December 29, 2007
Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I) replaced Combined Joint Task Force 7 on May 15, 2004. The land forces component of United States Central Command that carried out the initial invasion of Iraq, designated the Coalition Forces Land Component Command, was established by Commander, US Army Forces Central Command, in 2002 - 2003, to oversee two corps-sized organizations, I Marine Expeditionary Force and V Corps. These two corps-level formations carried out Operation Iraqi Freedom (the U.S. military term) which began on 20 March 2003. Coalition Forces Land Component Command was replaced by Combined Joint Task Force 7 on 14 June 2003.
In its turn, CJTF 7 was replaced by Multinational Force Iraq on May 15, 2004. Multinational Force Iraq was established to handle strategic level issues while Multi-National Corps Iraq (MNC-I) directed the tactical battle. General David H. Petraeus serves as Commanding General. As of mid 2006, the 1st Corps Support Command based at Logistics Support Area Anaconda at Balad, Iraq, was providing theatre logistics support.
Symbolism: The Lion symbolizes a Egyptian Sphinx. The Freemasons use the Sphinx as one of their symbols. The Wheat once again symbolize corn used in the Masonic corn, wine and oil ceremony. The Arrow remains a mystery at this point.
Multi-National Corps - Iraq, part of Multi-National Force - Iraq, is the tactical unit responsible for command and control of operations throughout Iraq.
Iraq is divided into 6 major areas of responsibility maintained by forces from 26 countries.
MNC-I is headquartered by the U.S. Army at Camp Victory, Baghdad.
The other points I want to make is does either of these two symbols look American to you? The United Nations led by a Satanic religion the Freemasons is controlling the war in Iraq from the start in March of 2003 to the present. Iraq will never be a free nation because the plan is to divide Iraq into regions. Iraq's entire government has been appointed. They were not elected. The rules of engagement for U.S. forces in Iraq was not created by the U.S. government. The United Nations made those also. 3,897 U.S. troops have died because of George Bush's decision to invade Iraq. More American deaths than the September 11th, 2001 attacks.
Multi - National - Force - Iraq
Multi - National - Corp - Iraq
December 28, 2007
Here are a few quick facts about The Pyramid Arena:
- On the bank of the Mighty Mississippi River, the arena is housed inside a 32 story stainless steel pyramid, paying homage to the Memphis' namesake - Memphis on the Nile River.
- This giant pyramid has more than a half million square feet of usable space inside.
- With a footprint larger than six football fields, The Pyramid's base covers 360,000 square feet.
- Seating capacity is approximately 21,000 for concerts and just over 20,000 for basketball.
- Twenty-six lower level luxury suites are located on the plaza concourse.
- Two additional suites are designed for disabled patron. Disabled seating is also available on all three levels of The Pyramid.
- The Pyramid Gallery of Stars is an informal gathering area on the East Mezzanine, featuring super-size photos of the biggest stars in sports and entertainment. All of the photos were taken from past Pyramid events. The Gallery area also features additional restrooms and concessions.
- The backstage areas include 10 dressing rooms, four locker rooms, a media work room, interview room, show production office and green room.
- The giant center hung scoreboard has the latest state-of-the-art LED video display board technology. The entire system features full video production capabilities; four center-hung 12-foot by 10-foot replay boards and 24 concession stand monitors.
Lush wilderness covered the Mississippi River bluffs (now known as the Memphis metropolitan area) when Spanish explorer Hernando De Soto encountered the area's Chickasaw inhabitants in 1541. In 1673, French explorers Louis Joliet and Jacques Marquette explored the region, called the Fourth Chickasaw Bluffs, which in 1682 was claimed for France by Robert Cavelier de La Salle as part of the vast Louisiana Territory. The French established Fort Assumption at the Fourth Chickasaw Bluffs in 1739. As ownership of the region was disputed by various nations, Fort Assumption was followed by the Spanish Fort San Fernando, built on the site in 1795, and the American Fort Adams, erected in 1797. The Chickasaw ceded West Tennessee to the United States in 1818, and the following year John Overton, James Winchester, and Andrew Jackson founded a settlement on the Mississippi River bluffs that they named Memphis, after an ancient Egyptian city on the Nile River.
This was no coincidence that they named the city after a ancient Egyptian city that was actually called Memphis located on the Nile river. John Overton, James Winchester and Andrew Jackson were all known Freemasons. And Freemasons use the Egyptian culture in their Satanic religion heavily. In Fact the more a person learns about the Ancient Egyptians the more a person can understand the Freemasons secrets and way of thinking. This is why the Pyramid in Memphis was built to display the power and control Freemasons have over the American government and the American people are still in the dark about the powerful secret society that rules this country despite all the evidence around them in plain site. Freemasonry must be exposed!
I'm going to tell you the truth, and that is if Ron Paul does not win the Republican nomination and does not decide to run with another party to try to win, their is no choice for the Presidential Election of 2008. All the other candidates are controlled by the New World Order. The Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. Iraq is the perfect example of this. The will of the American people was not carried out by the Democrats elected to congress to stop the war in Iraq. Instead the Democrats kept the War in Iraq along the same failing course. The Democrats betrayed the American people. Death to The New World Order!
"Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe it."
- Adolf Hitler
"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century."
- Robert Carlton, Ph.D, former EPA scientist, 1992
The history of forcing fluoride on humans through the fluoridation of drinking water is wrought with lies, greed and deception. Governments that add fluoride to drinking water supplies insist that it is safe, beneficial and necessary, however, scientific evidence shows that fluoride is not safe to ingest and areas that fluoridate their drinking water supplies have higher rates of cavities, cancer, dental fluorosis, osteoporosis and other health problems. Because of the push from the aluminum industry, pharmaceutical companies and weapons manufacturers, fluoride continues to be added to water supplies all over North America and due to recent legal actions against water companies that fluoridate drinking water supplies, precedent has been set that will make it impossible for suits to be filed against water suppliers that fluoridate. There is a growing resistance against adding toxic fluoride to our water supplies, but unfortunately, because fluoride has become "the lifeblood of the modern industrial economy"(Bryson 2004), there is too much money at stake for those who endorse water fluoridation . The lies of the benefits of water fluoridation will continue to be fed to the public, not to encourage health benefits to a large number of people, but to profit the military-industrial complex.
The story begins in 1924, when Interessen Gemeinschaft Farben (I.G. Farben), a German chemical manufacturing company, began receiving loans from American bankers, gradually leading to the creation of the huge I.G. Farben cartel. In 1928 Henry Ford and American Standard Oil Company (The Rockefellers) merged their assets with I.G. Farben, and by the early thirties, there were more than a hundred American corporations which had subsidiaries and co-operative understandings in Germany. The I.G. Farben assets in America were controlled by a holding Company, American I.G. Farben, which listed on it’s board of directors: Edsel Ford, President of the Ford Motor Company, Chas. E. Mitchell, President of Rockerfeller’s National City Bank of New York, Walter Teagle, President of Standard Oil New York, Paul Warburg, Chairman of the federal reserve and brother of Max Warburg, financier of Germany’s War effort, Herman Metz, a director of the Bank of Manhattan, controlled by the Warburgs, and a number of other members, three of which were tried and convicted as German war criminals for their crimes against humanity. In 1939 under the Alted agreement, the American Aluminum Company (ALCOA), then the worlds largest producer of sodium fluoride, and the Dow Chemical Company transferred its technology to Germany. Colgate, Kellogg, Dupont and many other companies eventually signed cartel agreements with I.G. Farben, creating a powerful lobby group accurately dubbed "the fluoride mafia"(Stephen 1995).
At the end of World War II, the US government sent Charles Eliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany. The German chemists told Perkins of a scheme which they had devised during the war and had been adapted by the German General Staff. The German chemists explained of their attempt to control the population in any given area through the mass medication of drinking water with sodium fluoride, a tactic used in German and Russian prisoner of war camps to make the prisoners "stupid and docile"(Stephen 1995). Farben had developed plans during the war to fluoridate the occupied countries because it was found that fluoridation caused slight damage to a specific part of the brain, making it more difficult for the person affected to defend his freedom and causing the individual to become more docile towards authority. Fluoride remains one of the strongest anti-psychotic substances known, and is contained in twenty-five percent of the major tranquilizers. It may not seem surprising that Hitler’s regime practiced the concept of mind control through chemical means, but the American military continued Nazi research, exploring techniques to incapacitate an enemy or medicate an entire nation. As stated in the Rockerfeller Report, a Presidential briefing on CIA activities, "the drug program was part of a much larger CIA program to study possible means of controlling human behavior"(Stephen 1995).
The ‘dental caries prevention myth’ associated with fluoride, originated in the United States in 1939, when a scientist named Gerald J. Cox, employed by ALCOA, the largest producer of toxic fluoride waste and at the time being threatened by fluoride damage claims, fluoridated some lab rats, concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and claimed that it should be added to the nation’s water supplies. In 1947, Oscar R. Ewing, a long time ALCOA lawyer, was appointed head of the Federal Security Agency , a position that placed him in charge of the Public Health Service(PHS). Over the next three years, eighty-seven new American cities began fluoridating their water, including the control city in a water fluoridation study in Michigan, thus eliminating the most scientifically objective test of safety and benefit before it was ever completed.
American ‘education and research’ was funded by the Aluminum Manufacturing, Fertilizer and Weapons Industry looking for an outlet for the increasingly mounting fluoride industrial waste while attaining positive profit increase. The ‘discovery’ that fluoride benefited teeth, was paid for by industry that needed to be able to defend "lawsuits from workers and communities poisoned by industrial fluoride emissions" (Bryson 1995) and turn a liability into an asset. Fluoride, a waste constituent in the manufacturing processes of explosives, fertilizers and other ‘necessities’, was expensive to dispose of properly and until a ‘use’ was found for it in America’s water supplies, the substance was only considered a toxic, hazardous waste. Through sly public re-education, fluoride, once a waste product, became the active ingredient in fluorinated pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, anesthetics, tranquilizers, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, and a number of industrial and domestic products, fluorinated dental gels, rinses and toothpastes. Fluoride is so much a part of a multibillion-dollar industrial and pharmaceutical income, that any withdrawal of support from pro-fluoridationists is financially impossible, legally unthinkable and potentially devastating for their career and reputation.
Funded by US industrialists, in an attempt to encourage public acceptance of fluoride, Edward Bernays, known also as the father of PR, or the original spin doctor, began a campaign of deception to persuade public opinion. Barnays explained "you can get practically any idea accepted if doctors are in favour. The public is willing to accept it because a doctor is an authority to most people, regardless of how much he knows or doesn’t know"(Bryson 2004). Doctors who endorsed fluoridation didn’t know that research discrediting fluoride’s safety was either suppressed or not conducted in the first place. Fluoride became equated with scientific progress and since it was introduced to the public as a health-enhancing substance, added to the environment for the children’s sake, those opposing fluoride were dismissed as cranks, quacks and lunatics. Fluoride became impervious to criticism because of a relentless PR offensive, but also because of it’s overall toxicity. Unlike chemicals that have a signature effect, fluoride, a systemic poison, produces a range of health problems, so it’s effects are more difficult to diagnose.
Recently declassified US Military documents such as Manhattan Project, shows how Fluoride is the key chemical in atomic bomb production and millions of tonnes of it were needed for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium. Fluoride poisoning, not radiation poisoning, emerged as the leading chemical health hazard for both workers and nearby communities. A-bomb scientists were ordered to provide evidence useful for defense in litigation, so they began secretly testing fluoride on unsuspecting hospital patients and indignant, mentally retarded children.. "The August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse effects from fluoride was censored by the US Atomic Energy Commission for reasons of "national security" (Griffiths 1998). The only report released stated that fluoride was safe for humans in small doses.
During the Cold War, Dr. Harold C. Hodge, who had been the toxicologist for the US Army Manhattan Project, was the leading scientific promoter of water fluoridation. While Dr. Hodge was reassuring congress of the safety of water fluoridation, he was covertly conducting one of the nation’s first public water fluoridation experiments in Newburgh, New York, secretly studying biological samples from Newburgh citizens at his US laboratory at the University of Rochester. Since there are no legal constraints against the suppression of scientific data, the only published conclusion resulting from these experiments was that fluoride was safe in low doses, a profoundly helpful verdict for the US Military who feared lawsuits for fluoride injury from workers in nuclear power plants and munitions factories. Fluoride pollution was one of the biggest legal worries facing key US industrial sectors during the cold war. A secret group of corporate attorneys, known as the Fluorine Lawyers Committee, whose members included US Steel, ALCOA, Kaiser Aluminum, and Reynolds Metals, commissioned research at the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati to "provide ammunition"(Bryson 2004) for those corporations who were fighting a wave of citizen claims for fluoride injury. The Fluorine Lawyers Committee and their medical ambassadors were in personal and frequent contact with the senior officials of the federal National Institute for Dental Research, and have been implied in the ‘burying’ of the forty year old Kettering study, which showed that fluoride poisoned the lungs and lymph nodes in laboratory animals. Private interests, sought to destroy careers and censor information by ensuring that scientific studies raising doubts about the safety of fluoride never got funded, and if they did, never got published.
During the 1990’s, research conducted by Harvard toxicologist Phillis Mullenix showed that fluoride in water may lead to lower IQ’s, and produced symptoms in rats strongly resembling attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Just days before her research was accepted for publication, Mullenix was fired as the head of toxicology at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. Then her application for a grant to continue her fluoride and central nervous system research was turned down by the US National Institute of Health (NIH), when an NIH panel told her that "fluoride does not have central nervous system effects"(Griffiths 1998).
Despite growing evidence that it is harmful to public health, US federal and state public health agencies and large dental and medical organizations such as the American Dental Association (ADA), continue to promote fluoride. Water fluoridation continues, despite the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s own scientists, whose union, Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, has taken a strong stand against it. Dr. William Hirzy, vice president of Chapter 280, stated that "fluoride (that is added to municipal water) is a hazardous waste product for which there is substantial evidence of adverse health effects and, contrary to public perception, virtually no evidence of significant benefits"( Mullenix 1998). Although fluoride is up to fifty times more toxic than sulfur dioxide, it is still not regulated as an air pollutant by the American Clean Air Act. Since thousands of tonnes of industrial fluoride waste is poured into drinking water supplies all over North America, supposedly to encourage gleaming smiles in our children, big industry in the US has the benefit of emitting as much fluoride waste into the environment as they like with absolutely no requirement to measure emissions and no way of being held accountable for poisoning people, animals and vegetation.
In August 2003, the EPA requested that the National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), re-evaluate water fluoride safety standards by reviewing recent scientific literature, because the last review in 1993 had major gaps in research. "Neither the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), nor the National Institute for Dental Research (NIDR), nor the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry has any proof on fluoride’s safety or effectiveness"(Sterling 1993). The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to it’s high toxicity and the US National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program has found fluoride to be an "equivocal carcinogen" (Maurer 1990).
Currently the US government is continuing to introduce further fluoridation schemes throughout the country, including the Water Act passed in November 2003, which has made it impossible for water companies to undergo civil or criminal hearings as a result of adding fluoride to public water supplies.
In a society where products containing asbestos, lead, beryllium and many other carcinogens have been recalled from the marketplace, it is surprising that fluoride is embraced so thoroughly and blindly. It seems absurd that we would consider paying the chemical industry to dispose of their toxic waste by adding it to our water supply. Hiding the hazards of fluoride pollution from the public is a capitalist-style con job of epic proportions that has occurred because a powerful lobby wishes to manipulate public opinion in order to protect it’s own financial interests. "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country... our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of" (Bernays 1991).
Most Countries Reject Water Fluoridation
Statements from European and other Health, Water, & Environment
Authorities on Water Fluoridation
“Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.” (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water
Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria,
February 17, 2000).
“This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” (Chr. Legros, Directeur,
Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000).
Fluoridation is banned: “not allowed”
Naturally high fluoride levels in water are a serious problem in China.
“Bartram said there were many other ‘silent threats,’ including excessive fluoride in the water supply in China, India and the Rift Valley in Africa. In China alone, 30 million people suffer crippling skeletal fluorosis.” (Jamie
Bartram, Coordinator of the WHO's Water, Sanitation and Health Program, March 22, 2002)
The Chinese government now considers any water supply containing over 1 ppm fluoride a risk for skeletal fluorosis. (Bo Z, et al. (2003). Distribution and risk assessment of fluoride in drinking water in the West Plain region of Jilin Province, China. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 25: 421-431.)
In China, the World Health Organization has estimated that 2.7 million people have the crippling form of skeletal fluorosis.
“Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration
because this form of supplementation is considered:
· uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)
· unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)
· unethical (“forced medication”)
· toxicologically and physiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of
supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive healththreatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor.” (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999).
“We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.” (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999).
“We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000).
“Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population).
Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual’s right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of “force-feeding” was also mentioned.
Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water.”
(Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.)
“Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.” (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August 25, 2000).
“Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.” (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999).
Stopped fluoridating for technical reasons in the 1960s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary has chosen to remain unfluoridated.
Naturally high levels of fluorides in groundwater have affected at least tens of millions with skeletal fluorosis, often resulting in crippling skeletal fluorosis. The Indian government has been working to remove the fluorides from drinking water sources to alleviate this crisis. In India, 17 of its 32 states have been identified as “endemic” areas, with an estimated 66 million people at risk from crippling skeletal fluorosis and 6 million people seriously afflicted.
Recently suspended mandatory fluoridation until the issue is reexamined from all aspects: medical, environmental, ethical and legal. “From our experience in Israel and the world when the fluoride issue is studied from all aspects it is rejected.” (Representative Shimon Tsuk, Israeli Parliament)
June 21, 2006: The labor, welfare and health Knesset (Israeli Parliament) committee called on the ministry of health to freeze the extension of the fluoridation of drinking water in Israel and to study the issue in depth in order to determine whether to continue with the project or to cancel it completely. Conclusions are to be expected within a year. Until then, municipalities and Mekorot (Israel national water company) are not required to build new fluoride installations.
Committee Chairman MK (Member of Knesset) Moshe Sharoni and MKs Ran Cohen and David Tal claimed during the investigation that the potential damage to public health and environment from fluoridation may be greater than the benefits from decreased dental cavities.
Rejected fluoridation: “...may cause health problems....” The 0.8 -1.5 mg regulated level is for calciumfluoride, not the hazardous waste by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.
“Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs.” (Jean-
Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L’Environment, May 3, 2000).
“From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for
this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn.” (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000).
“The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland.” (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000).
“In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated.” (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000).
In November 2004, after months of consultation, Scotland - which had been unfluoridated - rejected plans to add fluoride to the nation’s water.
“Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown.” (Gunnar Guzikowski,
Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000).
In April 9, 2003, the City Parliament of Basel, Switzerland voted 73 to 23 to stop Basel’s 41 year water fluoridation program. Basel was the only city in Switzerland to fluoridate its water, and the only city in continental western Europe, outside of a few areas in Spain.
The Fluoride Deception
December 25, 2007
autonomous unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and advanced tools for intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), announced today that it recently became the
first unmanned aircraft (UA) company to provide operator training to Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) officials. Insitu’s instruction plays a critical role to further educate
FAA representatives on the importance of integrating unmanned aircraft into U.S.
Two FAA inspectors from the Flight Technology and Procedures Division completed a
comprehensive training program leading to operator certification on Insitu’s INSIGHT™
UAS, a platform designed for a variety of commercial applications. The cooperative
effort between Insitu and the FAA was designed to provide the inspectors with baseline
knowledge and skill that would facilitate eventual development of operation and
certification rules for unmanned aircraft.
remarked Paul McDuffee, Insitu Vice President of Flight Operations and Training. The
instruction Insitu provided to the FAA inspectors helped demonstrate our platform’s
seasoned maturity level and its previously unknown capabilities regarding safe
application within the national airspace system (NAS).”
Insitu’s four week program was conducted in two phases that included systems training
using a control station simulator in Washington D.C. in the FAA offices at L’Enfant
Plaza. In addition the FAA inspectors came to Insitu headquarters and conducted
actual flights using the Insight platform.
“The opportunity to gain hands-on experience with a system like Insitu’s Insight will help
us move forward in the development of rules that will hopefully allow unmanned aircraft
safe access to our NAS,” commented one FAA inspector.
Insitu’s Insight class of vehicles also includes the military ScanEagle®, developed in
partnership with Boeing, and the commercial Fugro GeoRanger™. Insitu’s unmanned
aircraft systems have achieved more than 50,000 hours of operational experience since
Insitu, located in Bingen, Washington, designs, develops, and manufactures unmanned
aircraft systems (UAS) for commercial and military applications. Insitu introduced the
first unmanned aircraft (UA) to cross the Atlantic Ocean and has partnered with Boeing
to develop ScanEagle® and Fugro Airborne Surveys to develop GeoRanger™. For
more information about the company, visit www.insitu.com.
December 24, 2007
base and serve as a barracks for Seabees. From the ground, or even adjoining buildings,
the configuration cannot be seen. Nor are there any civilian or military landing patterns
that provide such a view. But Google Earth shows the shape clearly.
Ground level isn't a problem but aerial views of the Coronado site spark outrage.
By Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 26, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-swastika26sep26,1,96691.story?ctrack=1&cset=true (Must register to LA Times to view original article--it's free)
CORONADO, Calif., -- The U.S. Navy has decided to spend as much as $600,000 for landscaping and architectural modifications to obscure the fact that one its building complexes looks like a swastika from the air.
The four L-shaped buildings, constructed in the late 1960s, are part of the amphibious base at Coronado and serve as barracks for Seabees.
From the ground and from inside nearby buildings, the controversial shape cannot be seen. Nor are there any civilian or military landing patterns that provide such a view to airline passengers.
But once people began looking at satellite images from Google Earth, they started commenting about on blogs and websites about how much the buildings resembled the symbol used by the Nazis.
When contacted by a Missouri-based radio talk-show host last year, Navy officials gave no indication they would make changes.
But early this year, the issue was quietly taken up by Morris Casuto, the Anti-Defamation League's regional director in San Diego, and U.S. Rep. Susan Davis (D-San Diego).
As a result, in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, the Navy has budgeted up to $600,000 for changes in walkways, "camouflage" landscaping and rooftop photovoltaic cells.
The goal is to mask the shape. "We don't want to be associated with something as symbolic and hateful as a swastika," said Scott Sutherland, deputy public affairs officer for Navy Region Southwest, the command that is responsible for maintaining buildings on local bases.
The collection of L-shaped buildings is at the corner of Tulagi and Bougainville roads, named after World War II battles.
Navy officials say the shape of the buildings, designed by local architect John Mock, was not noted until after the groundbreaking in 1967 -- and since it was not visible from the ground, a decision was made not to make any changes.
It is unclear who first noticed the shape on Google Earth. But one of the first and loudest advocates demanding a change was Dave vonKleist, host of a Missouri-based radio-talk show, The Power Hour, and a website, www.thepowerhour.com.
In spring 2006, he began writing military officials, including then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, calling for action.
That August, he received a response from officials in Coronado, who made no promise to take action and said, "The Navy intends to continue the use of the buildings as long as they remain adequate for the needs of the service."
In December, the now-defunct San Diego Jewish Times wrote about the buildings and the controversy.
Soon Casuto and Davis got involved.
Casuto began an on-and-off dialogue with the chief of staff to Rear Adm. Len Hering, commander of Region Southwest. He said that several members of the Jewish community had complained to him.
"I don't ascribe any intentionally evil motives to this," Casuto said, referring to the design. "It just happened. The Navy has been very good about recognizing the problem. The issue is over."
Davis, who is Jewish, is also pleased with the Navy's decision.
During a discussion with military officials on other issues, Davis had mentioned the Coronado buildings and suggested that rooftop photovoltaic arrays might help change the overhead look. The base gets 3% of its power from solar energy and has been looking to increase that percentage.
Reached in Versailles, Mo., vonKleist, the talk-show host, said he was ecstatic.
"I'm concerned about symbolism," he said. "This is not the type of message America needs to be sending to the world."
December 22, 2007
December 20, 2007
The US Congress has approved the first major gun control legislation in more than a decade, broadening background checks for gun buyers in the wake of a deadly campus shooting earlier this year by a mentally ill student.
The legislation approved Wednesday by the Senate provides government funds to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the main way gun purchases are monitored in America.
It also allocates funds for gun owners and potential gun owners who are prevented from owning weapons due to mental illness so that they may challenge the ruling in court.
Existing laws prevent mentally ill people and convicted felons from legally owning firearms, but many states lack the funds to keep their information up to date and report it to the NICS.
The measure, the first gun legislation approved since 1994, passed by voice vote in both the Senate and House of Representatives.
“A credible… federal database to provide accurate background checks benefits everyone,” said Senator Patrick Leahy, one of the co-sponsors of a bill that arose following the deadliest campus shooting in US history.
Improving the background check system and culling erroneous records “will help curb the number of firearms that get into the hands of troubled individuals,” Leahy said.
In April, a mentally deranged gunman shot and killed 31 people and then himself at Virginia Tech university in the United States, sparking widespread calls for tighter gun control laws.
The shooter, South Korea-born Seung Hui-Cho, 23, an English major, bought two handguns even after police and professors recognized that he was mentally disturbed.
The campus shooting “made it clear” that the background check system for potential gun buyers “needs to have better information, better technology, and clearer standards,” said Representative John Dingell, a Democrat who co-authored the bill that passed the House in June.
The measure, which added a number of changes after the House version passed, was supported by the powerful gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and now awaits President George W. Bush’s signature to become law.
“The end product is a win for American gun owners,” the NRA said in a statement, describing the measure as “pro-gun legislation.”
A number of safeguards were built into the legislation so that people who have “overcome a disqualifying mental illness or disability may reclaim their rights” of gun ownership through federal “relief from disabilities programs.”
The NRA pointed out that the bill “prevents use of federal ‘adjudications’ that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent.
“This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs,” the gun lobby said in a statement.
Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, which advocates tighter gun control, said this shows that the legislation was “hijacked by the gun lobby and would now do far more harm than good.
“Rather than focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill… will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others,” Rand said.
“Once a solution, the bill is now part of the problem,” she said.
However another gun control group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, urged Bush to sign the measure.
“Every day that passes until this legislation becomes law, dangerous people will go into gun stores and not be blocked from buying deadly weapons, thus putting lives at risk,” the group said in a statement.
December 21, 2007
By Margot Sanger-Katz
December 09. 2007 12:06AM
Elaine Brown performed dental work on the undercover U.S. marshal who arrested her, and was eating pizza and drinking beer with him and her husband, Ed, when she was suddenly tackled, Tasered and handcuffed, she said in a letter recently posted on the internet.
The arrest, in October, ended a nearly nine-month standoff between federal officials and the Browns, who vowed to die before surrendering to serve prison sentences for tax crimes. The Browns contend that no law required them to pay taxes on nearly $1.9 million of Elaine's income from her dental practice.
They stockpiled weapons and explosives devices, court documents say, and hosted like-minded guests committed to helping them hold off authorities. They were arrested by a small team of undercover marshals who posed as supporters.
Accounts from Ed Brown and Shaun Kranish, an Illinois supporter of the couple who introduced them to an undercover marshal named "Dutch," have provided a description of how the couple was tricked into inviting marshals to their home. But Elaine Brown's letter includes new details that emphasize the trust she put in Dutch before the arrest.
"Dutch/Dan also brought 3 pizzas, and we broke out the beer. We all sat on the front porch, eating pizza and drinking beer, just relaxing," the letter from prison says. "Suddenly they all jumped us."
A facsimile of the handwritten letter was posted on an online message board Friday by a poster named "Keith in RI" and described as an "affidavit" from Elaine Brown. The handwriting is similar to writing in recent court pleadings penned by Brown.
U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier, who led the effort to apprehend the Browns, said that he had seen the letter but could not comment or confirm any details.
In a lengthy radio interview in October, Kranish described how he first chatted with Dutch online, then met him at a South Bend, Ind., gas station, agreed to help him with a security job on Long Island, drove cross country with him and finally escorted him to the Browns' Plainfield home. Dutch told Kranish that he had professional skills that he could offer to the couple to help secure their home. According to Kranish's account, the four stayed up all night talking when they arrived at the Browns' home, but Kranish left Dutch alone with the couple for several hours while he took a nap.
According to Elaine's letter, Dutch, who told Kranish his real name was Daniel Farrioli, described his profession differently.
"Dutch/Dan stayed with us for a day or so, offering to aid us in any way," she wrote. "He claimed to be a bounty hunter, living in New York someplace. I do not recall if he said exactly where. He asked to have some broken fillings replaced, which I did, and for which he paid me."
A blog post this summer, written by a man who was living with the couple, said Elaine Brown had brought some dental equipment to her house and was performing work there to earn money. During her trial, an employee testified that Elaine refused to use metal fillings containing mercury or provide fluoride treatments because she feared the chemicals would poison her patients.
In June, IRS agents seized and secured her former office in West Lebanon. Dutch offered to break into the building and recover more dental supplies for Brown, the letter says. He said he would go home to New York to bring friends who could help him.
"I had asked him why he would take such a risk for someone he didn't even know," she wrote. "His answer was, 'Because I love you guys.' I remember those exact words."
On Oct. 4, the day of the arrest, Dutch returned with four friends, the letter says. One or two stayed at her house while Dutch and the others said they were going to the office. They returned later with full bags and three pizzas.
The arrest happened during dinner, the letter said.
In Ed Brown's account of the arrest, which he told to Kranish in a recorded phone conversation from the Elkton, Ohio, prison where he was initially held, he said that Dutch "swarmed" him and he did not resist. (Kranish confirmed that the recording was authentic, and Monier, who declined to comment on Brown's statement at the time, did not deny that the recording was real.)
"I had the opportunity to stop Dutch, real quick and real brief. You know, I'm really fast," Brown told Kranish in the recording. "I'm not going to hurt anybody, and I don't want to hurt anybody."
Elaine's version is slightly different. She wrote that Dutch "jumped" her while the other four marshals went for her husband.
"Dutch/Dan was sitting on my right, and he grabbed me securing my hands. Once he had me secured, one of the others tasered me on my left knee," the letter says. "The other 4 men had Ed on the floor, they had actually forced him out of his chair, through the front door, and onto the foyer floor. We were immediately handcuffed."
Monier has provided few details about the circumstances of the arrest, saying only that it involved a small team of marshals, took place on the couple's porch and was without incident.
Elaine Brown wrote that Ed Brown was taken from the house first, where she was left for an hour with a growing crowd of heavily armed marshals. The letter says she "had no doubt they were ready to kill us."
But she also said that one marshal kept telling her that he was glad they had not been shot.
She said she saw her husband briefly at the Lebanon police station before she was taken to a Rhode Island holding facility and later to the Danbury, Conn., minimum security prison where she is currently incarcerated.
"I passed by the cell Ed was in," she wrote. "We kissed through the metal screen. That is the last time I saw my husband."
Since their arrest, both Browns have corresponded with supporters, who have been discussing the missives in online discussion forums. "Keith in RI," who posted the recent letter from Elaine Brown, has been writing to both Browns and four of their supporters who were arrested this summer, his messages say.
The Browns are both serving 63-month sentences for a series of crimes related to their unwillingness to pay federal income taxes on Elaine Brown's dental income over several years. Monier has indicated that they will likely be charged with additional crimes once an investigation is complete. Court documents in their supporters' cases have said that federal agents found more than two dozen improvised explosive devices, booby traps and 20 guns on the property. The Browns also publicly threatened federal officials, including the judge in their criminal trial
Throughout their stand, the Browns repeated that they would never surrender to authorities.
"We don't know how this will end. But there are only two ways we are coming out of here," Elaine Brown said on a web video recorded in March. "Either as a free man and as a free woman or in body bags."
But in the recent letter, Elaine Brown describes ambivalence about her capture.
"Dutch/Dan was very good," Elaine wrote in the letter. "Ed and I had our suspicions, but we let our guard down. Perhaps the situation was starting to get to us. I know I was starting to get itchy about being unable to leave, and having to rely on others. It had to end one way or another."
According to Elaine's affidavit and online transcriptions of other letters, the Browns have not been allowed to communicate directly, though they have learned of each other's circumstances indirectly.
Ed Brown has struggled more with prison life, according to online accounts and the audio recording. In the taped phone conversation, he complained of abuse that included "gassing" through the prison ventilation system, isolation and unreasonably cold conditions. More recent letters have reiterated some of these complaints, in some cases alleging that he has been "permanently" damaged.
Transcriptions of Elaine Brown's letters indicate she's found some elements of prison life challenging, including the noise and the carbohydrate-laden diet, but has been getting along with her fellow inmates.
"I have met some amazing women here who have opened my eyes to a new path in our quest for freedom," she wrote in the recent letter. "We are working along that road now, in our continuing effort to expose the fraud in our government. Is this why I am here?"
Audio Clip Reveals Ed Brown Was Tortured
Shaun Kranish of MaketheStand.com was able to call into the Ohio prison where Ed Brown is being held and managed to have a 10 minute conversation with him. This is the first known conversation that Ed Brown has had with anybody on the outside since his arrest. Ed and Elaine Brown were arrested out of their Plainfield, NH home a few weeks ago after a standoff with the Feds over the lawfulness of the Federal income tax. The Brown's refused to pay the Federal income tax after they discovered problems with the legality and Constitutionality of the tax. During their trial, the Brown's were not allowed to properly defend themselves and they were eventually found guilty in the kangaroo court. The phone conversation was recorded and uploaded to the web, but has since been removed from its original source. The audio clip of the phone conversation can be downloaded here.
In the phone conversation, Ed Brown reveals that he was put into a deprivation tank for hours, gassed for days and not allowed to receive mail or make phone calls. He also reveals that he was tasered during his apprehension and that terrible things were done to his wife Elaine.
Ed Brown also questioned why Kranish brought an individual named Dutch into the Brown's home that ended up helping the Feds apprehend him. It is suspicious that Kranish was able to secure a conversation with him when nobody else has thus far been able to get in contact with him from the outside. The possibility that the release of this audio clip is a psychological warfare operation against the patriot community is a distinct possibility.
Either way, if the statements Ed Brown is making is true, he is certainly being mistreated and tortured by the Feds. There needs to be an investigation into this and anybody involved with mistreating Ed or Elaine Brown should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. All the Brown's did was ask the Feds to show them the law that requires them to pay a Federal income tax on their labor. The Feds have failed thus far to do so which indicates that there is no law that requires the average American to pay and that the Federal income tax is enforced through the threat of force.
On January 17, former Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos began serving prison sentences of 11 and 12 years respectively for an incident involving the non-fatal shooting of Mexican drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila.
Follow this link to the original source: "Free the Border Patrol Two"
Syndicated columnist Debra Saunders' January 18 column opened with these sentences: "Prison doors clanged shut last night, leaving two Border Patrol agents locked up among the very types of felons they once helped put away. The agents' families have been wiped out financially, their kids will grow up without a father watching over them, their freedom has been stripped from them...."
Despite appeals for clemency from the Border Patrol agents' families, 51 members of Congress and tens of thousands of citizens nationwide, President Bush refused to pardon the agents. However, just before Christmas, President Bush did pardon several drug dealers, continuing a pattern of freeing narcotics traffickers.
One of the incredible features of this case is the fact that it was initiated by the Department of Justice, which sent its people down to Mexico to find admitted veteran drug dealer Aldrete-Davila and offer him immunity and legal help if he would testify against the Border Patrol agents. To make matters worse, DOJ officials assisted Aldrete-Davila, who had been wounded in the buttocks (after attacking Ramos and Compean while smuggling 743 pounds into the U.S.), in launching a $5 million lawsuit against the Border Patrol. The drug dealer gets off scot-free, and gets rich besides — while exemplary Border Patrol agents go to jail.
This seems to be character with the Bush Administration's scandalous "catch and release" policy, which over the past six years has released thousands of illegal aliens — including murderers, rapists and other violent felons, without even requiring bail, simply on their word that they would show up in court at a later date. Of course, few ever did.
However, when Agents Ramos and Compean requested that they be allowed to remain out of prison (where they would be put in danger, possibly in units with illegal aliens they had arrested) their requests were denied.
On December 21, 2006, President Bush pardoned these drug offenders:
• Marie Georgette Ginette Briere — possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
• George Thomas Harley — aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine.
• Patricia Ann Hultman — conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and other controlled substances.
• Eric William Olson —possession with intent to distribute, possession, and use of hashish.
Bush also commuted the sentence of Phillip Anthony Emmert, who was serving time for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
On September 28, 2005, President Bush pardoned these drug offenders:
• Adam Wade Graham — conspiracy to deliver LSD
• Larry Paul Lenius — conspiracy to distribute cocaine
• Larry Lee Lopez — conspiracy to import marijuana
• Mark Lewis Weber — selling Quaalude tablets, selling, using and possessing marijuana
He also pardoned Jesse Ray Harvey, a United Mine Workers union member convicted of blowing up mines in West Virginia.
December 20, 2007
While watching the press conference of law enforcement agents announcing that missing mom Jessie Davis’ body had been found and that officer Bobby Cutts, Jr. had been taken into custody, I was troubled by the tone of the statements made by Canton police chief Dean McKimm. Instead of providing details specifically related to the investigation, McKimm went off into a 4-5 minute speech which seemed to be aimed at heading off future criticism of his police department.
Most troubling was his statement that he hopes “people of this community and those across the nation not be so quick to judge and law enforcement agency by the isolated acts of a ‘rogue officer’”. McKimm also reflected that he worried that the Bobby Cutts situation “has resulted in giving our department a ‘black eye’ in the opinion of the local community”. After looking back at some of the past happenings in the police department under Dean McKimm, Bobby Cutts, Jr. is not the only reason the Canton police department would have a “black eye” in the community.
McKimm has come under fire earlier for perceptions that “rogue officers” are treated lightly in his department, and Bobby Cutts, Jr. was one of several who’ve been reinstated after being accused of wrongdoing. McKimm’s statements at the nationally-televised press conference suggests to me that his past problems with his department’s tainted image could have very well played a part in the decision to arrest Bobby Cutts, Jr. and call him a “rogue officer” while still asking for tips into the apparent murder.In the past, his department faced protests after causing the death of an unarmed man (pictured on the t-shirts of the protesters) who was Tasered, beaten, and later died at the hospital. McKimm’s police department has also been accused (and subsequently cleared) of meting out harsher punishment to its Black police officers.
I think McKimm’s preoccupation with dealing with “rogue officers” could possibly come back to haunt him as the Bobby Cutts, Jr. trial gets under way, and I’m sure defense attorneys will probably revisit his press conference statements when the decision to immediately place Cutts under arrest comes under scrutiny.
CANTON -- Canton Police Chief Dean McKimm says two officers were suspended because they hit and kicked a suspect in custody not because the officers used a stun gun him.
A video released by police shows officer Eric Stanbro hitting Shawn Pirolozzi while he struggled, handcuffed and bleeding. The same video shows officer William Guthrie kick Pirolozzi.
Police say Pirolozzi jumped from a second story window and ran through traffic before he was shocked with a Taser gun and subdued. Pirolozzi died after being taken to a hospital following his arrest June 13th.
McKimm says the two officers have been suspended with pay pending an internal investigation. The Stark County coroner has not yet determined Pirolozzi’s cause of death. ( Uhmmm Do You Think Maybe it was the thousands of volts of electricity that went threw his body? )
The Canton police union says the officers responded appropriately. ( Sure They Responded The Way They Were Taught In Ohio's Police State Of tyranny. )
The untold story of Taser-related deaths
By Silja J.A. Talvi November 13, 2006
TASER International Inc. maintains that its stun-guns are “changing the world and saving lives everyday.” There is no question that they changed Jack Wilson’s life. On Aug. 4, in Lafayette, Colo., policemen on a stakeout approached Jack’s son Ryan as he entered a field of a dozen young marijuana plants. When Ryan took off running, officer John Harris pursued the 22-year-old for a half-mile and then shot him once with an X-26 Taser. Ryan fell to the ground and began to convulse. The officer attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but Ryan died.
According to his family and friends, Ryan was in very good physical shape. The county coroner found no evidence of alcohol or drugs in his system and ruled that Ryan’s death could be attributed to the Taser shock, physical exertion from the chase and the fact that one of his heart arteries was unusually small.In October, an internal investigation cleared Officer Harris of any wrongdoing and concluded that he had used appropriate force.
Wilson says that while his son had had brushes with the law as a juvenile and struggled financially, he was a gentle and sensitive young man who always looked out for his disabled younger brother’s welfare, and was trying to better his job prospects by becoming a plumber’s apprentice.
“Ryan was not a defiant kid,” says his father. “I don’t understand why the cop would chase him for a half-mile, and then ‘Tase’ him while he had an elevated heart rate. If [the officer] hadn’t done that, we know that he would still be alive today.”
Ryan is one of nearly 200 people who have died in the last five years after being shot by a Taser stun gun. In June, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would review these deaths.
Over the same period, Taser has developed a near-monopoly in the market for non-lethal weaponry. Increasingly, law enforcement officials use such weapons to subdue society’s most vulnerable members: prisoners, drug addicts and the mentally ill, along with “passive resisters,” like the protesters demonstrating against Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s attendance of a Rick Santorum fundraiser in Pittsburgh on Oct. 9. (See sidebar, “Passive Resisters.”)
Taser has built this monopoly through influence peddling, savvy public relations and by hiring former law enforcement and military officers—including one-time Homeland Security chief hopeful, Bernard Kerik. And now that questions are being raised about the safety of Taser weaponry, the company is fighting back with legal and marketing campaigns.
Birth of a Taser
In 1974, a NASA scientist named Jack Cover invented the first stun gun, which he named the TASER, or “Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle,” after Tom Swift, a fictional young inventor who was the hero of a series of early 20th century adventure novels. Because it relied on gunpowder, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms classified Tasers as registered firearms.
That changed in the early ’90s. According to Taser’s corporate creation story, co-founder Rick Smith became interested in the device after friends of his “were brutally murdered by an angry motorist.” Smith contacted Cover in the hopes of bringing the Taser as a self-defense weapon to a larger market. In 1993, with money from Smith’s brother Tom, they created Air Taser Inc., which would later become Taser International Inc. When Tasers were re-engineered to work with a nitrogen propellant rather than gunpowder, the weapon was no longer categorized as a firearm. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department adopted the guns, but they were not widely embraced by other departments.
Taser’s fortunes improved in 1998, after the company embarked on a new development program, named “Project Stealth.” The goal was to streamline stun gun design and deliver enough voltage to stop “extremely combative, violent individuals,” especially those who couldn’t be controlled by non-lethal chemicals like mace.
Out of Project Stealth, the Advanced Taser was born. When the weapon premiered in 2000—a model eventually redesigned as the M-26—the company brought on a cadre of active and retired military and law enforcement personnel to vouch for the weapon’s efficacy. The new spokespersons ranged from Arizona SWAT members to a former Chief Instructor of hand-to-hand combat for the U.S. Marine Corps.
Taser began to showcase the Advanced Taser at technology-related conventions throughout North America and Europe, billing it as a non-lethal weapon that could take down even the toughest adversary. Soon to be among those “dangerous” opponents were the protesters assembling in Philadelphia for the 2000 Republican National Convention.
By the following year, 750 law enforcement agencies had either tested or deployed the weapon. Today, more than 9,500 law enforcement, correctional and military agencies in 43 countries use Taser weaponry. In the past eight years, more than 184,000 Tasers have been sold to law enforcement agencies, with another 115,000 to citizens in the 43 states where it is legal to possess a stun gun.
When the electricity hits
Taser’s stun guns are designed to shoot a maximum of 50,000 volts into a person’s body through two compressed nitrogen-fueled probes, thereby disrupting the target’s electromuscular system. The probes are connected to the Taser gun by insulated wires, and can deliver repeat shocks in quick succession. The probes can pierce clothing and skin from a distance or be directly applied to a person’s body—a process known as “dry stunning”—for an ostensibly less-incapacitating, cattle-prod effect.
“The impetus for Tasers came from the often community-led search for ‘less-than-lethal’ police weapons,” explains Norm Stamper, former chief of the Seattle Police Department and author of Breaking Rank. “[There were] too many questionable or bad police shootings, and cops saying, correctly, that there are many ambiguous situations where a moment’s hesitation could lead to their own deaths or the death of an innocent other.”
According to Taser’s promotional materials, its stun guns are designed to “temporarily override the nervous system [and take] over muscular control.” People who have experienced the effect of a Taser typically liken it to a debilitating, full-body seizure, complete with mental disorientation and loss of control over bodily functions.
Many Taser-associated deaths have been written up by coroners as being attributable to “excited delirium,” a condition that includes frenzied or aggressive behavior, rapid heart rate and aggravating factors related to an acute mental state and/or drug-related psychosis. When such suspects are stunned, especially while already being held down or hogtied, deaths seem to occur after a period of “sudden tranquility,” as Taser explains in its CD-ROM training material entitled, “Sudden Custody Death: Who’s Right and Who’s Wrong.” In that same material, the company warns officers to “try to minimize the appearance of mishandling suspects.”
Taser did not respond to requests for an interview. But its press and business-related statements have consistently echoed the company’s official position: “TASER devices use proprietary technology to quickly incapacitate dangerous, combative or high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or themselves.” Another brochure, specifically designed for law enforcement, clearly states that the X26 has “no after effects.”
Ryan Wilson’s family can attest otherwise, as can many others.
Casualties and cruelties
In the span of three months—July, August and September—Wilson’s Taser-related death was only one among several. Larry Noles, 52, died after being stunned three times on his body (and finally on his neck) after walking around naked and “behaving erratically.” An autopsy found no drugs or alcohol in his system. Mark L. Lee, 30, was suffering from an inoperable brain tumor and having a seizure when a Rochester, N.Y., police officer stunned him. In Cookeville, Ala., 31-year-old Jason Dockery was stunned because police maintain he was being combative while on hallucinogenic mushrooms. Family members believe he was having an aneurysm. And Nickolos Cyrus, a 29-year-old man diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, was shocked 12 times with a Taser stun gun after a Mukwonago, Wis., police officer caught him trespassing on a home under construction. An inquest jury has already ruled that the officer who shot Cyrus—who was delusional and naked from the waist down when he was stunned—was within his rights to act as he did.
Although the company spins it otherwise, Taser-associated deaths are definitely on the rise. In 2001, Amnesty International documented three Taser-associated deaths. The number has steadily increased each year, peaking at 61 in 2005. So far almost 50 deaths have occurred in 2006, for an approximate total of 200 deaths in the last five years.
Amnesty International and other human rights groups have also drawn attention to the use of Tasers on captive populations in hospitals, jails and prisons.
In fact, the first field tests relating to the efficacy of the “Advanced Taser” model in North America were conducted on incarcerated men. In December 1999, the weapon was used, with “success,” against a Clackamas County (Ore.) Jail inmate. The following year, the first-ever Canadian use of an Advanced Taser was by the Victoria Police, on an inmate in psychiatric lockdown. Since that time, Taser deployment in jails and prisons has become increasingly commonplace, raising concerns about violations of 8th Amendment prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.
This summer, the ACLU of Colorado filed a class action suit on behalf of prisoners in the Garfield County Jail, where jail staff have allegedly used Tasers and electroshock belts, restraint chairs, pepper spray and pepperball guns as methods of torture. According to Mark Silverstein, legal director for ACLU of Colorado, inmates have told him that Tasers are pulled out and “displayed” by officers on a daily basis, either as a form of intimidation and threat compliance, or to shock the inmates for disobeying orders.
A recent report from the ACLU’s National Prison Project (NPP), “Abandoned and Abused: Orleans Parish Prisoners in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina,” concerns the plight of the estimated 6,500 New Orleans prisoners left to fend for themselves in the days after the monumental New Orleans flood. The NPP’s Tom Jawetz says that the organization has been looking into abuses at Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) since 1999, but that the incidents that took place in jails and prisons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina were unprecedented.
Take the case of New Orleans resident Ivy Gisclair. Held at OPP for unpaid parking tickets, Gisclair was about to be released on his own recognizance when Hurricane Katrina hit. After languishing with thousands of other prisoners in a flooded jail, Gisclair was sent to the Bossier Parish Maximum Security Prison. Once there, Gisclair apparently had the nerve to inquire about being held past his release date. Gisclair has testified that he was then restrained and stunned repeatedly with a Taser, before being thrown, naked and unconscious, into solitary confinement.
“I can’t imagine any justification for that,” says Jawetz. “[Prison guards] were kicking, beating and ‘Tasing’ him until he lost consciousness. A line was crossed that should never have been crossed.”
In March, Reuben Heath, a handcuffed and subdued Montana inmate, was shocked while lying prone in his bed. The deputy involved—a one-time candidate for sheriff—now faces felony charges.
Gisclair and Heath are among the inmates who have survived in-custody incidents involving the abuse of Tasers. Others haven’t been as fortunate. This year alone, those who have died in custody in the aftermath of being stunned by Tasers include Arapahoe County Jail (Colorado) inmate Raul Gallegos-Reyes, 34, who was strapped to a restraint chair and stunned; Jerry Preyer, 45, who suffered from a severe mental illness in an Escambia County, Fla., jail and was shocked twice by a Taser; and Karl Marshall, 32, who died in Kansas City police custody two hours after he was stunned with PCP and crack cocaine in his system.
Capitalizing on 9/11
Despite these concerns, Taser International Inc. has thrived. The 9/11 terrorist attacks sent the company’s profits soaring. Many domestic and international airlines—as well a variety of major law enforcement agencies—were eager to acquire a new arsenal of weapons. Homeland Security money flooded into both state and federal-level departments, many of which were gung-ho to acquire a new arsenal of high-tech gadgets.
In 2002, Taser brought on former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik as the company’s director. Kerik had attained popularity in the wake of 9/11 as a law-and-order-minded hero; the company had seemingly picked one of the best spokespersons imaginable.
With Kerik’s help, company’s profits grew to $68 million in 2004, up from just under $7 million in 2001, and stockholders were able to cash in, including the Smith family, who raked in $91.5 million in just one fiscal quarter in 2004.
Unbeknownst to most stockholders, however, sales have been helped along by police officers who have received payments and/or stock options from Taser to serve as instructors and trainers. (The exact number of officers on the payroll is unknown because the company declines to identify active-duty officers who have received stock options.)
The recruitment of law enforcement has been crucial to fostering market penetration. For instance, Sgt. Jim Halsted of the Chandler, Ariz., Police Department, joined Taser President Rick Smith in making a presentation to the Chandler city council in March 2003. He made the case for arming the entire police patrol squad with M-26 Tasers. According to the Associated Press, Halsted said, “No deaths are attributed to the M-26 at all.”
The council approved a $193,000 deal later that day.
As it turned out, Halsted was already being rewarded with Taser stock options as a member of the company’s “Master Instructor Board.” Two months after the sale, Halsted became Taser’s Southwest regional sales manager.
In addition, Taser has developed a potent gimmick to sell its futuristic line of weapons. In 2003, Taser premiered the X-26. According to Taser’s promotional materials, the X-26 features an enhanced dataport to help “save officer’s careers from false allegations” by recording discharge date and time, number and length and date of discharges, and the optional ability to record the event with the Taser webcam. The X-26 also boasts a more powerful incapacitation rating of 105 “Muscular Disruption Units”, up from 100 MDU’s for the M-26.
The X-26 is apparently far more pleasing to the eye. As Taser spokesperson Steve Tuttle told a law enforcement trade journal, “It’s a much sexier-looking product.”
Lawsuits jolt Taser
As increasing numbers of police departments obtained Taser stun guns, the weapons started to be deployed against civilians with greater frequency.
Many of the civilian Taser-associated incidents have resulted in lawsuits, most of which have either been dismissed or settled out of court. But there have been a few exceptions.
In late September, Kevin Alexander, 29, was awarded $82,500 to settle an excessive force federal lawsuit after being shocked 17 times with a Taser by a New Orleans Parish police officer. The department’s explanation: the shocks were intended to make him cough up drugs he had allegedly swallowed.
One recently settled Colorado case involved Christopher Nielsen, 37, who was “acting strangely” and was not responsive to police orders after he crashed his car. For his disobedience, he was stunned five times. When it was revealed that Nielsen was suffering from seizures, the county settled the case for $90,000.
An Akron, Ohio, man also recently accepted a $35,000 city settlement. One day in May 2005, he had gone into diabetic shock and police found him slumped over his steering wheel. Two officers proceeded to physically beat, Mace and Taser him after he did not respond to orders to get out of the car.
Taser’s lack of response to the misuse of the company’s weapons is troubling. The company relentlessly puts a positive spin on Taser use, most recently with a “The Truth is Undeniable” Web ad campaign, which contrasts mock courtroom scenes with the fictionalized, violent antics of civilians that prompt police to stungun them.
The campaign involves print ads, direct mail DVDs and online commercials that “draw attention to a rampant problem in this country: false allegations against law enforcement officers,” according to Steve Ward, Taser’s vice president of marketing.
“We’re going to win”
The lawsuits have scared off some investors, making Taser’s stock extremely volatile over the years. But press coverage of the company this past summer largely centered around Taser’s “successes” in the courtroom. In addition to settling a $21.8 million shareholder lawsuit revolving around allegations that the company had exaggerated the safety of their product (they admitted no wrongdoing), Taser has triumphed in more than 20 liability dismissals and judgments in favor of the company. And the company’s finances are on the upswing: Third-quarter 2006 revenues increased nearly 60 percent.
Regardless, CEO Rick Smith claims his company is target of a witchhunt. “We’re waiting for people to dunk me in water and see if I float,” is how he put it during a March 2005 debate with William Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International USA.
Last year, with 40 new lawsuits filed against it, Taser dedicated $7 million in its budget to defending the company’s reputation and “brand equity.” The company has also gone on the offense, hiring two full-time, in-house litigators.
At one point, Taser hinted that it might sue Amnesty International for taking a critical position regarding Taser-associated injuries and deaths. In November 2004 Smith announced that the company’s legal team had begun a “comprehensive review of AI’s disparaging and unsupported public statements [to] advise me as to various means to protect our company’s good name.”
In one of the company’s brashest legal maneuvers to date, Taser sued Gannett Newspapers for libel in 2005. The lawsuit alleged USA Today “sensationalized” the power of Taser guns by inaccurately reporting that the electrical output of the gun was more than 100 times that of the electric chair. This past January, a judge threw the case out, saying that the error in the article was not malicious, and that the story was protected by the First Amendment.
The company remains unwavering and aggressively protective, even as Taser-associated deaths mount each month. As Smith told the Associated Press in February, “If you’re coming to sue Taser, bring your game face, strap it on and let’s go. We’re gonna win.”
From Jack Wilson’s standpoint, citizens are the real losers. His son Ryan lost his life in a situation that could have been handled any number of other ways, and no amount of legal posturing can bring Ryan back.
“I still can’t believe my son is gone,” he says. “The fact is that these Tasers can be lethal. No matter how they’re categorized, Tasers shouldn’t be treated as toys.”
December 19, 2007
As you can see on the Five Dollar note. The picture looks like two towers, still intact.
On the Ten Dollar note it looks like the Twin Tower that got hit by the first plane.
Then the Twenty Dollar Note it looks like Twin Towers are on fire.
So what you see is a simple folding of original American money. If you would fold the sides a little bit, the form that you get, is that of a plane. What means that the four notes perfectly represent four planes. Keep in mind "four planes / four notes". Note Also the names of the two plane companies that were involved with the Twin Tower attack. Which are printed on each side of the note, when folded into a plane, then it is on each wing a name.The only letters you have to add, are airlines. You will get America Airlines, and The United Airlines. The two companies involved in the four attacks. Note the upper hole on one tower was United Airlines while the lower hole on the other tower was American Airlines while matching on the Twenty Note.
On The Hundred Dollar note you can clearly see a smoke plume, coming from a pile of debris. By Putting All Four Notes together it makes a animation of the Twin Towers falling.
When you flip over the Twenty Dollar bill you will see the Pentagon Burning!
December 16, 2007
By Mike Adams
The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com , Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com , and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com
This bill is the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America. If it passes, all the information sources you know and trust could be shut down and their authors imprisoned. NewsTarget could be taken offline and I could be arrested as a "terrorist." Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com could be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested. Byron Richards, Len Horowitz, Paul Craig Roberts, Greg Palast, Ron Paul and even Al Gore could all be arrested, silenced and incarcerated. This is not an exaggeration. It is a literal reading of the law, which you can check yourself here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home
The bill states:
'...ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs...
Note that this means the "planned use of force to promote a political or social belief" would be considered an act of terrorism. This all hinges on the definition of "force," of course. Based on the loose use of logic in Washington these days, and the slippery interpretation of the meaning of words, "force" could mean:
• A grassroots campaign to barrage Congress with faxes
• A non-violent street protest
• A letter-writing campaign that deluges the Senate with too much mail
• A sit-in protest that blocks access to a business or organization
• A grassroots e-mail campaign that overloads the e-mail servers of any government department or agency
You get the idea. "Force" could be defined as practically anything. And since the "planned use of force" would be considered a criminal act of terrorism, anyone who simply thinks about a grassroots action campaign would be engaged in terrorist acts.
If you stopped someone on the street and handed them a Bible, for example, this could be considered an act of terrorism ("...use of force to promote the individual's religious beliefs...")
If you sent a barrage of angry letters to Washington about global warming and the destruction of the environment by the U.S. military, this could also be considered an act of terrorism ("...to promote the individual's political beliefs...")
If you believe in same-sex marriage and you wrote a letter threatning a sit-in protest in front of your state's capitol building, this could also be considered an act of terrorism, even if you never carried it out! ("...planned use of force to promote a social belief...")
The United States is on the fast track to fascism, and the Congress is working right alongside this nation's traitorous leaders to criminalize any thoughts, words or speeches that disagree with current government policies regarding war, terrorism, domestic surveillance and civil liberties. Simply speaking out against the war on Iraq could soon be labeled a crime. Merely thinking thoughts against the war on Iraq could be considered a criminal act.
Must-see video: Naomi Wolf's lecture on 10 steps to fascismThere's a video lecture you simply MUST watch. It's by Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America. She covers this topic with great elegance and a deep understanding of history. See her video on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
Click here to see her book on Amazon.com.
In her lecture and book, Naomi reveals the ten steps to fascist , then reveals how the United States of America is pursuing all ten! This S.1959 legislation, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, represents one of the ten steps to achieve a fascist state!
It is designed to squash all opposition to the State's ongoing march towards blatant fascism, where secret police and secret prisons dominate the law enforcement landscape, stripping U.S. citizens of all civil liberties and Constitutional protections.
'Thought' crimes are about to become a reality in the United States of America, and Congress is pushing this through as quickly as possible so that each individual member of Congress can claim that he or she is "against terrorism." But this bill doesn't merely target terrorism: It targets anyone who speaks or even thinks thoughts against the U.S. federal government.
With this bill, the U.S. government is officially labeling the People of the United States as criminals. It is drawing a line in the sand and stating that from now on, it's the Government vs. the People.
If we don't stop this bill from becoming law, we are lost as a nation.
There is no turning back from tyranny once the government turns its own citizens into criminals, enforcing only the thoughts, ideas, words and speeches that it approves or tolerates. Everything is at stake here!
Take action now, or lose your freedoms foreverIf you live in the U.S., it is urgent that you call your senators right now and voice your strong opposition against this extremely dangerous law.
Here are the phone numbers for the U.S. Senate switchboard:
How to do this:
1) Make sure you know the names of your Senators.
2) Call the U.S. Senate switchboard using one of the numbers above.
3) Ask to speak to the offices of your Senators.
4) Tell them you are strongly opposed to S. 1959, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
5) Ask for their fax number.
6) Follow up your phone call with a written, signed letter that you fax to your Senators.
Stopping this bill from becoming law is the single most important thing all Americans can do right now. If this becomes law, all free speech about health freedom, the crimes of the FDA, the crimes of the Bush Administration, America's role in global warming and any other topics could all be criminalized. YOU could be labeled a terrorist, kidnapped by government thugs, taken from your home, thrown in a secret prison, denied access to legal representation, denied due process and essentially "disappeared" into a system of such corruption and evil that it now begins to blatantly mirror Nazi Germany.
Think it couldn't happen here? It's happening right now! This is exactly how it happened in Nazi Germany. First, burn the Reichstag and blame it on the "enemy." Pass new police state laws. Disarm the people. Spread fear. Erect secret prisons and secret police. Call anyone who disagrees with you a "traitor." Control the mainstream media. Sound familiar? This is all happening right now in the United States of Amerika, and if we don't work to stop it, this nation will rapidly devolve into a fascist police state where no one is truly free.
We are but a few small steps away from it right now. All it would take is one dirty bomb in a major U.S. city. Bush would declare Martial Law and take over the National Guard. Troops on the streets. Anyone who writes a blog against the government would be arrested. Authors of "alternative" books would be kidnapped and have their books burned on the street. It could all happen at the stroke of a pen. The infrastructure for tyranny is in place right now, just waiting to be invoked.
Our best weapons: Non-violent protest and speaking the truthHow can we fight back against this onslaught of tyranny? We must use what remaining free speech freedoms we have right now to alert our fellow citizens to what's happening. We must rise up and tell the truth while urging our representatives in Washington to resist the temptation to vote for more "anti-terrorism" legislation that only works to enslave the American people.
We must use our phones, faxes, emails and blogs to rally our friends, family members and anyone who will listen to oppose these police state laws, and we must organize mass (peaceful) protests against this government that is attempting to marginalize the rights and freedoms of our People.
We must not be lulled into a sense of false security by the purveyors of hatred and fear -- the Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of the world. Instead, we must listen to the voices of freedom. In terms of the upcoming election for U.S. President, there is only one candidate that actually believes in freedom: Ron Paul. He needs your support to win: www.RonPaul2008.com
All the other candidates are nothing more than tyrants of different political affiliations. Ron Paul is the only candidate that truly understands the fundamentals of freedom. That's why he's the only real choice for our next President. Can you imagine what Hillary Clinton would do with the police state powers that Bush has now created? That's the danger of all laws that centralize power in Washington: It's not necessarily what today's President will do with them, but what some future President will do with them.
That's why it's never good enough to say, "Well, we intend to only apply these laws to terrorists and not to U.S. citizens at home." That may be the intention right NOW, but virtually all such laws creep into areas of enforcement for which they were never intended. Just look at the application of RICO laws which were originally designed to fight organized crime operations but are now applied to virtually anyone (and yet they are never applied to Big Pharma, which operates almost exactly like organized crime!). All these anti-terrorism laws run the danger of expanding in enforcement to the point where they are applied against the People of this country. At first, it's only illegal for "terrorists" to think thought crimes, but before long, it's illegal for anyone to think those same thoughts. That when the domestic arrests of authors, journalists, bloggers and thought leaders will kick off, and the country will plunge itself into outright tyrannical fascism.
Again, we're on the track right now. This is happening, folks. You're LIVING through an amazing chapter of history right now. You're actually witnessing the downfall of a free nation and the rise of a superpower fascist state. You're actually part of it.
When it's all over, will you look back and realize you did nothing? Or will you now take a stand against tyranny and oppose these dangerous laws and lawmakers who threaten the Constitutional freedoms of you and your children?