director of the CIA] served
on the Advisory Board of Barrick Gold. The Barrick operation would
create billions of dollars of paper gold by creating 'gold derivatives' É[and] would become an investment for nearly every gold bullion bank associated with the Marcos gold recovery [China's stolen gold].
These banks would loan gold to Barrick, which would then sell the
borrowed gold as derivatives, with the promise of replacing the borrowed
gold with their gold mining operation.
Barrick, which has no
mining operations in Europe, used two refineries in Switzerland: MKS
Finance S.A. and Argor-Heraeus S.A. - both on the Italian border near
Milan, a few hours away from the gold depository in ZurichÉThe question
that Barrick and other banks needed to avoid answering is: what gold was
Barrick refining in Switzerland, as they have no mines in that region?
Barrick would become a
quiet gold-producing partner for a number of major banks, and its
activities became subject to an FBI investigation into
gold-price-fixing. The records on this investigation were kept in the
FBI office on the 23rd floor of the North Tower which was destroyed by
bomb blasts shortly before the Tower collapsed.-p. 11, Collateral Damage: US Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, EP Heidner (2008)
CONJECTURE, CONJURING AND CONFIDENCE GAMES The drop in the price of gold has
ignited a frenzy of gold-buying around the world. It is my belief that
the gold being sold is not China's stolen gold, but gold purloined from
the central banks of countries still vulnerable to the considerable
pressure of Western central banks. In 2012, India's central bank, the Royal
Bank of India, received a High Court notice to explain gold deposits
currently with the Bank of England and the Bank of International
Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. India's central bank is required by
law to keep 85% of its gold reserves in India yet 47% of India's gold is
deposited with the Bank of England and the Bank of International
Settlements, read here. It is likely that India's gold has been
leased by the Bank of England in order to suppress the price of gold.
India is a former crown colony and its imperial shackles have not yet
been completely removed. The international monetary system based
on credit and debt is, in truth, a confidence game in which gold was
once a critical component. But when ties between paper money and gold
were severed in 1971, confidence in the bankers' paper money began to
falter; and, today we are witness to what happens when confidence in a
global confidence game begins to evaporate. In my current youtube video, The Economic Crisis: Then and Now,
I discuss the on-going economic collapse. It isn't over yet. When it
is, then and only then, will we be free of the bankers' dream of eternal
debt. Buy gold, buy silver, have faith. ###
(Gov’t Con Job) FEMA Documents Prove Staged Terror Events – Video
OUTRAGE! Obama Administration Allowed Radical Cleric to Curse US Navy SEAL Heroes at Funeral Services (Video & Transcript)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, May 9, 2013, 11:06 AM
Islamic Cleric Cursed US Heroes at Their Funeral–
Obama Administration complicit.
This combo shows the 30 troops killed in a helicopter downing in
Afghanistan on Saturday, Aug. 6, 2011. The Pentagon on Thursday, Aug.
11, 2011 identified the Americans as 17 members of the elite Navy SEALs,
five Naval Special Warfare personnel who support the SEALs, three Air
Force Special Operations personnel and an Army helicopter crew of five. (AP Photo)
Today three families of Navy SEAL Team VI special forces servicemen, along with one family of an Army National Guardsman, appeared at a press conference
to disclose never before revealed information about how and why their
sons along with 26 others died in a fatal helicopter crash in
Afghanistan on August 6, 2011. This was just months after the successful
raid on the Bin Laden compound in Pakistan.
At the press conference today the families
released video on how military brass, while prohibiting any mention of a
Judeo-Christian God, invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the
fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes. This cleric disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah. A video of the Muslim cleric’s “prayer” was shown this morning with a certified translation. This will break your heart.
From the funeral services at Bagram Air Force Base
Here is the radical cleric’s curse on our fallen SEALs.
Amen. I shelter in Allah from the devil who has been cast with stones.
In the name of Allah the merciful forgiver.
The companions of “THE FIRE”
(The sinners and infidels who are fodder for the hell fire)
ARE NOT EQUAL WITH the companions of heaven.
The companions of heaven (Muslims) are the WINNERS.
Had he sent this Koran to the mountain, you would have seen the mountain prostrated in fear of Allah.
(Mocking the GOD of Moses)
Such examples are what we present to the people, so that they would think.
(repent and convert to Islam)
Blessings are to your God (Allah) the God of glory and what they describe.
And peace be upon the messengers (prophets) and thanks be to Allah the lord of both universes (mankind and Jinn).
For the record – Political correctness killed these heroes – then political correctness allowed them to be insulted at their funeral service. Are there any courageous Christians left in this country?
Are there any Christians willing to stand up for their faith?
How hackers allegedly stole “unlimited” amounts of cash from banks in just hours
Feds accuse eight men of participating in heists that netted $45 million.
Federal authorities have accused eight men of participating in
21st-Century Bank heists that netted a whopping $45 million by hacking
into payment systems and eliminating withdrawal limits placed on prepaid
debit cards.
The eight men formed the New York-based cell of an international
crime ring that organized and executed the hacks and then used
fraudulent payment cards in dozens of countries to withdraw the loot
from automated teller machines, federal prosecutors alleged in court
papers unsealed Thursday. In a matter of hours on two separate
occasions, the eight defendants and their confederates withdrew about
$2.8 million from New York City ATMs alone. At the same times, "cashing
crews" in cities in at least 26 countries withdrew more than $40 million
in a similar fashion.
Prosecutors have labeled this type of heist an "unlimited operation"
because it systematically removes the withdrawal limits normally placed
on debit card accounts. These restrictions work as a safety mechanism
that caps the amount of loss that banks normally face when something
goes wrong. The operation removed the limits by hacking into two
companies that process online payments for prepaid MasterCard debit card
accounts issued by two banks—the National Bank of Ras Al-Khaimah PSC in
the United Arab Emirates and the Bank of Muscat in Oman—according to an
indictment filed in federal court in the Eastern District of New York.
Prosecutors didn't identify the payment processors except to say one was
in India and the other in the United States.
The first heist, which occurred on December 22 and targeted debit
cards issued by the UAE bank, dispatched carders in about 20 countries
that rapidly withdrew funds in more than 4,500 ATM transactions. In New
York City alone, prosecutors said, the defendants and their
co-conspirators withdrew almost $400,000 in some 750 fraudulent
transactions from more than 140 different ATM locations. It took just
two hours and 25 minutes for the New York cell to complete, prosecutors
said. A second operation commenced on February 19 withdrew about $40
million in 36,000 transactions worldwide. In just 10 hours, the New York
group allegedly withdrew about $2.4 million in almost 3,000 ATM
transactions.
The operation exploited weaknesses in the way banks and payment
processors handle prepaid debit cards, which usually are loaded with a
finite amount of funds. These cards are often used by employers in place
of paychecks and by charitable organizations to distribute disaster
assistance. Once the accounts were hacked and the limits removed from
accounts, cards were cloned and sent to cell groups throughout the world
to make fraudulent withdrawals. Additional details of the operation are
available in a press release outlining the charges.
The defendants—seven who are in custody and one who was reportedly
murdered two weeks ago in the Dominican Republic—allegedly used the
proceeds to buy expensive watches, cars, and other luxury items. The
surviving defendants have been charged variously with conspiracy to
commit access device fraud, money laundering conspiracy, and money
laundering. If convicted, they each face a maximum sentence of 10 years
in prison for each money-laundering charge and seven and a half years on
conspiracy to commit access device fraud.
Megaupload has strengthened its demand to have the criminal
indictment against the company thrown out by the court, thus ending the
case. The United States Government told the court last week that it
fears the end of the Megaupload prosecution if the judge makes the
‘wrong’ decision, and these words are now being used against it. In a
new brief submitted to the Virginia District Court, Megaupload’s lawyers
argue that the Government admits that it may not have a case. Earlier this week Megaupload’s lawyers released a white paper
accusing the Obama administration of being corrupted by Hollywood and
other major corporations, and detailing how the entire criminal case
against Megaupload is baseless.
In addition to this public attack, Megaupload’s legal team is also building up pressure in court.
In a new brief
they argue that the case against the company should be thrown out,
since the Government has more or less admitted that there is no legal
basis to keep the company in criminal limbo.
The two parties have a standoff about “Rule 4” of criminal procedure,
which requires the authorities to serve a company at an address in the
United States. According to Megaupload this is impossible since the
company is based in Hong Kong. The U.S. Government disagreed and said
that it could find a way to serve the company, but this is yet to
happen.
What followed was a back and forth exchange, with Megaupload
requesting an end to the case and the U.S. arguing against it. In an
unexpected move last week, the Government stressed the importance of the
pending decision by pointing out that the wrong choice could put an end to the case.
In a brief filed yesterday evening, Megaupload’s lawyers respond to
these claims by pointing out that without a dismissal “Megaupload will
be indefinitely stuck in criminal limbo.”
This would mean that the company’s rights will continue to be violated by the current stalemate.
“As a result, Megaupload is trapped in a state of criminal limbo,
where it is subjected to daily, irreparable harm from criminal
indictment and the seizure of its assets, while being denied the
benefits of the adversarial process and protections,” the lawyers write.
According to Megaupload’s legal team the Government appears to be
contradicting itself. The lawyers note that the Government first argued
that Megaupload can be served when Kim Dotcom and the other defendants
are extradited from New Zealand, but that it now appears to be backing
away from this stance.
“The Government has now changed its tune, claiming that because of
delays in the extradition process, ‘it is likely that any ‘temporary’
dismissal would be permanent and contrary to the interests of justice’,”
the lawyers write.
“The Government thus seems to confirm what this Court has already
observed—namely, ‘that the individual defendants may never be
extradited’ and criminal proceedings may therefore never commence. Given
this reality, due process demands that the Superseding Indictment be
dismissed.”
The recent briefs from the U.S. Government and Megaupload show that
District Court Judge Liam O’Grady’s decision will be a pivotal one.
(Washington, D.C.). Three families of Navy SEAL Team VI special
forces servicemen, along with one family of an Army National Guardsman,
will appear at a press conference on May 9, 2013, to disclose never
before revealed information about how and why their sons along with 26
others died in a fatal helicopter crash in Afghanistan on August 6,
2011, just a few months after the successful raid on the compound of
Osama Bin Laden that resulted in the master terrorist’s death.
Accompanying the families of these dead Navy SEAL Team VI special
operations servicemen will be retired military experts verifying their
accounts of how and why the government is as much responsible for the
deaths of their sons as is the Taliban.
The areas of inquiry at the press conference will include but not be limited to:
1. How President Obama and Vice President Biden, having disclosed on
May 4, 2011, that Navy Seal Team VI carried out the successful raid on
Bin Laden’s compound resulting in the master terrorist’s death, put a
retaliatory target on the backs of the fallen heroes.
2. How and why high-level military officials sent these Navy SEAL
Team VI heroes into battle without special operations aviation and
proper air support.
3. How and why middle-level military brass carries out too many
ill-prepared missions to boost their standing with top-level military
brass and the Commander-in-Chief in order that they can be promoted.
4. How the military restricts special operations servicemen and
others from engaging in timely return fire when fired upon by the
Taliban and other terrorist groups and interests, thus jeopardizing the
servicemen’s lives.
5. How and why the denial of requested pre-assault fire may have
contributed to the shoot down of the Navy SEAL Team VI helicopter and
the death of these special operations servicemen.
6. How Afghani forces accompanying the Navy SEAL Team VI servicemen
on the helicopter were not properly vetted and how they possibly
disclosed classified information to the Taliban about the mission,
resulting in the shoot down of the helicopter.
7. How military brass, while prohibiting any mention of a
Judeo-Christian God, invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the
fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes who disparaged in Arabic the memory of
these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah. A video of the
Muslim cleric’s “prayer” will be shown with a certified translation.
“This press conference takes on special significance given that our
government has over the last twelve years since September 11th committed
brave American servicemen to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that, in
large part as a result of politics, were poorly conceived of and
implemented, resulting in the deaths of thousands and the maiming of
tens of thousands of our brave heroes.
To make matters even worse, America has effectively lost these wars,” stated Larry Klayman, legal counsel for the families.
May 9, 2013Jake HammerExcerpted from TOWNHALL
CBS News Investigative Reporter Sharyl Attkisson has reportedly been
criticized by her bosses for treading “dangerously close to advocacy” as
a result of her pursuit of the Benghazi scandal. Which brings me to
this, remember when Attkisson exposed Hillary Clinton’s bogus “Bosnia
sniper fire” lie? Good times. She’s an amazing reporter, period. Excerpted from WND
Sen. Hillary Clinton has used a story of arriving in Bosnia under
sniper fire to bolster her foreign policy bona fides, but the Washington
Post retrieved a photo showing that upon landing, she actually was
greeted in a customary tarmac ceremony, complete with a kiss for a
native child.
Clinton has declared on the campaign trail that a welcoming ceremony
for the March 25, 1996, arrival in Tuzla was canceled, and she had to
run from the airplane into an awaiting vehicle for safety. The
then-first lady’s traveling party included 15-year-old daughter Chelsea,
the comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow.“I remember landing under
sniper fire,” Clinton recounted. “There was supposed to be some kind of a
greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our
heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”
But the Post’s Michael Dobbs says that “as a reporter who visited
Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest
that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly
at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla.”
Dobbs’s report in the Post’s “Fact Checker” column has been noted by
weblogs Newsbusters and HotAir.com but virtually ignored by mainstream
media.
“Had Hillary Clinton’s plane come ‘under sniper fire’ in March 1996,
we would certainly have heard about it long before now,” Dobbs writes.
He pointed out that numerous reporters, including the Post’s John
Pomfret, covered Clinton’s trip, and a review of nearly 100 news
accounts of their visit “shows that not a single newspaper or television
station reported any security threat to the first lady.”
Pomfret declared, “As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say
that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened,”.
Dobbs says Clinton and her entourage were greeted by smiling U.S. and
Bosnian officials, and an 8-year-old Muslim girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a
poem in English.
The actor Sinbad had a different account of the trip than Clinton,
telling the Post’s “Sleuth” column Monday the “scariest” part was
worrying about whether “we eat here or at the next place.”
Clinton defended her story on the campaign trail this week and dismissed the actor’s contention, saying, “Sinbad is a comedian.”
Clinton repeated the Bosnia story, saying she remembers “landing
under sniper fire” and that “we just ran with our heads down to get into
the vehicles to get to our base.”
SEAL Team 6 Families to Blame Government For Deaths
“Never before revealed information” to be aired at press conference
Families of the SEAL Team 6 members who were killed when
their helicopter crashed in Afghanistan in August 2011 are set to give a
press conference tomorrow during which they will hold the Obama
administration partially responsible for the deaths of their sons.
With the administration already reeling over today’s Benghazi revelations, a press release on
the ‘Tea Party Command Center’ website promises “never before revealed
information” about the circumstances behind the incident.
“Accompanying the families of these dead Navy SEAL Team
VI special operations servicemen will be retired military experts
verifying their accounts of how and why the government is as much
responsible for the deaths of their sons as is the Taliban,” states the
press release.
30 Americans were killed on August 6, 2011 when
insurgents shot down a U.S. military helicopter during fighting in
eastern Afghanistan. Most of the victims belonged to the same unit as
the Navy SEALS involved in the Bin Laden operation, although US military
officials said that none of the individuals involved directly in the
Bin Laden mission were killed in the crash.
Issues set to be raised include how the Obama
administration’s handling of the death of Osama Bin Laden made
retaliatory attacks against SEAL Team 6 more likely, as well as how
SEALS were sent into battle “without special operations aviation and
proper air support.”
Perhaps even more controversially, the family members
are set to reveal how a Muslim cleric attended the funerals of the
service members and disparaged them by “damning them as infidels to
Allah.” The press release states that a video documenting this will be
played to members of the press tomorrow.
Other revelations include “How and why the denial of
requested pre-assault fire may have contributed to the shoot down of the
Navy SEAL Team VI helicopter,” and, “How Afghani forces accompanying
the Navy SEAL Team VI servicemen on the helicopter were not properly
vetted and how they possibly disclosed classified information to the
Taliban about the mission, resulting in the shoot down of the
helicopter.”
A less dynamic, non-English speaker may be one of the forgotten heroes
of the Cleveland rescue. The focus of the viral interview of Charles Ramsey
is beginning to crumble around the edges. But will any of this be
remembered beyond today, in the wake of stories of chains, five
pregnancies, torture, and other sickening violence? (The graphic
breaking details from reporter Michael Baldwin's interviews are spreading today, and sweeping away initial "discovery" details.)
The English-speaking media darling of the Cleveland rescue is only a human being.
The highlighting of the melodramatic Ramsey interview on video, of
McDonald's and visual imagery, may be ignoring the reality of what
happened. First off, Charles Ramsey's newly revealed criminal record is
not doing him any good. As Smoking Gun
and other sources are noting, in January 2003, Ramsey allegedly was
arrested for the second time for domestic violence and served time in
the Lorain, Ohio, Correctional Institution. Yes, Lorain.
Lorain Correctional mugshot of Charles Ramsey.
Ramsey had been incarcerated in Lorain, also in the early 1990s for drug
abuse and other minor crimes. Lorain Avenue, as previously noted, was
the site of the Knight, Berry, and DeJesus kidnappings.
There is "profiling" that needs to take place sometimes - of patterns in
kidnappings, in appearances, in name links, in location overlaps. Not
all "profiling" is inappropriate, of course.
Michelle Knight (note headband)
Gina DeJesus (note headband)
Amanda Berry (note headband)
It appears another man - Angel Cordero - may have actually and initially
been the one to have noticed Amanda Berry's shouts, to have arranged
her escape, and to have handed her a cellphone for that dramatic
oft-heard 911 call. Listening closely to Ramsey's interviews, you will
note he says "we," but never named Cordero.
Angel Cordero's name is literally an angelic name game.
Angel (from the Greek ἄγγελος - ángelos) is a supernatural being or spirit, usually humanoid in form, found in various religions and mythologies.
Cordero derives from the Latin cordus meaning "young" plus
"aries" - the ram, and the translation is "the little lamb" or the
"young ram," or even possibly the "son of the ram." There are claims
that the name is a descriptive metonymic for a shepherd, and this is a
possibility, except that usually shepherds look after all the sheep, not
just the young lambs as suggested by the name.
Cordero-named individuals have, within their name, an
acknowledgement of shepherding the young innocents, metaphorically, the
lambs. Add "angel" and that's is a rather powerful name.
"I kicked the door at the bottom because I was trying to get it open
because it was too hard so I got it at the bottom and that's when Amanda
ran out of the house," said Angel Cordero through a translator.
"I was the first person who broke the door,” said Angel Cordero, 32.
In Spanish, Cordero said he was the first person to break down the door
to rescue the three missing women from the home on Seymour Avenue Monday
afternoon.
Cordero said he was at a friend’s house right across the street when he
heard Amanda Berry, 27, screaming for help and trying to escape.
“I crossed the street and I asked the girl what was happening and she
told me that she’s been kidnapped for 10 years. We tried together to
open the door but it was locked with a chain and the door didn’t open
much so I kicked the door open,” Cordero explained.
Cordero says he, Charles Ramsey and other neighbors helped the women
escape from the house, then got Berry to a phone so she could call
police.
But Cordero is one who is not upset that Ramsey is getting most of the credit. He doesn't feel like a hero.
“I feel normal. I did something I needed to do. A big, important favor,” said Cordero to Fox 8.
Angel Cordero (pictured) says that he does not harbor any resentment or
jealousy toward Charles Ramsey, as long as the women he helped rescue
from the home are okay.
WPTV reported on Cordero and the involvement of another man, Wintel Tejeda:
“Ramsey arrived after she was outside with the girl,” Cordero said. “But
the truth who arrived there, who crossed the street, who came and broke
the door, it was me.”
Wintel Tejeda, who lives across the street from the suspect’s house,
said others helped and when Berry came out, they gave her a phone.
“She was able to call police from my house,” Tejeda said in Spanish.
Now with Ramsey’s interview making headlines, both men said they’re not jealous.
“I did what had to be done. I helped her,” Cordero said. “They have their daughter, daughters are safe over there.”
The names Tejeda, Tejada are derivatives of "Tejado" meaning tile, and originally meant the place of the tile roofs, or the place where tiles were made. "Teja" means "(roof) tile" or "lime tree."
How Many Constitutional Freedoms Do We Still Have?
Preface: While a lot of people talk
about the loss of our Constitutional liberties, people usually speak in a
vague, generalized manner … or focus on only one issue and ignore the
rest.
This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.
First Amendment
The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Of course, Muslims are more or less subject to a separate system of justice in America.
And 1st Amendment rights are especially chilled when power has become so concentrated that the same agency which spies on all Americans also decides who should be assassinated.
Second Amendment
The 2nd Amendment states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Gun control and gun rights advocates
obviously have very different views about whether guns are a force for
violence or for good.
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.
***
It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment
begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued,
this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
***
More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment
does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right
of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press.
The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the
states and the people against the central government. At the time, many
feared the federal government and its national army. Gun
ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government,
which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.
Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment. None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment
was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of
American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right.
This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that
no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.
The gun control debate – including which weapons and magazines are banned – is still in flux …
Third Amendment
The 3rd Amendment prohibits the government forcing people to house soldiers:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any
house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.
Hey … we’re still honoring one of the Amendments! Score one for We the People!
The 4th Amendment prevents unlawful search and seizure:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The domestic use of drones to spy on Americans clearly violates the Fourth Amendment and limits our rights to personal privacy.
Paul introduced a bill
to “protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental
intrusion through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called
drones.”
Emptywheel notes in a post entitled “The OTHER Assault on the Fourth Amendment in the NDAA? Drones at Your Airport?”:
***
As the map above makes clear–taken from this 2010 report–DOD [the Department of Defense] plans to have drones all over the country by 2015.
Many police departments are also using drones to spy on us. As the Hill reported:
At least 13 state and local police agencies around the
country have used drones in the field or in training, according to the
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry
trade group. The Federal Aviation Administration has predicted that by the end of the decade, 30,000 commercial and government drones could be flying over U.S. skies.
***
“Drones should only be used if subject to a powerful framework that
regulates their use in order to avoid abuse and invasions of privacy,”
Chris Calabrese, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties
Union, said during a congressional forum in Texas last month.
He argued police should only fly drones over private property if they
have a warrant, information collected with drones should be promptly
destroyed when it’s no longer needed and domestic drones should not
carry any weapons.
He argued that drones pose a more serious threat to privacy than
helicopters because they are cheaper to use and can hover in the sky for
longer periods of time.
A congressional report
earlier this year predicted that drones could soon be equipped with
technologies to identify faces or track people based on their height,
age, gender and skin color.
The American government is collecting and storing virtually every phone call, purchases, email, text message, internet searches, social media communications, health information, employment history, travel and student records, and virtually all other information of every American. [And see this.]
Some also claim that the government is also using facial recognition software and surveillance cameras to track where everyone is going. Moreover, cell towerstrack where your phone is at any moment, and the major cell carriers, including Verizon and AT&T, responded to at least 1.3 million law enforcement requests for cell phone locations and other data in 2011. (And – given that your smartphoneroutinely sends your location information back to Apple or Google – it would be child’s play for the government to track your location that way.) Your iPhone, or other brand of smartphone is spying on virtually everything you do (ProPublica notes: “That’s No Phone. That’s My Tracker“).
As the top spy chief at the U.S. National Security Agencyexplained
this week, the American government is collecting some 100 billion
1,000-character emails per day, and 20 trillion communications of all
types per year.
He says that the government has collected all of the communications
of congressional leaders, generals and everyone else in the U.S. for the
last 10 years.
He further explains that he set up the NSA’s system so that all of
the information would automatically be encrypted, so that the government
had to obtain a search warrant based upon probably cause before a
particular suspect’s communications could be decrypted. [He
specifically did this to comply with the Fourth Amendment's prohibition
against unreasonable search and seizure.] But the NSA now collects all
data in an unencrypted form, so that no probable cause is needed to view
any citizen’s information. He says that it is actually cheaper and
easier to store the data in an encrypted format: so the government’s
current system is being done for political – not practical – purposes.
He says that if anyone gets on the government’s “enemies list”, then
the stored information will be used to target them. Specifically, he
notes that if the government decides it doesn’t like someone, it
analyzes all of the data it has collected on that person and his or her
associates over the last 10 years to build a case against him.
Transit authorities in cities across the country are
quietly installing microphone-enabled surveillance systems on public
buses that would give them the ability to record and store private
conversations….
The systems are being installed in San Francisco, Baltimore, and other cities with funding from the Department of Homeland Security in some cases ….
The IP audio-video systems can be accessed remotely via a built-in web server (.pdf), and can be combined with GPS data to track the movement of buses and passengers throughout the city.
***
The systems use cables or WiFi to pair audio conversations
with camera images in order to produce synchronous recordings. Audio and
video can be monitored in real-time, but are also stored
onboard in blackbox-like devices, generally for 30 days, for later
retrieval. Four to six cameras with mics are generally installed
throughout a bus, including one near the driver and one on the exterior
of the bus.
***
Privacy and security expert Ashkan Soltani told the Daily that the audio could easily be coupled with facial recognition systems or audio recognition technology to identify passengers caught on the recordings.
Street lights that can spy installed in some American cities
America welcomes a new brand of smart street lightning systems:
energy-efficient, long-lasting, complete with LED screens to show ads.
They can also spy on citizens in a way George Orwell would not have
imagined in his worst nightmare.
With a price tag of $3,000+ apiece, according to an ABC report, the
street lights are now being rolled out in Detroit, Chicago and
Pittsburgh, and may soon mushroom all across the country.
Part of the Intellistreets systems made by the company Illuminating Concepts, they have a number of “homeland security applications” attached. Each has a microprocessor “essentially similar to an iPhone,” capable of wireless
communication. Each can capture images and count people for the police
through a digital camera, record conversations of passers-by and even
give voice commands thanks to a built-in speaker.
Ron Harwood, president and founder of Illuminating Concepts, says he eyed the creation of such a system after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Hurricane Katrina disaster. He is “working with Homeland Security” to deliver his dream of making people “more informed and safer.”
The TSA has moved way past airports, trains and sports stadiums, and is deploying mobile scanners to spy on people all over the place. This means that traveling within the United States is no longer a private affair. (And they’re probably bluffing, but the Department of Homeland Security claims they will soon be able to know your adrenaline level, what you ate for breakfast and what you’re thinking … from 164 feet away.)
In addition, the ACLU published
a map in 2006 showing that nearly two-thirds of the American public –
197.4 million people – live within a “constitution-free zone” within 100
miles of land and coastal borders:
Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the
American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops
and searches.
The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the
longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example
the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a
“routine search.”
But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a
100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the
United States.
As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away
from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America
to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution
does not permit.
Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland — on highways
in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, and at ferry terminals
in Washington State. Typically, the agents ask drivers and passengers
about their citizenship. Unfortunately, our courts so far have
permitted these kinds of checkpoints – legally speaking, they are
“administrative” stops that are permitted only for the specific purpose
of protecting the nation’s borders. They cannot become general
drug-search or other law enforcement efforts.
However, these stops by Border Patrol agents are not remaining
confined to that border security purpose. On the roads of California
and elsewhere in the nation – places far removed from the actual border –
agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an
everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing.
The bottom line is that the extraordinary authorities that the
government possesses at the border are spilling into regular American
streets.
Border agents don’t need probable cause and they don’t
need a stinking warrant since they don’t need to prove any reasonable
suspicion first. Nor, sadly, do two out of three people have First
Amendment protection; it is as if DHS has voided those Constitutional
amendments and protections they provide to nearly 200 million Americans.
***
Don’t be silly by thinking this means only if you are physically
trying to cross the international border. As we saw when discussing the
DEA using license plate readers and data-mining to track Americans movements, the U.S. “border” stretches out 100 miles beyond the true border. Godfather Politics added:
But wait, it gets even better! If you live anywhere in
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
New Hampshire, New Jersey or Rhode Island, DHS says the search zones
encompass the entire state.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) have a “longstanding constitutional and statutory authority
permitting suspicionless and warrantless searches of merchandise at the
border and its functional equivalent.” This applies to electronic
devices, according to the recent CLCR “Border Searches of Electronic
Devices” executive summary [PDF]:
Fourth Amendment
The overall authority to conduct border searches without suspicion or
warrant is clear and longstanding, and courts have not treated searches
of electronic devices any differently than searches of other objects.
We conclude that CBP’s and ICE’s current border search policies comply
with the Fourth Amendment. We also conclude that imposing a requirement
that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border
search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without
concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits. However, we do think
that recording more information about why searches are performed would
help managers and leadership supervise the use of border search
authority, and this is what we recommended; CBP has agreed and has
implemented this change beginning in FY2012. First Amendment
Some critics argue that a heightened level of suspicion should be
required before officers search laptop computers in order to avoid
chilling First Amendment rights. However, we conclude that the laptop
border searches allowed under the ICE and CBP Directives do not violate
travelers’ First Amendment rights.
The ACLU said, Wait one darn minute! Hello, what happened to the
Constitution? Where is the rest of CLCR report on the “policy of combing
through and sometimes confiscating travelers’ laptops, cell phones, and
other electronic devices—even when there is no suspicion of
wrongdoing?” DHS maintains it is not violating our constitutional
rights, so the ACLU said:
If it’s true that our rights are safe and that DHS is
doing all the things it needs to do to safeguard them, then why won’t it
show us the results of its assessment? And why would it be legitimate
to keep a report about the impact of a policy on the public’s rights
hidden from the very public being affected?
***
As ChristianPost wrote,
“Your constitutional rights have been repealed in ten states. No, this
isn’t a joke. It is not exaggeration or hyperbole. If you are in ten
states in the United States, your some of your rights guaranteed by the
Bill of Rights have been made null and void.”
The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act
request for the entire DHS report about suspicionless and warrantless
“border” searches of electronic devices. ACLU attorney Catherine Crump
said “We hope to establish that the Department of Homeland Security
can’t simply assert that its practices are legitimate without showing us
the evidence, and to make it clear that the government’s own analyses
of how our fundamental rights apply to new technologies should be openly
accessible to the public for review and debate.”
Meanwhile, the EFF has tips
to protect yourself and your devices against border searches. If you
think you know all about it, then you might try testing your knowledge
with a defending privacy at the U.S. border quiz.
Wired pointed out in 2008 that the courts have routinely upheld such constitution-free zones:
Federal agents at the border do not need any reason to
search through travelers’ laptops, cell phones or digital cameras for
evidence of crimes, a federal appeals court ruled Monday, extending the
government’s power to look through belongings like suitcases at the
border to electronics.
***
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the
government, finding that the so-called border exception to the Fourth
Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches applied not just to
suitcases and papers, but also to electronics.
***
Travelers should be aware that anything on their mobile devices can
be searched by government agents, who may also seize the devices and
keep them for weeks or months. When in doubt, think about whether online
storage or encryption might be tools you should use to prevent the feds
from rummaging through your journal, your company’s
confidential business plans or naked pictures of you and your-of-age
partner in adult fun.
The 5th Amendment addresses due process of law, eminent domain, double jeopardy and grand jury:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
As such, the government is certainly depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
There are additional corruptions of 5th Amendment rights – such as property being taken for private purposes.
The percentage of prosecutions in which a defendant is denied a grand jury is difficult to gauge, as there is so much secrecy surrounding many terrorism trials.
Protection against being tried twice for the same crime after being found innocent (“double jeopardy”) seems to be intact.
The 6th Amendment guarantees the right
to hear the criminal charges levied against us and to be able to
confront the witnesses who have testified against us, as well as speedy
criminal trials, and a public defender for those who cannot hire an
attorney:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State
and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence.
Subjecting people to indefinite detention or assassination obviously
violates the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial. In both cases, the
defendants is “disposed of” without ever receiving a trial … and often
without ever hearing the charges against them.
More and more commonly, the government prosecutes cases based upon “secret evidence” that they don’t show to the defendant … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case.
True – when defendants are afforded a jury trial – they are provided with assistance of counsel. However, the austerity caused by redistribution of wealth to the super-elite is causing severe budget cuts to the courts and the public defenders’ offices nationwide.
The 7th Amendment guarantees trial by jury in federal court for civil cases:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy
shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined
in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the
common law.
As far as we know, this right is still being respected. However – as noted above – the austerity caused by redistribution of wealth to the super-elite is causing severe budget cuts to the courts, resulting in the wheels of justice slowing down considerably.
While Justice Scalia disingenuously argues that torture does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it is meant to produce information – not punish – he’s wrong. It’s not only cruel and unusual … it is technically a form of terrorism.
The 9th Amendment provides that people have other rights, even if they aren’t specifically listed in the Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
We can debate what our inherent rights
as human beings are. I believe they include the right to a level
playing field, and access to safe food and water. You may disagree.
By working hand-in-glove with giant
corporations to defraud us into paying for a lower quality of life, the
government is trampling our basic rights as human beings.
Tenth Amendment
The 10th Amendment provides that powers not specifically given to the Federal government are reserved to the states or individual:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
Two of the central principles of America’s Founding Fathers are:
(1) The government is created and empowered with the consent of the people
and
(2) Separation of powers
Today, most Americans believe that the government is threatening – rather than protecting – freedom … and that it is no longer acting with the “consent of the governed”.
And the federal government
is trampling the separation of powers by stepping on the toes of the
states and the people. For example, former head S&L prosecutor Bill
Black – now a professor of law and economics – notes:
The Federal Reserve Bank
of New York and the resident examiners and regional staff of the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency [both] competed to weaken federal
regulation and aggressively used the preemption doctrine to try
to prevent state investigations of and actions against fraudulent
mortgage lenders.
Indeed, the federal government is doing everything it can to stick its nose into every aspect of our lives … and act like Big Brother.
Conclusion: While a few of the
liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights still exist, the overall
scorecard of the government’s respect for our freedom: a failing grade.
Posts
Earlier this week Megaupload’s lawyers 
