By Dagny Taggart | Organic Prepper | Feb. 8, 2019

Unconstitutional gun law ideas seem to spread from one state to another like some kind of insidious virus.

Late last year, an Orwellian gun bill was presented in New York state. If signed into law, anyone who wants to buy a gun would have to turn over three years of their social media history and one year of their Internet search history.

“A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a firearm,” said Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who has proposed the legislation with New York State Senator Kevin Parker. (source)

Before purchasing a gun, applicants would have to turn over their social media passwords to accounts like Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram. They would also have to allow police to see a year’s worth of their searches on Google, Yahoo, and Bing.

That law would also require anyone renewing their permit for a pistol to be subject to this invasion of privacy as well.

In the article, “This Anti-Gun Bill Would Require the Social Media History and Internet Search History of Prospective Buyers,” Daisy Luther wrote (emphasis mine):

Remember, these things never stop with just one state.

It’s easy to scoff and say, “Those crazy people in New York are getting what they voted for.”  I know someone’s going to say it so there, I said it for you.

But that’s short-sighted, and dare I say, ignorant of the way the world works.

Look at all the states that have recently flipped from red to blue in the midterm elections. If you don’t think it could ever happen where you are, you’re not paying attention. Please keep in mind that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but am referring to some party generalizations here. (source)

Now, another state has an Orwellian gun bill on the table.

It turns out, Daisy’s prediction was spot-on. In Illinois, to be allowed to possess your own gun, you have to have a special card, and the requirements to get that card could be about to become much more intrusive:

Meanwhile, in the Illinois House, state Rep. Daniel Didech, D-Buffalo Grove, has filed HB 888 which would require those who apply for a state-issued Firearm Owners Identification Card– mandatory for legal gun owners– turn over a list of their social media accounts to authorities under threat of a Class 2 felony. The State Police would use the information to determine if the accounts have any “information that would disqualify the person from obtaining or require revocation” of a FOID card. (source)

FOID cards also require your photograph, height, weight, address, birthday, hair color, and eye color. That is pretty basic information for a government-issued ID card.

But that isn’t all that Illinois requires.

In order to be granted a FOID card by the overlords in Illinois:

…you have to answer a questionnaire that asks if you’ve ever been convicted of a felony, whether you are addicted to narcotics, whether you’ve been treated in a mental institution or are “intellectually disabled.” Other questions ask about convictions of some specific crimes, whether you are an illegal alien, whether you’re named on a current order of protection that prohibits firearms. (source)

As you can see, being granted a permission slip to exercise a constitutional right in Illinois is already a tedious and invasive process. If this bill becomes law, the process will become a lot more complicated and intrusive.

What kind of social media content will police be looking for?

In addition to the obvious problems with the new bill, here’s something to really be concerned about: Exactly what kind of information found on social media accounts would be used to “disqualify” people from getting a card, or lead to the revocation of FOID cards?

That seemingly important detail is not specified anywhere in the bill (which can be read here).

Will decisions simply be based on the thoughts and feelings of individual police officers who are assigned to evaluate social media accounts?

Will there be specific, objective guidelines to follow or will decisions regarding who gets to exercise their Second Amendment rights be arbitrary and subjective?

What else will the information collected be used for?

Some groups are already voicing opposition to the bill, including gun rights groups and the ACLU.

“When people look at this everyone who has a Facebook account or email account or Twitter account will be incensed or should be,” said Richard Pearson with the Illinois State Rifle Association.

But the ACLU is opposed as well.

Rebecca Glenberg with ACLU Illinois says the bill “doesn’t say anything about how that list will be retained and for how long and what uses it might be put to.”

The first amendment group worries police scanning social media may show bias.

“A person’s political beliefs, a person’s religious beliefs, things that should not play a part in whether someone gets a FOID card,” Glenberg said. (source)

This bill is another example of pre-crime legislation, and it is terrifying.

Just days ago, we reported on a new study that found the privacy of those who have deactivated all of their social media accounts – or never had any in the first place – is not guaranteed.

team of researchers from the University of Vermont and the University of Adelaide wanted to find out if fundamental limits exist when using information from social networks “to predict the activities and interests of individuals, and to what accuracy such predictions can be made using an individual’s social ties.”

This may not sound like a big deal, but think about the worrisome nature of different types of predictive technology. You don’t have to actually be guilty of anything if the tech says that one day you might be. The stuff we’re discussing here takes “guilt by association” to an entirely new level. (source)

How long until control freak politicians start calling for spying on friends, and friends of friends (and so on) to find any justification for denying gun rights to all of us?

What do you think?

This invasion-of-privacy bill has already hopped from one state to another.  Which states do you foresee it heading to next? Do you think this intrusiveness will lead to an uptick in people who refuse to comply? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.


Contributed by Dagny Taggart of The Organic Prepper.

Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of an experienced journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.


SHARE:

By Mac Slavo | SHTFplan | January 22, 2019

In the America of today social justice warriors virtue signaling their tolerance for others have been repeatedly and quite often exposed for the bigots, sexists, and racists that they really are.

Take, for example, the following video provided by Brandon Farley via his Twitter page, in which a food cart lady parked at the PDX Women’s March in the hyper-tolerant city of Portland this past weekend refused service to an individual requesting a meal reportedly based on the fact that he is a male.

Tolerance at its finest.

You won’t see this one in the mainstream media because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

Misandrists – or man haters – are not vilified or abhorred like a teenage kid with a red hat smiling during the drumming of a traditional Native America tune, but rather, are defended and raised to 15-minute celebrity status among the very peers who call for death sentences against anyone who disagrees with their oft extreme and skewed personal belief systems.

This, right here, is the hypocrisy of the modern day social justice warrior, and though we don’t see the complete incident because the preceding moments have not been made available, it sure does appear to be a case of refusal of service based on a bias on the part of the lady working the cart:

If we’re not mistaken, it is against Federal Law to discriminate against a person because of their race or sex.


Contributed by Mac Slavo of SHTFplan.com


SHARE:

By Tim Brown | Sons Of Liberty | January 15, 2019

On Monday, 10-year-old Canadian boy Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden, aka “Queen Lactacia,”  was featured in a photo spread by Jonathan Frederick Turton in full drag with a naked adult male drag star.  When are people going to have enough?

The Daily Wire reports:

Young Nemis, whose drag name is “Queen Lactacia,” was shot by photographer Jonathan Frederick Turton for the spread. In one of the shots that did not make the magazine, Nemis, in full drag makeup and a black dress, is posing for a photo with the Season 7 winner of “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” Violet Chachki. In the shocking photo, Violet is wearing nothing but a pair of heels and a small piece of fabric covering his genitals, as seen in the screenshot below: (you can see the picture if you really care to here.)

“Interviewed and photographed [Queen Lactatia] for [Huck Magazine] about life as a child drag queen,” posted Turton.

Turton, according to his website, “is a multi-media content producer with specialisms in photography, videography and journalism.” He claims to have shot for mainstream outlets and businesses like the BBC, Adidas, Dazed and Confused Magazine, and The Discovery Channel.

In the jarring Huck Magazine piece — which ironically bashes Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro for calling out parents for over-sexualizing their “drag kids” — Nemis’ mother, Jessica Melancon, conceded that drag has a sexual component and is unapologetic about her young son wearing sexually suggestive clothing if it “makes him feel beautiful”:

“Drag is an adult arena and that’s where people question our judgement,” concedes Jessica. “So we have to censor things. He knows there are adult aspects of drag that he’s not allowed to apply to his show.”

“We would never try to overtly sexualise our child. But if he wears something that makes him feel beautiful, what right do I have to stop him wearing that dress because it might cause people to think things they shouldn’t be thinking? It’s a circular problem.”

This isn’t a new thing either.  When the little boy was 8-years-old, he was in Elle magazine.

If the above doesn’t get your blood boiling and angry, then you can check out a piece on little Nemis when he was 9 at Pink News (be warned its a sodomite magazine).

LifeSite even wrote about the fact that it is clear this little boy is being abused as he has no problem not only dressing up this way and acting like this but also carries messages that clearly indicate he is being sexually abused.




Nicole Russell writes at the Washington Examiner that this isn’t “progressive,”  it’s child abuse.  Indeed it is.

Russell writes:

Move over transgender kids, there is a new trend in town. Drag kids — kids dressed in full garb of their biologically opposite gender — are now joining the scene with transgender kids. The parents, guardians, and advocates of transgender or drag kids are not only supportive, but seem to be encouraging the child’s experience and publicity.

There’s nothing politically correct about this new frontier; it’s abuse, merely distorted and cloaked in progressivism.

The Advocate reported that Lactatia was “encouraged by his supportive parents” and began taking classes to perfect his art. “Lactatia’s public presence grew exponentially after he recently appeared at the Montreal stop of the Werq the World drag tour. RuPaul’s Drag Race star Bianca del Rio invited Lactatia up to the stage and the younger queen charmed the dress off the older queen (though Lactatia admitted his favorite Drag Race queen is Ginger Minj).”

Any parent of an elementary school-aged child knows children can’t wear clothes they don’t have or drive themselves places. The parents of these drag kids, are not just supporting it but encouraging it by purchasing supplies and carting their kids to drag events. This seems not only bizarre but abusive in the sense that it’s an unnatural distortion of healthy child’s play.

This trend is not about a child “being himself” but a parent encouraging an agenda that is unhealthy for a young child to embrace.

Now, Russell adds, “Certainly Hilton is not physically abusing these drag kids and neither, likely, are the children’s parents.”

I have to ask, are you sure about that Ms. Russell?  Are you absolutely certain?  How does a young boy like this have the filthy mouth he has, pushing an agenda and the sensuality that he is pushing without being subjected to physical, sexual abuse.  I’ll bet if an investigation would ensue, and it should, there is no doubt in my mind that sexual abuse would be found.

Why this boys’ parents aren’t in trouble with the law is beyond me and why those photographing him with naked men aren’t being arrested is beyond my comprehension as well.

Nothing was done when little Desmond was paraded in the States and showed up dancing in an adult sodomite club with half-naked men throwing money at him.  Nothing is done on behalf of little Nemis here.  I can tell you this:  By not doing anything to those involved, you are only encouraging more depravity, more Sodom and Gomorrah and more child abuse.  Mark my words!  It’s time to bring justice against these abusers of children.


Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

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 Paul Craig Roberts | Sept. 22, 2018

My Generation is the last one to have known privacy and to have lived out most of our lives in freedom.

I remember when driving licenses did not have photos and most certainly not fingerprints. A driving license was issued on proof of birth date alone.

Prior to the appearance of automobiles IDs did not exist in democratic nations. You were who you said you were.

The intrusive questions that accost us every day, even when doing something simple as reporting a telephone or Internet connection being out or inquiring about a credit card charge, were impermissible. I remember when you could telephone a utility company, for example, have the telephone answered no later than the third ring with a real person on the line who could clear up the problem in a few minutes without having to know your Social Security number and your mother’s maiden name. Today, after half an hour with robot voices asking intrusive questions you might finally get a real person somewhere in Asia who is controlled by such a tight system of rules that the person is, in effect, a robot. The person is not permitted to use any judgment or discretion and you listen to advertisements for another half hour while you wait for a supervisor who promises to have the matter looked into.

The minute you go online, you are subject to collection of information about yourself. You don’t even know it is being collected.

According to reports, soon our stoves, refrigerators, and microwave ovens will be reporting on us. The new cars already do.

When privacy disappears, there are no private persons. So what do people become? They become Big Brother’s subjects.

We are at that point now.

This interview witth Julian Assange is worth the 53 minutes: https://www.rt.com/news/438968-assange-last-interview-blackout/




This generation being born now… is the last free generation. You are born and either immediately or within say a year you are known globally. Your identity in one form or another –coming as a result of your idiotic parents plastering your name and photos all over Facebook or as a result of insurance applications or passport applications– is known to all major world powers.

Think about Assange for a minute. He has done nothing wrong. There are no charges against him. All charges have been dismissed. But he cannot walk out of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London without being seized by the British police and handed over to Washington whose prosecutorial apparatus intends to prosecute Assange for treason although he is not a US citizen but an Australian and Ecuadoran citizen.

What did Assange do? Nothing but practice journalism. His problem, his only problem, is that his journalism embarrassed Washington, and Washington intends revenge.

Law is nowhere in the picture. The UK is breaking all known laws including its own by the forced detention of Assange in the Ecuadoran Embassy.

The US in its determination to get Assange has no law whatsoever on which to stand. It only has raw unbridled power that can operate without law.

In other words, the Anglo-American world is totally lawless. Yet the Russian government holds firmly to its delusion that the US and Britain are countries with which agreementts can be made.

The digital world makes Big Brother’s Memory Hole possible. No need to burn books. Just push a button and information disappears.

As I write Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and so forth are all making non-approved information disappear.

In a digital world, not only can our identities be stolen—indeed, it can be stolen multiple times so that there are many of you at the same time—but we can also be erased. Poof—push a button and there you go. This makes murder easy. You never existed.

As I said before and will say again, the digital world and artificial intelligence are a far worse disaster for mankind than ever was the Black Plague. All the smart people busy at work creating the new world are destroying the human race.


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 Isabelle Z | Natural News | Sept. 17, 2018

Google has become so unethical that even some of its own employees want nothing to do with it anymore. In the latest example of the company driving away valued workers, senior research scientist Jack Poulson has quit his job in protest of the company’s plans to launch a censored version of the Google search engine in China.

Last month, news emerged that Google was secretly working on a Chinese search app code-named Dragonfly for devices running Android. It removes any content that the Chinese government doesn’t want its people to see, such as that pertaining to free speech, human rights, democracy, and political dissidents. It will also see queries that have been deemed “sensitive” blacklisted entirely, meaning that no results whatsoever will turn up if people type in certain terms or phrases.

As part of the company’s research and machine intelligence department, Poulson was tasked with improving their search systems’ accuracy. He raised his concerns with his managers but ultimately decided that he couldn’t work for them any more in good conscience. He resigned at the end of last month, and he told The Intercept that at least four others have done the same.

He said that the plan was a violation of Google’s principles stating they will not design technologies “whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.”

Not only was the censorship itself concerning, but he also had reservations about the fact that customer data would be hosted on the Chinese mainland, where the country’s security agencies would have access to it. Given what we know about what the Chinese government does to journalists and political activists it wants to silence, he’s right to be concerned about it.

Poulson told his bosses in his resignation letter: “I view our intent to capitulate to censorship and surveillance demands in exchange for access to the Chinese market as a forfeiture of our values and governmental negotiating position across the globe. There is an all-too-real possibility that other nations will attempt to leverage our actions in China in order to demand our compliance with their security demands.”

More than 1,000 employees concerned about company’s ethics

Poulson is hardly alone in his concerns. When the news of Dragonfly made its way throughout Google, there was a lot of protest within the company, with more than 1,400 employees signing a letter demanding the appointment of an ombudsman to assess the censorship plan’s “urgent moral and ethical issues.” They say they have a right to know what they’re working on. In other words, if Google is going to be carrying out unethical acts, they want no part of it.

Some of those who led the letter effort were also behind protests of the firm’s work with the American military to build AI systems that could identify objects like vehicles in drone footage. Those protests ultimately resulted in Google letting its military contract expire.

Google’s response to the Dragonfly letter? They cut off employees’ access to documents about the Chinese search engine and tightened rules so that employees working remotely can no longer livestream meetings on personal computers after a leak last month.

Earlier this month, the company’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, refused to show up for a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing during which he would have faced questions about the Chinese censorship. In addition, Google has ignored countless journalists’ questions about the plan.

Of course, this doesn’t come as much of a surprise from a company that has been a bit China-like itself, exerting its power to censor search results and YouTube videos when the topic at hand doesn’t serve its political agenda. As this behavior continues and employees grow increasingly wary of where the line will be drawn, there could well end up being a mass exodus.


Contributed by Isabelle Z. of NaturalNews.com


SHARE: