By Paul Craig Roberts | IPE | November 28, 2018

Julian Assange is not guilty of any crime. But Washington is going to convict him anyway. Documents are being fabricated to show that Assange met inside the Ecuadoran Embassy in London with Paul Manafort and some Russians.

The logs of all visits to the Embassy have been released and show no such meetings.

This latest fabrication was dumped on the public by the Guardian, formerly a leftwing newspaper but today a MI6 asset. Luke Harding who was leaked the fake documents is either extremely gullible or himself a MI6 asset.

The purpose of the leak is to create in the public’s mind that Assange was involved in “Russiagate” along with Trump and Putin. The fact that no evidence has been found that Russiagate exists except as a made-up allegation to justify a special prosecutor to investigate President Trump has not stopped the continued use of this canard.

Washington and London are relying on the public’s insouciance to shield their shamelessness.

Julian Assange’s life has been ruined because he was a professional journalist who told the truth instead of serving as a shill for the ruling elite. Now the intention is to give him a show trial and to convict him without evidence, relying on presstitutes to spread fake evidence that a meeting that did not occur occurred and with no explanation of how such a meeting if it had actuallly occurred would constitute espionage.

Former British ambassador Craig Murry explains the shameful use of government power against an innocent person that has been unfolding under our eyes for the last six years. What is being done to Assange is as bad as any of Stalin’s show trials and is worse because it is happening in full view in front of Western Democracy.




Here is Ambassador Murray:

November 27, 2018

Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies

By Craig Murray

The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6 mouthpiece Luke Harding of the Guardian.

Amazingly, more Ecuadorean Government documents have just been discovered for the Guardian, this time spy agency reports detailing visits of Paul Manafort and unspecified “Russians” to the Embassy. By a wonderful coincidence of timing, this is the day after Mueller announced that Manafort’s plea deal was over.

The problem with this latest fabrication is that Moreno had already released the visitor logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these “Russians” are in the visitor logs.

This is impossible. The visitor logs were not kept by Wikileaks, but by the very strict Ecuadorean security. Nobody was ever admitted without being entered in the logs. The procedure was very thorough. To go in, you had to submit your passport (no other type of document was accepted). A copy of your passport was taken and the passport details entered into the log. Your passport, along with your mobile phone and any other electronic equipment, was retained until you left, along with your bag and coat. I feature in the logs every time I visited.

There were no exceptions. For an exception to be made for Manafort and the “Russians” would have had to be a decision of the Government of Ecuador, not of Wikileaks, and that would be so exceptional the reason for it would surely have been noted in the now leaked supposed Ecuadorean “intelligence report” of the visits. What possible motive would the Ecuadorean government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security – would not know the identity of these alleged “Russians”.

Previously Harding and the Guardian have published documents faked by the Moreno government regarding a diplomatic appointment to Russia for Assange of which he had no knowledge. Now they follow this up with more documents aimed to provide fictitious evidence to bolster Mueller’s pathetically failed attempt to substantiate the story that Russia deprived Hillary of the Presidency.

My friend William Binney, probably the world’s greatest expert on electronic surveillance, former Technical Director of the NSA, has stated that it is impossible the DNC servers were hacked, the technical evidence shows it was a download to a directly connected memory stick. I knew the US security services were conducting a fake investigation the moment it became clear that the FBI did not even themselves look at the DNC servers, instead accepting a report from the Clinton linked DNC “security consultants” Crowdstrike.

I would love to believe that the fact Julian has never met Manafort is bound to be established. But I fear that state control of propaganda may be such that this massive “Big Lie” will come to enter public consciousness in the same way as the non-existent Russian hack of the DNC servers.

Assange never met Manafort. The DNC emails were downloaded by an insider. Assange never even considered fleeing to Russia. Those are the facts, and I am in a position to give you a personal assurance of them.

I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services.

I am not a fan of Donald Trump. But to see the partisans of the defeated candidate (and a particularly obnoxious defeated candidate) manipulate the security services and the media to create an entirely false public perception, in order to attempt to overturn the result of the US Presidential election, is the most astonishing thing I have witnessed in my lifetime.

Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange’s support prior to expelling him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of espionage.

Assange is not a whistleblower or a spy – he is the greatest publisher of his age, and has done more to bring the crimes of governments to light than the mainstream media will ever be motivated to achieve. That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the “liberal media” no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of the people, they are an instrument of elite control.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/11/assange-never-met-manafort-luke-harding-and-the-guardian-publish-still-more-blatant-mi6-lies/


Contributed by Paul Craig Roberts of paulcraigroberts.org

Paul Craig Roberts has had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service, and business. He is chairman of The Institute for Political Economy.


SHARE:

By Michael Snyder | End Of The American Dream | Nov. 26, 2018

Your cellphone is a gold mine of information about where you have been, who you have been talking to, and what you have been doing online.  And now a “mysterious new tool” is enabling law enforcement authorities all over the nation to get access to that information on virtually any phone.  So if you end up going to prison someday, it could be the evidence that is pulled out of your cellphone that ultimately puts you away.  Of course most Americans never even consider that their own cellphones could be systematically gathering evidence against them.  For most of us, cellphones are simply extremely convenient tools that allow us to communicate effectively with the rest of the world.  But if the authorities decide to investigate you, your cellphone is going to be one of the first things that they want, and what they find on there could put you behind bars for a very, very long time.

There are some people out there that are still operating under the assumption that the data on their cellphones is safe from the prying eyes of law enforcement authorities.  That actually has not been true for a long time, and now a new tool is enabling them to unlock virtually any cellphone.  The following comes from WHIO

Law enforcement agencies are using a mysterious new tool to unlock the cellphones of criminal suspects and access their text messages, emails and voice messages. Some agencies around the country, concerned about security, are not even acknowledging use of the devices. Adding to the secrecy surrounding the new tool, one of the companies that makes and sells the devices to police and government agencies does not display their products on the company website.

These are basically “hacking devices”, and it may take a number of hours, but they will eventually get into your cellphone.

These hacking devices reportedly cost between $15,000 and $30,000, so they are quite expensive, but apparently law enforcement agencies all over the nation have been heavily buying them.

Because if you can get into the cellphone of a suspect, it often provides everything that is needed to solve a case

Dave Langos, Director of the sheriff’s Criminal Intelligence Unit, said the unlocking of the phone can be critical to a criminal investigation, revealing where that phone has been and potentially placing a suspect at the scene of a crime.

“With the proper search warrant and so forth for the phone the information you retrieve from those is very valuable in solving cases and that has been proven over and over again,” Langos said.

For those that are skeptical of how valuable this kind of tool can be for law enforcement, I would remind you that the “homeless vet” GoFundMe scammers were caught because of cellphone text messages that authorities were able to uncover.

And it was a cellphone that helped investigators track down and catch package bomber Cesar Sayoc

DNA found on at least one of the packages, as well as Sayoc’s cell phone, helped investigators identify him, multiple law enforcement officials said. He was not previously known to the Secret Service, law enforcement sources said, but Florida records show a string of arrests dating back to the early 1990s.

We live at a time when you should simply assume that nothing that you do online or while carrying your cellphone is ever private.  Yes, there are measures that you can take to make your cellphone more private, but in the end authorities will find one way or another to get that information if they really want it.

Apple is aware of these cellphone hacking devices, and the newest Apple phones are supposedly not vulnerable.  But an appellate court in New Jersey has just ruled that law enforcement authorities can now force you to hand over the passcodes to your iPhones

A New Jersey appellate court has ruled that people must allow law enforcement officers access to their cellphones once they receive a warrant.

The ruling issued Thursday means Essex County Sheriff’s Officer Robert Andrews would have to hand over passcodes to two iPhones he gave investigators.

Aren’t we supposed to have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?

Yes, we are, but law enforcement authorities and the courts have not been following the Constitution for a very long time.  This is one of the reasons why I ran for Congress, because we desperately need to restore the Bill of Rights and the rest of the U.S. Constitution.

In “The Beginning Of The End”, I detailed a lot of the other new technologies that authorities are systematically using to watch, track and monitor us in violation of our constitutional rights.  A “Big Brother total control grid” is going up all around us, and our children and our grandchildren will be growing up in a dystopian nightmare is something is not done now.

In his most recent commentary, John Whitehead summarized what we are facing…

Here’s what I know: this Thanksgiving finds us saddled with a government that is a far cry from Washington’s vision of a government that is:

▪ governed by wise, just and constitutional laws

▪ faithfully executed and obeyed by its agents

▪ assisting foreign nations with good government, peace, and concord

▪ promoting true religion, virtue and science

▪ and enabling temporal prosperity.

Rather, with every passing day, the U.S. government more closely resembles an evil empire, governed by laws that are rash, unjust and unconstitutional; policed by government agents who are corrupt, hypocritical and abusive; a menace to its own people; and the antithesis of everything Washington hoped the government would be—a blessing to all the people.

I couldn’t have said it any better myself.

Wake up America, because our rights are being trampled on and you have a government that is completely and utterly out of control.


Contributed by Michael Snyder of EndOfTheAmericanDream.com

Michael Snyder is a nationally syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is publisher of The Most Important News and the author of four books including The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.


SHARE:

By Vicki Batts | Natural News | November 11, 2018

As smart meters make their way across the United States, a growing number of people are vocalizing concerns about the devices and consumer privacy rights. The Fourth Amendment was designed to protect Americans from government surveillance and other forms of government overreach. Now, a federal court in Illinois has ruled that right is negotiable — provided it is in the government’s best interest.

Even after officials ruled that smart meters are a form of government search and seizure, federal courts say that the information gathered by smart meters (and consequently, city-run utilities companies) is “reasonable,” and therefore not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

As the Fourth Amendment declares:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Smart meters and the right to privacy

Naperville Smart Meter Awareness (NSMA) has been fighting against the forced implementation of smart meters in their city for one simple cause: There is no reason for the government to be collecting information from its citizens every 15 minutes.

Even if that “information” is simple electric usage, data collection at 15-minute intervals is unnecessary for the purpose of billing customers. As NSMA explains, citizens of Naperville have no choice when it comes to smart meters: The only way to opt-out is by opting out of public electricity entirely.

NSMA stated in their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit:

The ever-accelerating pace of technological development carries serious privacy implications. Smart meters are no exception. Their data, even when collected at fifteen-minute intervals, reveals details about the home that would be otherwise unavailable to government officials…. .  Naperville therefore ‘searches’ its residents’ homes when it collects this data.

The group contended further:

Naperville argues that its citizens sacrifice their expectation of privacy in smart-meter data by entering into a ‘voluntary relationship’ to purchase electricity from the city. This argument is unpersuasive.  … a choice to share data imposed by fiat is no choice at all. …  a home occupant does not assume the risk of near constant monitoring by choosing to have electricity in her home.

NSMA has been fighting against the City of Naperville and their intrusions since 2011. In 2016, the District Court ruled in favor of the City, prompting NSMA to file their appeal.

In 2018, the Court of Appeals again ruled in favor of the city. Even though the court concluded that smart meters are a form of search and seizure due to data collection, officials ultimately ruled that this data collection was “reasonable.”

The court reportedly states that “the government’s interest in smart meters is significant. Smart meters allow utilities to reduce costs, provide cheaper power to consumers, encourage energy efficiency, and increase grid stability. We hold that these interests render the city’s search reasonable, where the search is unrelated to law enforcement, is minimally invasive, and presents little risk of corollary criminal consequences.”

Funnily enough, studies show smart meters are wildly inaccurate and end up costing users more money. And as K.T. Weaver contends, this decision has essentially named smart meter data collection and privacy invasion as an “official government search.” Moreover, it appears that these officials have given preference to corporate interests over the rights of citizens. And again, it is entirely possible to achieve a modernized power grid without infringing on the people’s right to privacy.

Learn more about smart meters and all their shortcomings at SmartMeters.news.


Originally published by Vicki Batts of NaturalNews.com






SHARE:

By Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | October 31, 2018

I told you there would be more in the case of Darren Huff, a Georgia man who was arrested and Robert Mueller not only oversaw the arrest, but also trumped up bogus charges against him, including having his Special Agent in Charge file an affidavit that contained lies about Mr. Huff being at the courthouse and having a gun there.  Below is audio directly from the FBI website, which I am archiving that demonstrates clearly that a precedent was set in finding Huff guilty for what he allegedly was thinking, his intentions.

For more on the background of the story, please read Documents: Robert Mueller Accused Of Framing Georgia Man On Gun Charge and Navy Vet Claims Robert Mueller’s FBI Agent Perjured Himself In This Affidavit While Framing Man On Gun Charges

The following audio was downloaded from the FBI website.

The transcript is as follows:

Mollie Halpern: The FBI prevents a group of militia extremists from taking the law into their own hands.

I’m Mollie Halpern of the FBI, and this is Gotcha.

Darren Huff, of Georgia, and his followers wanted to indict President Barack Obama and many other federal, state, and local officials for treason. When a Tennessee County grand jury refused them, they wrote up their own bogus arrest warrants. Case Agent Scott Johnson, of the Knoxville FBI Division, says Huff armed himself with a handgun, an AK-47, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and headed for the courthouse.

Scott Johnson: He thought he was going to ride in from out of town with the guns on his hips and right all the injustices.

Halpern: When Huff and others arrived, they found the FBI and its law enforcement partners waiting for them. Huff was sentenced to four years in prison for transporting firearms across state lines with the intent to cause a civil disorder. It was the first time this violation was successfully prosecuted.

Johnson: This case is monumental to the FBI because it will set precedent for case law in future domestic terrorism cases throughout the United States.

Halpern: This has been the FBI’s closed case of the week.

The problem in all of this is that Huff never was at the courthouse.  He never had a gun at the courthouse, and instead of anyone in local, state or federal law enforcement arresting him when they stopped him in Tennessee, they let him go, only to turn around and arrest him a full ten days later under bogus charges and an affidavit from an FBI special agent in charge who perjured himself.

Huff is a Navy veteran.  He was railroaded on charges connected to what the FBI thought he and other veterans were thinking and events that never happened.




According to Navy veteran Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, the entirety of the FBI Gotcha segment is a lie.

  • • The FBI did not-I say again-DID NOT prevent a group of “militia extremists” from “taking the law into their own hands.” No “militia extremists” are involved in this event in any way. Darren Huff was not, is not a militia extremist. Darren Huff had no “followers.” Besides Mr. Huff, the FBI did not categorize any other individual as a “militia extremist” nor did the FBI identify any group as an extreme militia as connected to this FBI manufactured domestic terrorist hoax.
  • • Neither any militia group nor Darren Huff as an individual ever petitioned a Tennessee grand jury in any cause. Ergo: No Tennessee grand jury ever “refused” them.
  • • No “bogus arrest warrants” were or are in existence as connected to events of 20 April 2010.
  • • None of the 31 people who came to Madisonville, Tennessee on Tuesday 20 April 2010 to either attend a court hearing or cover the hearing as press representatives were armed with weapons of any description. There were no guns!!
  • • No one rode into Madisonville, Tennessee with “guns on their hips” or in possession of ammunition.
  • • No law enforcement officer, from any state or federal law enforcement agency ever confronted any of the 31 people for any reason in Madisonville on 20 April 2010. NO CONTACT WHATSOEVER!!
  • • All of the 31 people represented as being in Madisonville, Tennessee on 20 April 2010 were law abiding citizens. Many of them military Veterans. None of those folks violated any laws on that Tuesday.
  • • Mr. Huff was not armed with any weapon in Madisonville, Tennessee on Tuesday, 20 April 2010. Mr. Huff carried no ammunition that day in Madisonville. No state or federal law enforcement officer made contact with Mr. Huff on 20 April.
  • • Mr. Huff was never physically present at the location Mueller’s FBI puppet, Special Agent Mark A. Van Balen, said Mr. Huff was present, carrying a gun, with other men carrying guns, all “intending” to take over the courthouse. No evidence exists in contradiction.
  • • The FBI arrested Darren Huff ten days later, on 30 April 2010, as Huff was traveling on I-75 near Knoxville, Tennessee. The FBI did not arrest anyone else afterwards, but tried very hard to do so. FBI agents, following the events of 20 April 2010, canvased the southeast, interviewing uncounted numbers of people who were present in Madisonville on 20 April, or neighbors of these folks.
  • Now, if you are a movie fan and you remember a certain film by the name of Minority Report starring Tom Cruise, you might remember this segment in which a man is arrested for a crime he did think about, but never committed.

    Isn’t this exactly what went on under Robert Mueller’s FBI against our veterans who simply wanted the law upheld but never violated it in the process?  I’ll let the reader decide.


    Article originally published by Tim Brown at The Washington Standard.

    Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit


    SHARE:

    By Tim Brown | Freedom Outpost | Sept. 21, 2018

    The US District Court for the District of Colorado has deferred ruling on the constitutionality of unconstitutional regulations imposed by Boulder Colorado’s City Council.  In doing so, they have opened the door to tyrannical gun bans.

    Back in May, a court decision set things in motion.

    The city talked about banning certain weapons, not only a really stupid idea, but an unlawful one.  They also discussed how they might limit what weapons law-abiding citizens would be permitted to purchase, and what kinds of ammunition they could obtain.

    Among the weapons that were banned were some of the most commonly used guns in the US.

    According to Mountain States Legal Foundation:

    In a decision issued yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado refrained from vindicating the constitutionally protected rights of Boulder residents.

    In May of this year, the City of Boulder enacted an array of unconstitutional firearm and magazine regulations. Yesterday, the court deferred to the State of Colorado court system to determine whether the city had the authority to enact its new regulations in the first place.

    “While we will always support the principle of federalism, this decision forces the people of Boulder to wait to vindicate their rights under the U.S. Constitution,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, of Mountain States Legal Foundation, the lead attorney on the case.

    Boulder city council members voted unanimously to ban some of the most commonly used firearms and magazines in the United States. Council members also raised the age of legal gun ownership in the city from 18 to 21.

    Boulder resident Jon Caldara, a plaintiff in the lawsuit who seeks to have Boulder’s ordinance overturned, is a vocal opponent of the City of Boulder’s discrimination against firearm owners.

    “I have lived in Boulder since 1984,” Mr. Caldara said. “I believe we need to hold Boulder to its own standards in celebrating diversity and tolerance.”

    “This is hate,” Mr. Caldara added, speaking of the city council’s view toward gun owners. “These are elitists who want people like me out of their town.”

    Mr. Wisniewski added that the plaintiffs are evaluating their options in the wake of yesterday’s decision. “We will not give up the fight to defend the constitutionally protected rights of the people of Boulder,” he said.

    In 2012, Mountain States Legal Foundation, on behalf of its clients, prevailed in the Colorado Supreme Court in Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. The Court’s unanimous decision in that case confirmed the right of concealed carry permit holders to possess concealed firearms on the public university’s campus.

    Mountain States Legal Foundation, created in 1977, is a nonprofit, public-interest legal foundation dedicated to individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system.  Its offices are in suburban Denver, Colorado.





    The right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right that is to be protected by those in government, not infringed on.  Perhaps if the people in Boulder simply carried their weapons with them down to city hall and demanded the Council trash the ban, that might have an impact.  If not, there’s always tossing unlawful and criminal representatives out of office.  I’m glad to see that some people are not taking the tyranny sitting down.


    Contributed by Tim Brown of Freedom Outpost.com

    Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab and Steemit


    SHARE: