Crime-Fighting Robots Hitting The Streets In California

TN Note: The Police State and Total Surveillance Society are joined at the hip. Automated police robots are currently only used as threat assessment and surveillance collection devices, but there will be a time when force/intervention features will be added. These robots are driven by AI, of course, and communicate everything the see, hear and think back to a central computer for analysis. This is a bad trend but one that will greatly further the aspirations of technocrats everywhere. 

The robots might one day rise up and take over, but a Palo Alto startup called Knightscope has developed a fleet of crime-fighting machinery it hopes to keep us safe.

Knightscope’s K5 security bots resemble a mix between R2D2 and a Dalek from Doctor Who – and the system behind these bots is a bit Orwellian. The K5’s have broadcasting and sophisticated monitoring capabilities to keep public spaces in check as they rove through open areas, halls and corridors for suspicious activity.

The units upload what they see to a backend security network using 360-degree high-definition and low-light infrared cameras and a built-in microphone can be used to communicate with passersby. An audio event detection system can also pick up on activities like breaking glass and send an alert to the system as well.

Malls and office buildings are also starting to employ the K5 units as security assistants. Knightscope couldn’t name names, but tells TechCrunch the robots are being used at a number of tech companies and a mall in Silicon Valley at the moment.

CEO Stacey Dean Stephens, a former law enforcement agent, came up with the idea to build a predictive network to prevent crime using robots. He and his co-founder William Li have raised close to $12 million in funding so far from Konica Minolta and others to build on the idea.

While Knightscope doesn’t think its robots will replace mall cops or security guards in the near future, the company does see them as assistants to human security teams. The startup currently rents each five-foot, 300-pound K5 unit out for $6.25 per hour (or less than minimum wage). However, teenagers or others tempted to kick or push the robots over may be shocked to find the robots can talk back to them, capture their behavior on film and alert authorities behind the scenes as well.

Read full story here…




When Facial Recognition Tools Are Available To Everyone

TN Note: When facial recognition tools are available to everyone, everywhere, their use will become ubiquitous and gradually put a net of control over unsuspecting users.  

Chances are, you’re already familiar with facial recognition software, even if you’ve never spent time in an artificial intelligence lab. The algorithm that Facebook uses for tagging photos, for example, is a version of facial recognition software that can identify faces with a 97.25 percent accuracy.

The problem with most of today’s facial recognition software, however, is that it’s computationally very intensive and difficult to use for more than just matching simple photos. If you could speed up the process of recognizing faces, add the ability to track facial features and make it so easy to use that it could be used as a smartphone app by anyone – then it might open up a number of important new opportunities.

That’s the goal of AI researchers at Carnegie Mellon University’s Human Sensing Laboratory. Starting in Feb. 2016, they will make available their advanced software facial image analysis software to fellow researchers. The software, known as IntraFace, is fast and efficient enough that it can be installed as a smartphone app.

For now, in order to give a preview of what to expect, the researchers have made available free demonstration smartphone apps, which show how IntraFace can identify facial features and detect emotions. These can be downloaded from the website for the Human Sensing Laboratory, fromApple’s App Store, or from Google Play.

The project’s lead researcher, Fernando De la Torre, associate research professor in the robotics department of Carnegie Mellon University, says that he is already starting to see enormous interest within the AI field for IntraFace. “Now it’s time to develop new applications for this technology. We have a few of our own, but we believe there are lots of people who may have even better ideas once they get their hands on it.”

Duke medical researchers, for example, are using IntraFace as part of an advanced tool to screen for autism. Doctors and clinicians might be able to monitor or detect a number of pathologies, including depression or anxiety, just by checking out facial expressions of patients.

One everyday use for facial recognition analysis might be vehicles that can recognize a distracted driver behind the wheel. In the demo video for IntraFace, there’s the example of a father behind the wheel of a vehicle who turns around to comfort a screaming toddler in a car seat for a split second before being warned that he’s veered off the road.

And sales and marketing teams are going to love this once this technology becomes commercially available – imagine being able to evaluate what people think about your products just by reading their faces. The Carnegie Mellon researchers refer to this as “audience reaction measurement,” and see potential applications being used by public speakers to gauge how well they’re winning over the crowd. But you could also imagine biometric trackers on billboards, checking out how the crowd is responding to an advertisement.

For that matter, you could also envision IntraFace being used by dating apps once the technology becomes commercially available. Not sure whether you should approach the target of your amorous intentions? Use the IntraFace app to read the facial features of that handsome guy or beautiful girl and get the go-ahead green light to proceed.

IntraFace is the result of a decade of work by De la Torre and his colleagues, including Jeffrey Cohn, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and an adjunct professor in CMU’s Robotics Institute. The researchers used machine learning techniques to train the software to recognize and track facial features. The researchers then created an algorithm that can take this generalized understanding of the face and personalize it for an individual, enabling expression analysis.

Read full article here…




Technocrat EU Army To Allow German Soldiers to Take Control Of Borders

TN Note: The European Union is riddled with unelected, unaccountable Technocrats who have no restraints to tell other nations how to run their countries. The introduction of an EU army that could enforce EU will on member nations is totally disturbing. In particular, that Germany would be at the forefront of this effort is even more disturbing: It was Germany that precipitated two world wars in the last century.

A European Army is now one step closer to becoming a reality, just over 18 months since Britain’s former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg branded warnings that the EU was aiming for such expansionism a “dangerous fantasy”.

Mr. Clegg, among others, have gone quiet with his usual derisory treatment of the EU army warnings in the last few months, as top EU policymakers have elaborated upon their ideas for a pan-European Border and Coast Guard.

Now it looks like the plans are not just formalising, but going further than anyone thought possible, with documents outlining what an EU army would look like, including the ability to take control of national borders without the consent of the government of the nation in question.

In theory, this would mean that EU army members could seize border controls, or lackthereof, from countries like the United Kingdom without the permission of the country’s leaders or elected representatives.

According to the Times, the proposals for a 2,500-strong border and coast guard force could see armed personnel first deployed to areas like Greece or the Balkans.

The paper likens the idea of primarily German soldiers seizing power across Europe to the Second World War. Bruno Waterfield and Francis Elliott report: “The force, wearing blue armbands and an EU and agency insignia, would be equipped with naval patrol vessels, helicopters and drones, according to plans tabled yesterday by Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president”.

Almost 18 months ago, UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, warned of the plans for an EU army in a big, pre-European Parliamentary Elections debate with then Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

Mr. Clegg lost both televised debates in 2014, notably calling Mr. Farage’s warning a “dangerous fantasy”. He said: “The idea there’s going to be a European air force, a European army, it is simply not true. This is a dangerous fantasy… it is not going to happen”.

The Times also reports that a major European summit, due to be dominated by UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s “renegotiation” demands to halt a British exit from the EU, will instead now focus on the plans for the EU army.

The plans include the statement: “In urgent situations, the agency must be able to step in to ensure action is taken on the ground even where . . . that member state considers there is no need for additional intervention”.

Read full story here…




Autonomous Weaponized Robots As Certain As Tomorrow’s Sunrise

TN Note: The scary part here is the ‘autonomous’ factor. A robot, drone or swarm with instructions to neutralize a specific target or threat can act without further human intervention or knowledge to accomplish its mission. Of course, benevolent technology could benefit and protect humans, but the real problem are whose who would misuse the technology to control and manipulate humans. In fact, this kind of technology is perfectly suited for social engineering (aka Technocracy) because it is driven by efficiency and AI technology.

Robots have been keeping police officers safe for years by disposing of bombs and assisting in hostage situations, but a rapid increase in technology could trigger a robot revolution over the next decade.

Robots are already being weaponized: In 2014, a South African company started selling drones that could shoot 80 pepper balls per second, and police in North Dakota have been cleared to use a type of drone that is armed with tear gas and Tasers. Police use of Tasers—they’re designed to be nonlethal but can trigger cardiac arrest—killed 540 Americans from 2001 to 2013, according to Amnesty International. Right now, this technology requires an operator to remotely control the robots and the weapons. But autonomous weaponized robots are already being used by the Israeli military to patrol that nation’s borders, and a Texas company has created a drone to hover over private property and, without human instruction, fire a Taser dart to keep a potential intruder under shock until the authorities arrive. Imagine a convergence in technology that also gives these robots facial-recognition capability. Given the right circumstances, such as a terrorist threat, these robots could be rolled out in large numbers to protect citizens.

Read full story here…




The Radical Polarization of Law Enforcement

TN Note: This article was originally written by Patrick Wood on March 18, 2009, but it is as pertinent today as it was then. The movement toward polarization of law enforcement has continued unabated and unchecked.

Patriots, Chris­tians and con­cerned cit­i­zens are increas­ingly in the cross hairs of the U.S. intel­li­gence com­mu­nity, and battle lines are being qui­etly drawn that could soon pit our own law enforce­ment and mil­i­tary forces against us.

A Feb­ruary 20 report enti­tled “The Modern Militia Move­ment” was issued by the Mis­souri Infor­ma­tion Analysis Center (MIAC) that paints main­stream patri­otic Amer­i­cans as dan­gerous threats to law enforce­ment and to the country. Oper­ating under the Mis­souri State Highway Patrol, the MIAC is listed as a Fusion Center that was estab­lished in coop­er­a­tion with the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity and the Depart­ment of Justice.

Because authen­ticity of the report was ques­tioned by some, this writer con­tacted Mis­souri state Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Jim Guest (R-King City) who had per­son­ally ver­i­fied that the report had indeed been issued. Rep. Guest is chairman of the Per­sonal Pri­vacy Com­mittee and is a promi­nent leader in the national blow­back against the Real ID Act of 2005 that requires states to issue uni­form driver’s licenses con­taining per­sonal bio­metric data. (See Guest warns against Big Brother, Real ID)

Rep. Guest stated that he was “shocked and out­raged” at the report, which clearly paints him and many other elected state leaders, as a poten­tial threats to law enforcement.

Instead of focusing on actual crim­inal inci­dents of “home-grown” ter­rorism, the MAIC report instead lists issues that it believes are common to the threats it per­ceives. Thus, Amer­i­cans involved with the fol­lowing issues are highly suspect:

– “Ammu­ni­tion Account­ability Act” — requiring each bullet to to be seri­al­ized and reg­is­tered to the purchaser.

– “Antic­i­pa­tion of the eco­nomic col­lapse of the US Gov­ern­ment” – Promi­nent scholars and econ­o­mists are openly debating the bank­ruptcy and insol­vency of the United States government.

– “Pos­sible Con­sti­tu­tional Con­ven­tion (Con Con)” — 32 states have called for a Con­sti­tu­tional Con­ven­tion to force Con­gress and the Exec­u­tive Branch into a bal­anced budget, but many are con­cerned that if called, Con Con would be taken over by hos­tile inter­ests who would intro­duce Amend­ments that are harmful to national sovereignty.

– “North Amer­ican Union” — MIAC states that “Con­spiracy the­o­rists claim that this union would link Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The NAU would unify its mon­e­tary system and trade the dollar for the AMERO. Asso­ci­ated with this theory is con­cern over a NAFTA Super­highway, which would fast track trade between the three nations. There is addi­tional con­cern that the NAU would open up the border causing secu­rity risks and free move­ment for immigrants.”

– “Uni­versal Ser­vice Pro­gram” — “State­ments made by Pres­i­dent Elect Obama and his chief of staff have led extrem­ists to fear the cre­ation of a Civilian Defense Force. This theory requires all cit­i­zens between the age of 18 and 25 to be forced to attend three months of manda­tory training.” (This is exactly what Obama and Rahm Emmanuel have repeat­edly stated on national TV, and thus is hardly a theory.)

– “Radio Fre­quency Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion (RFID)” — This includes human implan­ta­tion, but the larger con­cern is uni­versal id cards and per­sonal prop­erty iden­ti­fi­ca­tion that can be read elec­tron­i­cally without the bearer’s knowledge.

Cit­i­zens who are con­cerned about the above issues are then lumped into rad­ical ide­olo­gies such as Chris­tian Iden­tity, White Nation­al­ists (e.g., neo-Nazi, Skin­heads, etc.) and anti-Semites. Tax Resisters and Anti-Immigration advo­cates are thrown into the same category.

The MIAC report then sternly warns law enforce­ment personnel,

You are the Enemy: The militia sub­scribes to an antigov­ern­ment and NWO mind set, which cre­ates a threat to law enforce­ment offi­cers. They view the mil­i­tary, National Guard, and law enforce­ment as a force that will con­fis­cate their firearms and place them in FEMA con­cen­tra­tion camps.” [Bold emphasis appears in original]

On the last page of the MIAC report, a sec­tion listing Polit­ical Para­pher­nalia (flags and sym­bols) states,

“Militia mem­bers most com­monly asso­ciate with 3rd party polit­ical groups. It is not uncommon for militia mem­bers to dis­play Con­sti­tu­tional Party, Cam­paign for Lib­erty, or Lib­er­tarian mate­rial. These mem­bers are usu­ally sup­porters of former Pres­i­den­tial Can­di­date: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.

Militia mem­bers com­monly dis­play pic­ture, car­toons, bumper stickers that con­tain anti-government rhetoric. Most of this mate­rial will depict the FRS, IRS, FBI, ATF, CIA, UN, Law Enforce­ment, and the ‘New World Order’ in a deroga­tory manor (sic). Addi­tion­ally, Racial, anti-immigration, and anti-abortion, mate­rial may be dis­played by militia members.”

What was the osten­sible gen­esis of all these “threats” to law enforce­ment? The report explains it this way…

“Aca­d­e­mics con­tend that female and minority empow­er­ment in the 1970s and 1960s caused a blow to white male’s sense of empow­er­ment. This, com­bined with a sense of defeat from the Vietnam War, increased levels of immi­gra­tion, and unem­ploy­ment, spawned a para­mil­i­tary cul­ture. This caught on in the 1980’s with injects such as Tom Clancy novels, Solder of For­tune Mag­a­zine, and movies such as Rambo that glo­ri­fied combat. This cul­ture glo­ri­fied white males and por­trayed them as morally upright heroes who were men­tally and phys­i­cally tough.

“It was during this time­frame that many indi­vid­uals and orga­ni­za­tions began to con­coct con­spiracy the­o­ries to explain their mis­for­tunes. These the­o­ries varied but almost always involved a glob­alist dic­ta­tor­ship the“New World Order (NWO), which con­spired to exploit the working class citizens.”

In other words, these “ridicu­lous NWO the­o­ries” were cre­ated by psy­cho­log­ical deviants who were trying to jus­tify their own self-induced misfortunes.

Fear ye, all troopers

For unsus­pecting law enforce­ment per­sonnel, this MIAC training doc­u­ment polar­izes unsus­pecting offi­cers to fear peaceful, law-abiding cit­i­zens and greatly increases the risk of armed con­fronta­tion. For instance, a rou­tine traffic stop would be esca­lated if the officer observes a Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin bumper sticker on the rear bumper of the car. The mere pos­ses­sion of printed mate­rial such as the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion or Bill of Rights would be viewed as sub­ver­sive, even though most offi­cers are required to take an oath to “defend and uphold the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States” as a con­di­tion of their employment.

Addi­tion­ally, troopers are indoc­tri­nated that all such topics are pure fan­tasy and without any fac­tual basis. Even if they had their own con­cerns, they would be ridiculed into accepting the posi­tion that all crit­i­cism of the New World Order is dan­gerous to their well being.

The Columbia Daily Tri­bune (Columbia, Mis­souri) reports this con­cern from local res­i­dent Tim Neal, who appar­ently fits the MIAC’s “Modern Militia” profile:

“If a police officer is pulling me over with my family in the car and he sees a bumper sticker on my vehicle that has been specif­i­cally iden­ti­fied as one that an extremist would have in their vehicle, the guy is prob­ably going to be pretty appre­hen­sive and not thinking in a rational manner, and this guy’s walking up to my vehicle with a gun.” [see ‘Fusion Center’ draws fire over asser­tions]

MIAC is a Fusion Center

As men­tioned above, the Mis­souri Infor­ma­tion Analysis Center is one of a net­work of over 50 Fusion Cen­ters around the country.

According to the National Crim­inal Intel­li­gence Resource Center (NCIRC), a Fusion Center is “a col­lab­o­ra­tive effort of two or more agen­cies that pro­vide resources, exper­tise, and/or infor­ma­tion to the center with the goal of max­i­mizing the ability to detect, pre­vent, appre­hend, and respond to crim­inal and ter­rorist activity.”

As of 2006, the NCIRC listed 50 Fusion Cen­ters in var­ious states.

Most impor­tantly, the Depart­ment of Jus­tice and the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity are the dri­ving forces behind Fusion Cen­ters, having pub­lished “Fusion Center Guide­lines: Devel­oping and Sharing Infor­ma­tion and Intel­li­gence in a New World.” This report head­lines “Fusion” as “Turning Infor­ma­tion and Intel­li­gence Into Action­able Knowledge.”

Fusion Cen­ters are one of five areas of infor­ma­tion sharing under the Infor­ma­tion Sharing Envi­ron­ment (ISE) that was estab­lished by the Intel­li­gence Reform and Ter­rorism Pre­ven­tion Act of 2004.

ISE mem­ber­ship includes the Depart­ment of Com­merce, CIA, Depart­ment of Defense, Director of National Intel­li­gence, Depart­ment of Energy, FBI, Health and Human Ser­vices, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity, National Counter-Terrorism Center, Depart­ment of Inte­rior, Office of Man­age­ment and Budget, Depart­ment of Jus­tice, Depart­ment of State, Depart­ment of Trans­porta­tion and the Depart­ment of Treasury.

According to one white paper (on the ISE web site) enti­tled The Intel­li­gence Fusion Process for State, Local and Tribal Law Enforce­ment, “The most impor­tant output of the intel­li­gence Fusion Center is action­able intel­li­gence. This means that the intel­li­gence pro­duced by the center will drive oper­a­tional responses and strategic aware­ness of threats.” Accordingly,

“The heart of good intel­li­gence analysis is to have a diverse array of valid and reli­able raw infor­ma­tion for analysis. The more robust the raw infor­ma­tion, the more accu­rate the ana­lytic output (i.e., intel­li­gence) will be.”

The above men­tioned MIAC report, issued by an offi­cial Fusion Center, is appar­ently part of this “diverse array of valid and reli­able raw information.”

How­ever, ISE’s under­standing of intel­li­gence is foolish. Any intel­li­gence ana­lyst knows that so-called raw infor­ma­tion is treated as garbage until ver­i­fied from mul­tiple sources to val­i­date accu­racy, com­plete­ness and freedom from bias. Sec­ondly, ana­lytic output depends upon trained and expe­ri­enced human rea­soning and judg­ment, not on the “robust­ness” of the raw infor­ma­tion itself.

Where do Fusion Cen­ters get inputs?

According to their own doc­u­ments, Fusion Cen­ters are “seeded” with ideas for analysis by the FBI and the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity. Although this is prob­lem­atic in itself, atten­tion is better directed to the left-wing non­profit orga­ni­za­tion, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Upon careful word and theme com­par­ison between the MIAC report and SPLC lit­er­a­ture, it is apparent that there is a sig­nif­i­cant link between the two. Either MIAC received training or training mate­rial from SPLC or some of its per­sonnel had some pre­vious expo­sure to it.

The SPLC aggres­sively offers training to local, state and fed­eral law enforce­ment agen­cies. According to the SPLC web site, “We focus on the his­tory, back­ground, leaders and activ­i­ties of far-right extrem­ists in the U.S.” and states that it “is inter­na­tion­ally known for its tol­er­ance edu­ca­tion pro­grams, its legal vic­to­ries against white suprema­cists and its tracking of hate groups.”

Hate crimes are essen­tially acts of vil­i­fi­ca­tion of a victim because of his or her mem­ber­ship in a cer­tain social group, such as racial, reli­gious, sexual ori­en­ta­tion, nation­ality, gender, etc. While hate crimes are wrong under any cir­cum­stance, the SPLC sees no con­flict in pro­filing con­ser­v­a­tive whites, Chris­tians, Con­sti­tu­tion­al­ists, and patriots as being asso­ci­ated with, if not respon­sible for, hate crimes in America. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

For instance, con­sider the SPLC state­ment, “…a basic fact about all three move­ments: Patriots, white suprema­cists and anti-abortion mil­i­tants are all fueled by inter­pre­ta­tions of religion.”

Aside from the fact that this sweeping gen­er­al­iza­tion is plainly not true, it is mud-slinging at its best: Patriots are lumped in with white suprema­cists, anti-abortionists are mil­i­tants, and all are driven by an obvi­ously irra­tional and fanat­ical appli­ca­tion of religion.

In another SPLC article about a tragic killing in South Car­olina, enti­tled “The Abbeville Horror”, the writer goes well beyond just the facts of the story and is careful to sprinkle in words and phrases such as:

Patriots, tax pro­tes­tors, sov­er­eign cit­i­zens, antigov­ern­ment extrem­ists, New World Order para­noia, Dis­arming U.S. Cit­i­zens, hard-line Chris­tian Right, con­sti­tu­tional rights, antigov­ern­ment “Patriot” lit­er­a­ture, anti-Semitic con­spiracy, “Live Free or Die,” Ruby Ridge and Waco, Second Amend­ment, extremist orga­nizing, “closet extrem­ists,” para­noid beliefs, “Give me lib­erty or give me death.” [quotes appear in orig­inal text]

These are the same kinds of words and themes that are seen in The Modern Militia Move­ment article, where dis­tinc­tions between good and bad people are blurred and con­fused: All are guilty by asso­ci­a­tion, if nothing else.

Should a pri­vate orga­ni­za­tion like SPLC be allowed to pro­vide offi­cial training to public-entrusted law enforce­ment agen­cies? Most would say, “No.” Even if the training was free, the agency should reject influ­ence from the public sector, and even more so if it presents biased and one-sided infor­ma­tion that is claimed to be factual.

Con­clu­sion

It is crit­ical to under­stand that the legit­i­mate law enforce­ment agen­cies of cities, coun­ties and states are not adver­saries of the people. They are greatly needed for pro­tec­tion against crime and for keeping order in our communities.

They are, how­ever, being method­i­cally seeded with very wrong­headed and dan­gerous infor­ma­tion, the spe­cific intent of which is to polarize law enforce­ment against peaceful cit­i­zens who simply care about the down­fall of their country.

This writer inter­viewed Chuck Baldwin and asked about how he felt when he first saw his good name asso­ci­ated with those who would threaten bodily harm to law enforce­ment agen­cies. “Per­son­ally, I was stunned,” he said, “but my family has taken this very per­son­ally as well. This is more than disturbing.”

When asked about the pos­sible affect of the report on the Con­sti­tu­tion Party, of which he was the 2008 pres­i­den­tial can­di­date, he replied, “I think it will gal­va­nize people and help them to under­stand the nature of the battle we are in. Freedom must be defended.”

In fact, the MIAC report has cre­ated a firestorm all over America. Tens of thou­sands of protests are being called, written, emailed and faxed to author­i­ties and leg­is­la­tors in Mis­souri. It would not be sur­prising to see the report rescinded and an apology given.

Even so, behind-the-scene groups like the SPLC will con­tinue unabated and unde­terred in their effort to mis­in­form and dis­rupt healthy com­mu­nity rela­tions with worthy law enforce­ment agen­cies and personnel.

The mes­sage to every juris­dic­tion: Don’t let it happen!

Final thought

Locate the Fusion Center in your state and keep a close eye on the infor­ma­tion they are releasing. Stay close to as many law enforce­ment per­sonnel as you can, asking them to keep their eyes open for reports sim­ilar to the Mis­souri report. Peti­tion your state leg­is­la­tors to ban law enforce­ment training by pri­vate orga­ni­za­tions such as the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Addi­tional resources

FBI nudges state ‘fusion cen­ters’ into the shadows (CNET)

Fusion Cen­ters and Pri­vacy (EPIC)

Back­grounder: Fusion Cen­ters (CFR.org)

Infor­ma­tion Sharing Envi­ron­ment (ISE)

ISE Web site




Strong Cities Network – aka Global Police Force – Could Sink American Republic

Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s speech to the United Nations on September 29, 2015, will go down in history as the tipping point of total globalist control over the streets and cities of the United States, and the end to a Republic form of government.

This stands in stark contrast to the oath of office that was administered to Lynch prior to being installed as America’s “top cop.”

‘I, Loretta Elizabeth Lynch, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’ [Emphasis added]

Yet, in Lynch’s speech she states, “… connecting those localities to one another – as the Strong Cities Network is doing – is not only a powerful way to lift up our communities worldwide.  It also sends a message about who we are and what we aspire to be – as an alliance of nations and as a global community.

This begs the question, who is the Strong Cities Network? A quick look at their website reveals,

“The Strong Cities Network is the first global network of cities and other sub-national entities working together to build social cohesion and resilience to prevent violent extremism in all its forms.

“The Strong Cities Network provides a global platform to support local authorities to systematically share lessons learned, pool resources and build a community that can mobilize local action on a global scale.” 

First, it should be noted that Strong Cities Network is NOT a government body at all, but rather a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) with no connection to any government, or even the United Nations! They simply state that an International Steering Committee of officials from 25 cities around the world will “determine the strategic direction and thematic priorities of the Strong Cities Network.”

Second, the Strong Cities Network About page clearly states “The Strong Cities Network is run by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a London-based ‘think-and-do’ tank with a long-standing track record of working to prevent violent extremism across all forms.” That is to say, the Strong Cities Network is a front group for the Institute of Strategic Dialogue.

Who is the Institute for Strategic Dialogue? It is yet another NGO think-tank run by a fourteen-member Board of Trustees all of whom are directly connected to the global oligarchy. One member, Field Marshal The Lord Guthrie, is a member of the Trilateral Commission and a former Director of the global financial empire, N M Rothschild & Sons Limited. No less than ten other board members also have direct ties to the global financial world. The Board also contains two Baronesses and three Lords of the British monarchy.

One of ISD’s ideological positions should be of great concern to all Americans. A section of their web site details an initiative to fight against “Far-Right Extremism and Intolerance”, which states,

“The blurred relationship between violence from the extreme right and broader trends of Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiment poses several challenges for policy makers seeking to address the increasing risk of violent right-wing extremism…In 2012, ISD launched a new programme of work to enhance understanding of the threat from the far right, and help policy makers to develop effective responses to these violent and non-violent movements. [Emphasis added]

In America, such “far-right” groups are already defined by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as Tea Party groups, Oath Keepers, Constitutionalists, defenders of the 2nd Amendment and all who oppose Islam, the United Nations, Sustainable development, Agenda 21, Common Core Education Standards, etc.

What has Attorney General Loretta Lynch just done to America?

She has sold us out to a high-level and self-interested group of global oligarchs, none of whom have any experience in fighting “violent extremism” in a general sense. In fact, the only “violent extremism” they fear is that which is directed at themselves or their protected interests.

This makes total mockery of Lynch’s oath of office. Instead of supporting and defending the Constitution, she is stripping the American Republic of its Constitutional protections.

Indeed, her co-opting of American cities into the hands of unelected and unaccountable global elitists is grounds for nothing less than immediate impeachment.

In the meantime, watch your own city like a hawk and deny the Strong Cities Network from gaining a foothold.




Full Text of Attorney General Loretta Lynch Speech on Launch of Strong Cities Network

Remarks as prepared for delivery, September 29, 2015

Thank you, Mayor [Bill] de Blasio, for those kind words; for your dedication to promoting equality and expanding opportunity; and for your service to the people of this great city – the city I call home.  I would also like to recognize High Commissioner for Human Rights [Prince Zeid Ra’ad] Al Hussein and the UN-Habitat program for their inspiring work and bold leadership as we work to create a future of sustainable peace, development and opportunity.  And I’d like to thank all of the mayors and other municipal leaders who are helping to ensure safe and prosperous futures for our communities and our world by serving on the Steering Committee of the Strong Cities Network.  It’s a pleasure to join such a distinguished group of world leaders on this historic occasion and it’s a privilege to represent the Obama Administration and the United States as we inaugurate this innovative, collaborative and critically important global effort.

We gather today at a crucial moment of challenge and opportunity for the security of our nations and the well-being of humankind.  Fourteen years ago, not far from where we stand today, terrorists carried out a vicious assault on democratic values and inclusive societies everywhere.  Their brutal attack claimed the lives of thousands of innocent victims – including citizens from 90 nations.  And in the years since that morning when terror rained from the sky, we have continued to see violent extremists emerge from within our own communities – from terrorists inspired by groups like ISIL to fanatics motivated by hatred against religious or ethnic factions.  Some aspire to travel overseas to train or to fight.  Others plot attacks on targets within their homelands.  But all are antithetical to the shared vision and common cause that joins us here today in this renowned international forum: commitment to collaboration; dedication to peace; and devotion to the cause of justice within our nations and throughout the world.

It is clear that the challenge of building resilience against violent extremism – a challenge that spans vast oceans and borders while impacting our most tightly-knit cities and towns – requires a response that is both wide-ranging and highly focused.  National governments have a crucial role to play in ensuring the safety and security of the nations they serve – and here in the United States, it is our highest priority.  Neither the Justice Department I lead nor the administration in which I serve will ever back down from our commitment and our responsibility to safeguard our citizens and defend our homeland.  But as a lifelong prosecutor and as a former United States Attorney here in New York, I have also seen firsthand how local authorities can serve as the front lines of our defense against violent extremism.  As residents and experts in their communities, local leaders are often best positioned to pinpoint sources of unrest and discord; best equipped to identify signs of potential danger; and best able to recognize and accommodate community cultures, traditions, sensitivities and customs.  By creating a series of partnerships that draws on the knowledge and expertise of our local officials, we can create a more effective response to this virulent threat.

The government of the United States is fully invested in this collaborative approach and we have seen the value of empowering local communities by promoting initiatives they design and lead themselves.  Through our Model Regions program, federal officials have partnered with a wide array of local stakeholders – including government and public safety officers, social service providers, educators, businesses and nonprofits – to build and implement community resilience frameworks tailored to the unique needs of residents.  In Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota, for example, government officials, private partners and civic leaders have come together to create a mentorship program for Somali youth; to build an “opportunity hub” that provides educational resources and job training; and to contribute to a program called Youthprise that is forging connections between community organizations, investors and young people.  At the same time, officials in the Greater Boston region are exploring the connection between criminal justice and public health by partnering with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services to tap their experience with violence prevention and intervention.  And in the Denver area, the United States Attorney’s Office has led a multifaceted community engagement and education effort involving all levels of government.  These initiatives and others like them were the subject of a convening just two weeks ago, organized by our Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, in conjunction with the Police Executive Research Forum, which brought together law enforcement executives and community partners from over a dozen cities to plan ways to translate these cutting-edge programs into new regions.

These efforts have shown us the power of harnessing local expertise and leveraging local leadership to create targeted and effective approaches to eradicating violent extremism in any community.  We have learned that open dialogue and consistent engagement with a wide range of constituents is essential to crafting strategies and forging partnerships that will address the full scope of the threats we face.  We have seen that communities must be empowered to take these steps themselves so that the prevention approaches they design are crafted for their unique situations.  And we have observed the need for a mechanism that will expand the most effective efforts to reach more people around the globe – a way to highlight the best local ideas so that they can be adapted for use in other communities.

Until now, we have lacked that mechanism.  We haven’t had the benefit of sustained or coordinated cooperation among the growing number of cities and municipalities that are confronting this ongoing challenge.  Communities have too often been left isolated and alone.  But through the Strong Cities Network that we have unveiled today, we are making the first systematic effort in history to bring together cities around the world to share experiences, to pool resources and to forge partnerships in order to build local cohesion and resilience on a global scale.  Today we tell every city, every town and every community that has lost the flower of its youth to a sea of hatred – you are not alone.  We stand together and we stand with you.

This is a truly groundbreaking endeavor.  By connecting municipal leaders, facilitating information-sharing and providing training and other assistance where appropriate, the Strong Cities Network will help to fashion a global response to a global issue, without losing sight of its inherently local roots.  It will offer city leaders a way to learn from one another about successful initiatives and productive programs.  It will provide a platform for discussing community policing and prevention strategies that safeguard the individual rights of citizens.  And it will support the practical delivery of community resilience programs in cities that are taking a new look at this evolving issue.

I want you to know that the Obama Administration is deeply committed to ensuring that the Strong Cities Network is as strong, vibrant and resilient as the cities it unites – because we know this model works.  Here in the United States, we have joined with local partners to bring down far-flung human trafficking rings, to strengthen trust in law enforcement, to thwart cybersecurity threats and to combat official and international corruption.  Our experience tells us that partnering with city-level officials and the communities they represent extends the reach and deepens the perspective of national governments and international alliances.  And connecting those localities to one another – as the Strong Cities Network is doing – is not only a powerful way to lift up our communities worldwide.  It also sends a message about who we are and what we aspire to be – as an alliance of nations and as a global community.  When the representatives of the Strong Cities Network join together for their first Annual Summit in Paris in Spring 2016, they will be making a strong and clear statement to their citizens and to the world: we stand united against violence, united against fear and united in the pursuit of a better and brighter future.

This work will not be easy.  There will be difficult days for us all.  But the spirit of collaboration I see before me today – the devotion to partnership and mutual support – gives me confidence in our effort and hope for the journey ahead.  Thank you, once again, for your outstanding service.  Thank you for your visionary leadership on a project without precedent.  And thank you for your commitment to the mission of our time.

At this time, I would like to turn things over to Sasha Havlicek, the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.




Please car license plate scanner

Private Database Lets Police Skirt License Plate Data Limits

LONG BEACH, Calif. (AP) — For years, police nationwide have used patrol car-mounted scanners to automatically photograph and log the whereabouts of peoples’ cars, uploading the images into databases they’ve used to identify suspects in crimes from theft to murder.

Nowadays, they are also increasingly buying access to expansive databases run by private companies whose repo men and tow-truck drivers photograph license plates of vehicles every day.

Civil libertarians and lawmakers are raising concerns about the latest practice, arguing that there are few, if any, protections against abuse and that the private databases go back years at a time when agencies are limiting how long such information is stored.

Some argue police should get a warrant from a judge to access the databases, much as they would if they wanted to obtain emails.

“The public is understandably concerned about how this information is going to be used,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, but for police, the databases, just like surveillance cameras, are an important investigative tool.

License plate scans have been at the forefront of a privacy debate in recent years.

The license plate reader companies say their scans are useless without access to motor vehicle department rolls — which police have. They say lawmakers should focus on strengthening data access laws, rather than eliminating police tools.

The largest firm, Livermore, California-based Vigilant Solutions, has filed a lawsuit or actively lobbied in at least 22 states and the District of Columbia for its technology, said Todd Hodnett, founder of Digital Recognition Network, which provides the data it collects to law enforcement through its sister company Vigilant.

He said as of June that roughly 30,000 law enforcement officers nationwide subscribe to their LEARN database.

Hodnett said when he tells legislators that the data his company gathers is protected, “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard legislators say this sounds like a solution in search of a problem.”

The plate readers can collect 1,600 plates an hour. Vigilant has collected scans since 2007 and has more than 3 billion license plates, growing at a rate of 100 million a month from every major metro area. There are roughly 254 million registered vehicles in the U.S.

Law enforcement agencies have acknowledged privacy concerns over how long they store scans — which includes a photo of the vehicle, its plate, and a GPS and time marker — and have voluntarily instituted policies to limit that storage.

The Long Beach, California, police have used the license plate technology since 2005 and in December signed on with Vigilant. The department retains its own scans for two years, primarily because of server space and funding, like many other agencies.

Read full story here…




Obama/UN Announce Global Police Force to Fight Extremism in U.S.

TN Note: Technocracy demands civil obedience. Whereas American police would be reticent to fire on American citizens, United Nations troops would have no such inhibition. Obama has introduced global weaponry to fight terrorism that has been redefined to include patriots, critics of the Administration, “disgruntled” ex-military, those opposed to the United Nations, climate-change deniers, pro-gun advocates, anti-immigration advocates, etc. Internal tensions are certain to rise.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the United Nations that her office would be working in several American cities to form what she called the Strong Cities Network (SCN), a law enforcement initiative that would encompass the globe.

This amounts to nothing less than the overriding of American laws, up to and including the United States Constitution, in favor of United Nations laws that would henceforth be implemented in the United States itself – without any consultation of Congress at all.

The United Nations is a sharia-compliant world body, and Obama, speaking there just days ago, insisted that “violent extremism” is not exclusive to Islam (which it is). Obama is redefining jihad terror to include everyone but the jihadists. So will the UN, driven largely by the sharia-enforcing Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the pro-Islamic post-American President Obama, use a “global police force” to crush counter-jihad forces?

After all, with Obama knowingly aiding al-Qaeda forces in Syria, how likely is it that he will use his “global police force” against actual Islamic jihadists? I suspect that instead, this global police force will be used to impose the blasphemy laws under the sharia (Islamic law), and to silence all criticism of Islam for the President who proclaimed that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

What is a global police force doing in our cities? This is exactly the abdication of American sovereignty that I warned about in my book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America. The Obama Department of Justice made it clear that it was exactly that when it distributed a press release last week announcing the “Launch of Strong Cities Network to Strengthen Community Resilience Against Violent Extremism.” In that press release, the DoJ complained that “while many cities and local authorities are developing innovative responses to address this challenge, no systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale.”

So if the local and municipal effort to counter the euphemistic and disingenuous “violent extremism” is inadequate and hasn’t developed “systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale,” the feds – and the UN – have to step in. Thus the groundwork is being laid for federal and international interference down to the local level. “The Strong Cities Network,” Lynch declared, “will serve as a vital tool to strengthen capacity-building and improve collaboration” – i.e., local dependence on federal and international authorities.

Lynch made the global (that is, United Nations) involvement clear when she added: “As we continue to counter a range of domestic and global terror threats, this innovative platform will enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world.”

Read full story here…