Brandon Turbeville on The Common Sense Show

Brandon Turbeville will be appearing on The Common Sense Show with Dave Hodges tonight, January 29, 2012 at 10 pm. EST.

Two brave policemen shoot 43-year-old woman in the back with tasers

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

January 26, 2012

Over the last few years, the use of tasers by police has been the center of some controversy amongst a few members of the general public. While the devices were originally justified as a means to subdue violent criminals without using lethal force, the fact is that tasers have not replaced lethal force at all. They have, however, replaced reason and common sense.

Instead of a tool to reduce lethal contact, tasers have become nothing more than cattle prods to be deployed against anyone who does not immediately obey a police command, regardless of how illegal or ludicrous that command may be.

In an example of just this type of situation, one may look at the case of Patricia Franks-Martin, a 43-year-old schoolteacher from Galivants Ferry, South Carolina.

On January 6, 2012, Franks-Martin was riding (not driving) in her vehicle in Horry County around 10 pm when police pulled behind the truck and decided to run her license plates, which were expired. As a result, the officers pulled the vehicle over.

When the driver stopped the truck, Franks-Martin allegedly got out of the car and questioned the officers as to why they ran the plates on the vehicle, which belonged to her. Officers then demanded that she present them with her license which she allegedly refused to do. The officers claim that she then became irate and began to use profanity, even going so far as to drink a beer in front of them.

The officers then claim that they noticed two open containers in the vehicle and that Franks-Martin told them to write her a ticket for the open-container violation. The officers allege that when she was told that she was under arrest, Franks-Martin told them they were not going to arrest her and began walking away from them.

The police also claim that as she was walking away, she stated, “you’ll have to shoot me before you arrest me.”

At this point, the brave policemen immediately jumped into action, tasing Franks-Martin in the back and cuffing her when she hit the ground.

Franks-Martin has been charged with suspended vehicle license, open container of beer in a vehicle, and resisting arrest. She has also been placed on administrative leave at her job.

If the account of the officers is to be believed, (which is highly questionable in its own right considering the general level of honesty amongst the majority of police in this country) then Franks-Martin was no doubt being obnoxious.

But obnoxious behavior is not cause for tasing.

Put aside, for a moment, the ridiculous nature of police that sit in wait like wild predators for citizen prey to drive by so they can “run their tags.” Put aside the fact that asking permission (in the form of a license) and paying rent (in the form of registration fees) to drive on the roads you paid to build and maintain is itself an overreach of government power. Also put aside the fact that having an open container of alcohol in your vehicle is considered a crime, or that simply walking away from an officer is considered resisting arrest.

Of course, all of these issues are relevant. However, while serving as legitimate condemnation of the officer’s behavior, are only peripheral in nature. The heart of the matter is whether the officers were justified in their use of force. In this instance, it is clear that they were not.

The fact is that walking away from the police, “not listening” to an officer, or even resisting arrest (really resisting, not just walking away or expressing opposition) is not justification for tasing someone with thousands of volts of electricity. Particularly, when there are at least two officers and the victim is one 43-year-old (allegedly) drunk woman.

Indeed, one must ask exactly what threat she actually posed to the officers? After all, one should keep in mind that she was tased in the back. This is because she was walking away from the officers – not toward them. The illegitimate use of force against Franks-Martin was a cowardly act, to say the least, not to mention a dangerous one.

Police tasers have been implicated in hundreds of deaths as reported by Amnesty International. In over 90% of those deaths, the individual was unarmed. Amnesty International tallies the taser deaths at 334 since 2001. However, an independent blog, Electronic Village, has added 164 more names to the list, raising the death toll to 515 deaths committed by police wielding tasers. The AlexanderHigginsBlog calculated that, on average, police kill one person every week with a taser.

Although the justification for the use of tasers by police has been based on the argument of self-defense, and the ability to defuse a violent situation without using lethal force, it is clear that outfitting police with these devices is an enormous hazard to public safety.

Tasers are no longer tools of non-lethal defense. Indeed, they were never used in this manner or intended for this purpose. They are merely cattle prods designed to force the citizenry to obey the dictates of their low-level controllers by means of “pain-compliance.” Tasers are, essentially, the modern version of the whip.

While any abuse by police is obviously unfortunate, behavior that once occurred only in large cities such as Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles, has now spread even to small rural communities and towns all across the country. The police officer who was once known and respected within small communities has now been replaced by largely unintelligent authoritarian goons. Thuggish police are now the norm regardless of where you travel.

For years, police have been trained to see anyone outside their brotherhood, meaning the American people, as the enemy. Training for police has become more militaristic in nature; consequently, domestic police forces have come to resemble a foreign occupying military.

In the end, tasers are only a small part of the increase in the militarization of police. However, if Americans continue to allow their local law enforcement to become more war-like, isolated, and violent, the ability to create, implement, and maintain a police state will be made all the easier for those who wish to establish authoritarian rule.

American citizens must speak out now, especially those in small towns and rural areas such as Galivants Ferry and Loris, South Carolina. Because of the size of the communities, all hope is not yet lost for reestablishing some modicum of common sense and responsibility to local law enforcement.

Do not be afraid to let your police chief, your Sheriff, and even your individual police officers know that you do not support unwarranted police violence, and that you will not tolerate it if it occurs.

If you are unsure how to get started in speaking out, feel free to contact the Horry County Sheriff’s Department and tell them how you feel about tasing women in the back for not listening to commands.

Witnesses Document Potential Vote Fraud in S.C. Primaries

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
January 23, 2012

After Newt Gingrich’s stunning victory in the South Carolina Republican primaries on Saturday, there are now questions surrounding the vote counting process that took place Saturday night. 

Indeed, some individuals who witnessed the actual certification of the vote are beginning to question whether or not the outcome is a result of clever campaigning, or that of voter fraud. 

Although no one is pointing fingers at the Gingrich campaign, or any other campaign at this point, the anomalies that are arising from the accounts of eyewitnesses call into question the certainty and the credibility of the final count in South Carolina.

At this time, the most serious questions are centered around the precincts in Pickens County. It was in this precinct that Chris Lawton, representing the Paul campaign, came to the Pickens County elections office to witness the vote certification and noticed a series of situations that were either in direct opposition to State voting laws, or, at the very least, highly questionable.

Mr. Lawton stated to me that he arrived at the Pickens County elections office around 7:10 pm, where he was then ushered into the County Council chambers. Mr. Lawton claims he was told that he had to remain in this area and watch the vote tabulation on the projector in the council chambers, not in the room where the actual counting was taking place.

However, Lawton noticed that, even as he arrived, the projector was displaying 726 -746 votes which were broken down by candidates. He says he then inquired as to where these votes came from and was told that the votes were tabulated at 9:00 am that day and as mail came in. He claims he was then instructed that he could not be in a secure area.

Eventually, he stated, he gathered himself together and decided to assert himself as per his rights to witness the count personally under State law. He says, “[They were] very unfriendly and appeared agitated at my presence. When I got my wits I went back and declared State law allowed me to witness all aspects of this process. I was told there was little space and [to] stand out of the way and not be talking on the phone.”

Mr. Lawton then states that at 8:00 pm a precinct which he believes to be Prater’s Creek came into the office without the “zero” tape; the device that shows the voting machines were started at a vote count of zero. Without the “zero” tape, there is no certainty that the voting machines did not begin operation loaded with votes for specific candidates, a very serious issue to say the least.

Mr. Lawton states that, at 8:02 pm, the Paul campaign called the elections office and was hung up on and given no information regarding the vote-counting process.

At 8:05 pm, Mr. Lawton claims that a box of ballots arrived (Box 216) which he believes were also from Prater’s Creek. This box had a broken security seal. When Lawton asked for the serial number of the machine that these ballots came from, he says he was told to wait.

Yet these were not the only ballots to come back unsecured. According to Lawton, the discs containing the Powdersville District 2 ballots arrived being carried by a poll worker. These discs were not only missing a seal, but were being carried in a personal folder inside the worker’s left pocket.

Shortly after a Deputy from the Pickens County Sheriff’s office arrived (as a result of the campaign being hung up on) Lawton claims that around 8:55 pm, a lady from Clemson Precinct 1 stated that the boxes and machines for this precinct were actually dropped off at another precinct – Stone Church at University Baptist Church in Clemson.

Lawton says that he asked when the machines and ballots would arrive at the correct precinct and was told that the votes had already been tabulated and would be coming in later. He claims that he was then told, later on, that the machines and ballots would be stored at the church. Lawton says that he never found out where the ballots and machines ended up before he departed his precinct Saturday night.

At 9:10 pm, Lawton claims he was given the serial number for the first box of ballots that arrived with a broken seal – Box 216 (Serial # V5124783).

At 9:30 pm, Lawton says he left the precinct with the tabulations and names of the county poll workers.

Yet Pickens County is not the only location where the method of counting votes is questionable.

In Florence County, for instance, a confidential source informed me that the vote certification was seriously flawed and essentially conducted in secret. Those individuals who came to witness the certification were not allowed into the room where the votes were being tallied and could only view the process through a glass window.

The process itself was conducted behind closed doors and witnesses could only view individuals working on computers (there were no paper ballots) – but they were unable to actually see what was on the computers themselves. Because the vote counting took place in a closed room, there was no sound available to any of the witnesses either. Only a computer screen tacked onto the wall was available for witnesses in order to view what was allegedly happening on the computers in the next room.

This is particularly concerning since the South Carolina State Constitution states that, while votes are to be cast in secret, they are to be counted in public.   

It is important to note that, at no time, did the witnesses have access to the room in which the ballots were being counted to either corroborate or contest the process in Florence. There was no way for them to even ask questions regarding the vote counting.

As the source stated, “The system is designed so that just a few people have access to the votes and only a few people know what those votes actually are.”

The issue of lack of access granted to vote count witnesses seems to be a trend all across South Carolina.

In addition, Florence County also reported some rather strange voting machine failure as well. Within the first hour of voting, some of the machines in the Florence 35 District began to experience technical failures, forcing the precinct to move to paper ballots. The technical failures were related to the PEB (Personal Electronic Ballot), an external memory device that activates the voting machine and summarizes data from the machine for tabulation at the end of the day.

Interestingly enough, in South Carolina, all election results are transmitted through a Spanish owned company, Scytl/SOE Software, before they are reported to the public. This company’s software has been implicated in voter fraud in the past when, in Broward County, Florida, a candidate who had been winning the election was entirely vaporized in mid-count.  Hillsborough County, Florida and Dallas County, Texas also had votes disappear as a result of the Scytl/SOE Software.

Of course, the software is not the only issue with South Carolina vote counting that could point to fraud. As Bev Harris, an elections and vote fraud expert, writes on her website BlackBoxVoting.com,

Well, you have to put an asterisk alongside “the right results” because in South Carolina you get a two-fer. Results could be incorrect at either end of the pipeline - - from the ES&S iVotronic paperless touchscreen voting machines, which have a history of incorrect totals, or from the private results reporting firm Scytl/SOE Software, which has centralized control over what gets reported.   

She also writes “There is only one way to immediately find out whether Scytl/SOE reported the right results*, and that is for members of the public to capture evidence of reported precinct results when polls close tonight.” Essentially, Harris is echoing the sentiment of the source quoted earlier who stated that the system is not geared toward transparency in vote counting.

Neverthless, the ES&S iVotronic vote machines have had quite a history of fraud themselves, even being the subject of a special report by Dan Rather in 2001.

Yet, even putting aside the Scytl/SOE Software and ES&S voting machines, vote fraud would still be a major issue in South Carolina.

For instance, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson recently sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice which was dated Thursday, January 19, 2012, and contained details of voter fraud in South Carolina. The analysis of the fraud was conducted by the Department of Motor Vehicles and was sent to U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles.

As reported by the Associated Press and FOX News, “In a letter dated Thursday, Wilson says the analysis found 953 ballots cast by voters listed as dead. In 71 percent of those cases, ballots were cast between two months and 76 months after the people died. That means they ‘voted’ up to 6 1/3 years after their death.”

Even on the day of the primary itself, fraud was documented by the State Attorney General’s office. It was reported by WTOC Channel  11 on January 21st 2012, that at least 953 votes had been cast by people who were listed as dead. SLED has been asked to investigate.

It is an unfortunate reality that election fraud has become commonplace in every state in the Union and South Carolina is no exception. Although, at this time, it is unknown to what extent fraud has been committed in South Carolina or which campaign was hurt the most, one thing is for sure – whenever there is vote fraud, the inevitable losers will always be the voters.

The Arrival of Nanotech Medicine and What it Means for Health and Privacy

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

January 20, 2012

 

In yet another example of what was once called a conspiracy theory, but is now accepted as mainstream science, “edible microchips” are being officially rolled out for consumption by the general public.

Interestingly enough, it was only a few short years ago that anyone who mentioned a microchipped population via implantable, or ingestible microchips was derided as paranoid and delusional. Now that the technology has been introduced, however, these individuals are no longer so easy to dismiss.

For instance, a recent article published by The Telegraph, “New ‘smart’ pill tells patients when drugs dose due,” describes how a new nano-sized microchip is being developed for mass consumption in the form of a pill. The microchip pill will be used to monitor the patient's vital signs as well as the metabolism of drugs prescribed by their doctor. This announcement heralds the full-fledged arrival of nanotechnology applications in medicine, and has wide-reaching implications.

The pill itself is described as no more than a “sugar pill.” However, it contains a “sensor” that “can monitor when drugs are taken, how much dosage should be administered, while at the same time monitoring a patient’s heart rate and body temperature,” as described by Andrew Hough of The Telegraph.

Hough continues by writing, “It also alerts a patient to when the next dose is due and records if they are getting enough sleep or exercise.”

 

The technology works by using nano-chips that have been ingested to monitor and record the details of medication, metabolism, and other vital signs which then transmit the data to a “receiver” patch attached to the patients’ arm. The patch can be worn for several days, meaning that the microchips should still be transmitting information for approximately that period of time.

The report also states that the edible microchips can transmit medical and biological information not only to the receiver patch worn by the patient, but to computers and smartphones “belonging to a relative, carer, or doctor.”

All of these developments raise fundamental concerns about privacy.  We are now confronted with a technology that can monitor not just our phone conversations and emails, or even just our biometric data, but our innermost biological processes. We have now entered into a time where, although many Americans still find it hard to believe that their government is capable of monitoring all email exchanges, there exists the very real capability to monitor something as private as our digestive systems and our personal health regimen.

One must wonder what the implications for this technology actually are, given the tendency toward control being exhibited by governmental, corporate, and medical institutions today. Indeed, diktats  issued by any one of these institutions usually takes immediate precedent over individual rights. Take, for example, governmental and medical vaccination programs where citizens are now being hounded by the police for making the logical decision not to be injected with poisonous chemicals. Ignoring, for a moment, the horror of the incidents themselves, the fact is that precedents are being set in these cases.

So the question remains:  Will medical microchips soon be included amongst the diktats of the white-coated priesthood known as the medical establishment? Will it soon become mandatory?

Indeed, one could easily envision a scenario in which patients are forced to ingest microchips as a condition of receiving controlled-substance pain medication. You know, to make sure the patient was not making a personal decision as to whether or not to abuse the medication. One could also see how nanochips could be forced on to Alzheimer’s patients or the elderly to prevent them from forgetting to take their medication.

Another question would be whether or not these chips could be accessed by external devices not necessarily associated with the stated programs with which they were justified initially. Obviously, the chips can be accessed by outside sources; the Telegraph report makes this clear when it states that the chips can transmit data to smartphones and computers. The question, however, is whether or not “authorized” devices are the only ones able to access the data.

Given the close relationship between government, corporations, and the medical establishment as a result of legislation such as the PATRIOT Act, it is not unreasonable to assume that somewhere down the line another party other than you or your doctor will have access to this information.

One would also be justified in wondering just what these chips are capable of doing to the human body in terms of health. Indeed, in an article entitled “FDA sued over lack of Nanotech oversight, labels,” Rady Ananda sums up many of the health concerns related to consumption of nano-particles in general.

In what may be a surprising revelation to some, the adverse health effects related to the consumption of nano-particles are not unknown.  This is not only because of the numerous studies conducted regarding the risks involved in nano-particle consumption, but also because humans are already consuming these particles in their food. Once again, new technology is being misused thanks to corporate control of the food supply, as well as regulatory agencies like the FDA who essentially exist for no other purpose than doing the bidding of the very corporations that exercise these monopolies. 

Although not all products utilizing nano-sized particles are harmful (colloidal silver, for instance), many of them are. As Ananda describes, studies have shown that consumption of nanoparticles through ingestion or inhalation can result in brain damage, lung dysfunction, and bioaccumulation. Nanoparticles have also been known to cross the placenta from the mother to the unborn child.

Furthermore, studies have confirmed that anything smaller than 100 nm can access all areas of the body due to its size, thus posing a threat to the body by virtue of its ability to penetrate the nucleus of cells. Penetrating cell nuclei, of course, gives these particles access to DNA.

Once nanoparticles, and now nanochips, have access to DNA structure, there should be very serious concern as to what the effects will be. We know that genes from genetically modified organisms can not only survive the digestion process, but cross over into normal DNA and change that normal DNA, causing a host of health effects. So the question then becomes: How will the human body react to such an invasion its DNA by a small, foreign substance?

In addition to the questions raised over health concerns, they may be secondary when compared to the concerns over privacy and personal sovereignty. Our society has gradually been moving further and further toward one of total surveillance and control over the general population. Any technology that is as invasive as edible microchips will no doubt move in tandem with that agenda as well.

This is not surprising due to the fact that it has been the military (or, more accurately, the military-industrial complex) that has funded research into nanotechnology for many years. As it stated in its 2007 report, “Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program, the Department of Defense has been involved in the research and development of nanotechnology since at least the 1980s working in concert with other agencies such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Office of Naval Research (ONR), Army Research Office (ARO), and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). Of course, anyone who has conducted even cursory research into the technological capabilities of major governments is aware that research into this type of technology was being conducted long before the 1980s. This means that the technology is actually far more advanced than what is currently being introduced to the general public.

That being said, the DOD report openly states that its research into nanotechnology revolves around “future war fighting: chemical and biological warfare defense; high performance materials for platforms and weapons; unprecedented information technology [like smart clothes]; revolutionary energy and energetic materials; and uninhabited vehicles and miniature satellites.”

See also the “National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan,” created by the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology.

In addition a RAND Corporation document written in 2003 entitled, “The Global Technology Revolution 2020, In-Depth Analyses,” mentioned just this kind of technology in the context of the current announcements by Lloydspharmacy and Proteus Biomedical, the two firms who are working together to market the new edible microchips. The RAND document actually describes the technology as “degradable polymeric microchips for time-release drug delivery, and highly selective and sensitive miniature chemical sensors.”

It is not surprising then, with RAND’s deep knowledge of the science and development of edible microchips as described above, that RAND itself may have some influence and connection to the process of the mass marketing of those chips.

Interestingly enough, David M. Lawrence, who sits on the Board of Directors of Proteus Biomedical, the California-based company who is partnering with Lloydspharmacy for distribution of the new edible microchip pills, is also a member of the RAND Health Advisory Board and a member of the Advisory Board for the RAND COMPARE study on national health reform.

In the end, the safety hazards alone should be enough to cause great concern amongst the general population in regards to the roll-out of this new technology. Combine the safety issue with that of the potential (and probable) abuse of microchips -- as well as even more sinister applications -- and citizens across the globe should start raising their voices now. We have already seen what happens when governments, corporations, and the medical establishment can and will do once they introduce a new and profitable technology or medication. We cannot allow ourselves to be put into a situation where force, policy, or coercion can determine whether or not we become the host for millions of microchips or the parasites that control them.

Beyond the Cashless Society: IBM's Vision for the Future

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
January 16, 2012

Fresh on the heels of India’s massive databasing program that is set to encompass all 1.2 billion members of its population, recent announcements by IBM should be drawing the attention of some 300 million Americans.

IBM’s “IBM 5 in 5” predictions reveal part of a goal that has been discussed for some time, yet too often continues to be dismissed as mere conspiracy theory. This goal is for biometric data such as fingerprints, iris scans, and voice recognition to not only become commonplace amongst the general public, but soon to replace all other forms of identification. 

Even more startling, the next level of technology is set for release which will link the human brain directly to the digital world, enabling the user to control their reality purely by thought.

IBM has also announced that it is developing technology that can harness the power of human movement for the purpose of providing “renewable energy.”

The IBM 5 in 5 is a series of five predictions for the next five years which “is based on market and societal trends as well as emerging technologies from IBM’s research labs around the world that can make these transformations possible.”

 

Directly related to the massive biometric database being created in India, the IBM technology can (and most likely will) be used to create a database of user biometrics that includes the very same type of information currently being collected on the other side of the world -- facial photographs, fingerprints, and iris scans – here in the United States and elsewhere in the Western world. The IBM system, however, comes with the notable addition of voice files.

In regards to the predicted biometric identification technology, IBM states:

You will no longer need to create, track or remember multiple passwords for various log-ins. Imagine you will be able to walk up to an ATM machine to securely withdraw money by simply speaking your name or looking into a tiny sensor that can recognize the unique patterns in the retina of your eye. Or by doing the same, you can check your account balance on your mobile phone or tablet.

Each person has a unique biological identity and behind all that is data. Biometric data – facial definitions, retinal scans and voice files – will be composited through software to build your DNA unique online password.

Referred to as multi-factor biometrics, smarter systems will be able to use this information in real-time to make sure whenever someone is attempting to access your information, it matches your unique biometric profile and the attempt is authorized.

All of this is precisely the argument behind the enormous database being implemented in India, as well as behind the technology being introduced to the American public under the guise of convenience and protection against identity theft. Although the systems have yet to take off culturally, there is little doubt that the vast majority of trendy Americans will be content to give up their most private information to either the government or to greedy corporations (which are now essentially one and the same) based solely on the promise of more convenience and the ability to use even less of their brain during the course of the average day.

But, although many simply remain silent at first, due to the fact that they are currently able to go about their day without encountering such invasive technology, the truth is that their ability to continue to gain access to accounts and pay bills with cash, checks, etc. is fading fast. In totalitarian systems such as our own, what begins as a convenience for those who can afford it almost always ends in compulsion and mandates for everyone, even those at the bottom.

As I stated in my last article, “Cashless Society: India Implements First Biometric ID Program for all of its 1.2 Billion Residents,”

At first, the program is introduced as a way to speed up transactions, increase efficiency, and provide convenience. Soon, however, governments and businesses begin to transition out of the older methods of payment and identification and focus more on the new technology. Identification using the traditional methods remain as an option, but become viewed as cumbersome. Eventually, the alternative methods are phased out completely and mandates replace what was once a personal choice.

Equally as frightening as a Cashless Society and biometric ID databases, is the fact that IBM predicts that, within five years, humans will have their brains linked to computers with the ability to control cursors and operate digital systems by thought alone.

The IBM statement reads:

IBM scientists are among those researching how to link your brain to your devices, such as a computer or a smartphone. If you just need to think about calling someone, it happens. Or you can control the cursor on a computer screen just by thinking about where you want to move it.

Scientists in the field of bioinformatics have designed headsets with advanced sensors to read electrical brain activity that can recognize facial expressions, excitement and concentration levels, and thoughts of a person without them physically taking any actions.

Yet, although IBM predicts these inventions as advancements in the near future, the fact is that they already exist, even within the mainstream level of science that is permitted to be disclosed for public consumption. For years implants have allowed monkeys to control computer cursors and even robotic arms in laboratory settings.

In a recent experiment, two macaque monkeys were trained to control a virtual arm represented on the computer screen and use the arm to “grasp” virtual objects, even feeling the objects that they grasped.

Such technology has long been promoted by those in the Singularity movement, a branch of Transhumanism that looks forward to the day when humans actually merge with machines to create a new and “improved” type of human species.

Lastly, IBM’s predictions about harnessing energy, while possibly a positive development in terms of environmentally friendly energy solutions, are also a bit alarming, especially when taken in context of its other developments. IBM states:

Anything that moves or produces heat has the potential to create energy that can be captured. Walking. Jogging. Bicycling. The heat from your computer. Even the water flowing through your pipes.

Advances in renewable energy technology will allow individuals to collect this kinetic energy, which now goes to waste, and use it to help power our homes, offices and cities.

Interestingly enough, “anything that moves or produces heat” includes human beings. While the technology could be used to harness wasted energy and turn that into a truly sustainable method of energy production that can continue to be improved upon, one must also wonder if human beings will not become the focus of the energy output source.

Is it feasible that a human being's natural energy might be used to power some type of computer/brain interface device? Or that a human’s natural energy would be harnessed to power other devices outside of the body? Could this energy be harnessed from afar?

IBM is not clear in its press release as to the potential ethical concerns over its “new” technology. However, with a company that has such an unfortunate history regarding ethical decisions, it might be wise to view its announcement with a large dose of healthy skepticism and reserve.

Although this type of technology, for some, may seem unbelievable, the fact is that it is very real. No longer are computer/brain interfaces something only seen in movies like The Matrix. No longer can the Cashless Society be considered merely the rumination of country preachers and “conspiracy theorists.”

The future is already here. If we are to control our own destiny, it is essential that we recognize the path we are on and whether or not we should proceed more carefully.

Brandon Turbeville Participating in the Florence County Library Local Author's Expo

Brandon Turbeville will be participating in the Florence County Local Author's Expo on January 21, 2011 at the Florence County Library from 2pm to 4pm. There will be books for sale and an opportunity to speak with the author and have your copy signed.

The Florence County Library is located at:

509 South Dargan Street
Florence, SC 29506

Brandon Turbeville on the Ochlocratic Review

Brandon Turbeville on the Ochlocratic Review.

Click this link to access the rebroadcast of the Ochlocratic Review.

Brandon Turbeville on the Ochlocratic Review

Brandon Turbeville will be appearing on the Ochlocratic Review on January 15, 2011 at 7:30 am. EST.

Click on this link to view the Ochlocratic Review.

Aaron Dykes of Infowars Nightly News Reports on Brandon Turbeville's article "Cashless Society: India Implements First Biometric ID Program to al of its 1.2 Billion Residents."

Cashless Society: India Implements First Biometric ID Program for all of its 1.2 Billion Residents

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

January 11, 2012

 

Over the past few months, I have written several articles dealing with the coming cashless society and the developing technological control grid. I also have written about the surge of government attempts to gain access to and force the use of biometric data for the purposes of identification, tracking, tracing, and surveillance.

Unfortunately, the reactions I receive from the general public are almost always the same. While some recognize the danger, most simply deny that governments have the capability or even the desire to create a system in which the population is constantly monitored by virtue of their most private and even biological information. Others, either gripped by apathy or ignorance, cannot believe that the gadgets given to them from the massive tech corporations are designed for anything other than their entertainment and enjoyment.

However, current events in India should serve not just as a warning, but also as a foreshadowing of the events to come in the Western world, specifically the United States.

Recently, India has launched a nationwide program involving the allocation of a Unique Identification Number (UID) to every single one of its 1.2 billion residents. Each of the numbers will be tied to the biometric data of the recipient using three different forms of information – fingerprints, iris scans, and pictures of the face. All ten digits of the hand will be recorded, and both eyes will be scanned.

 

 

 

The project will be directed by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) under the premise of preventing identity theft and social welfare fraud. India has rather extensive social welfare and safety net programs, ranging from medical support and heating assistance to others aimed at helping the poor. Fraud is a rampant problem in India, especially in relation to these programs due to a preponderance of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats who often stuff welfare rolls with fake names and take the money for themselves.

Yet, although the justification for the billion person database is the increased ability to accurately disperse social welfare benefits, it will not be just the Indian government’s social welfare programs that have access to and utilize the UIDAI. Indeed, even before the program has been completed, major banks, state/local governments, and other institutions are planning to use the UIDAI for identification verification purposes and, of course, payment  and accessibility.

As Aaron Saenz of the Singularity Hub writes:

Yet the UID is going to be used for much more than social welfare programs. The UIDAI is in discussion with many institutions (banks, local/state governments, etc.) to allow them to use the UID as a means of identity verification. These institutions will pay the UIDAI some fee to cover costs and generate revenue. There seems to be little doubt that once it is established, the UID will become a preferred method (if not the preferred method) of identification in India.

Saenz also sees the eventuality of the UIDAI program becoming a means of payment and accessibility. He continues:

Ultimately, I wouldn’t be surprised if the UID, with its biometric data, could be used as a means of payment (when linked to a bank account), or as an access key to homes and cars. Purchase a meal with your fingerprint and unlock your door with the twinkle in your eye. Similar results could be expected in other nations that adopted biometric identification systems.

Saenz, and other proponents of the UID (UIDAI), have been diligent in pointing out that the program “is just a number, not an ID card.” However, this claim is debatable. Saenz himself admits that State issued driver’s licenses and identification cards will reference the UID information.

The question then becomes how much of that information will be referenced, and how that will be accomplished? Will the information be included on the card? Will only part of the information be included on the card? Or will the card reference back to the digital UID information to be then reconciled with the information that is present on the card? Although the UID is obviously going to be utilized by other institutions outside of the social welfare programs, no answers to these questions have been provided.

But, in the end, does it really matter if the information is collated into an ID card format if the government already has access to that information digitally? More than likely, a national ID card will appear as a supplement to the database already created by UID.  Regardless, the private biometric information has still been taken from the individual. The database is still there.

Indeed, government “officials” have already stated that the database will be used by intelligence agencies for the purpose of monitoring “bank transactions, cellphone purchases and the movements of individuals and groups suspected of fomenting terrorism.” This will be very easy to do since the UID number will be entered anytime an individual “accesses services from government departments, driver’s license offices and hospitals, as well as insurance, telecom, and banking companies.”

Nevertheless, proponents have also touted the fact that, at this point, the UID program is optional. But the program will obviously not be optional for very long. As I have discussed in previous articles, the introduction of a program such as a national ID card, biometric data, or cashless payment technologies is always followed by the program becoming mandatory. The ultimate goal of an all-encompassing cashless surveillance program with no opt-out provisions is always introduced by stealth and the Gradualist Technique.

At first, the program is introduced as a way to speed up transactions, increase efficiency, and provide convenience. Soon, however, governments and businesses begin to transition out of the older methods of payment and identification and focus more on the new technology. Identification using the traditional methods remain as an option, but become viewed as cumbersome. Eventually, the alternative methods are phased out completely and mandates replace what was once a personal choice.

As soon as Indian banks, businesses, and government social service offices begin to require identification using the UID, the ability to remain off the system and lead what passes for a normal life will disappear.

This is exactly the intention with India’s new biometric ID program. In fact, the cashless society is a stated goal of the UID program. CEO of MindTree’s IT Services, the company that was awarded the government contract for development and maintenance of the UID, explained in an interview with ComputerWeekly that the “ID scheme will support a cashless society. He said all vendors will have a biometric reader and citizens can pay for things with a fingerprint scan. Even a bag of rice.”

No doubt, even after such an admission by a man who was instrumental in the development of the program, many who read this article will still dismiss it as a “conspiracy theory.”

Nonetheless, this new monumental data mining effort by the Indian government dovetails with recent efforts in the Western world to develop an electronic surveillance grid capable of tracking, tracing, and recording every single movement and communication of every single citizen within a nation’s borders.

New technologies which are being introduced inside the United States, the UK, and Australia such as vein scanners, biometric employee time and attendance systems, voice recognition devices, and behavior analysis systems are all geared toward Total Information Awareness of every human being on the planet.

Only a totalitarian form of government would desire this information; and only a very determined totalitarian government would actively work toward establishing it. India is only the first nation to openly sweep up its entire national population into such a massive biometric database net. We cannot let our nation be the next.

Big Government Legislation to Force Unemployed into Indentured Servitude

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

January 10, 2012

 

After having elected Nikki Haley to the Governor’s office in 2010, South Carolina has served as a hotbed of reactionary politics aimed at cutting and privatizing services, union busting, and attacking the unemployed as lazy criminals and drug addicts. However, for all of the rhetoric spewed from people like Haley and her cohorts in the State House and Senate, it is obvious that their ultimate political goals are no different from that of President Barack Obama.

In 2008, the independent media was on fire reporting the comments by then Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel regarding his mandatory civil service plan that would require every American between the ages of 18-25 to undergo three months of basic training complete with military-style exercises and indoctrination. Later, in 2009, the GIVE Act (also known as the Serve America Act) was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by Obama. This bill contained much of language bounced back and forth between those such as Emmanuel who would require Americans to engage in some type of mandatory “civilian service.” (Read “mandatory civilian service” to mean slavery.)

In 2012, those Federal attempts at conscription and enslavement are also manifesting themselves at the State level.

Recently, it was announced that a bill is circulating in the South Carolina State House of Representatives that would require anyone receiving unemployment benefits for longer than six months to volunteer for 16 hours a week in order to continue receiving the benefits. Of course, using the term “benefits” should be used loosely, as one who is receiving an unemployment check is only receiving a return on the investment he/she made in taxes paid to the unemployment system. After all, one does not consider a car insurance payment made after an accident to be a benefit.

Nevertheless, the premise behind the bill is that the unemployed are unemployed by choice and by virtue of their own laziness, and that they should therefore be forced to “carry their own weight.” Although South Carolina is suffering under a real unemployment rate of about 18 to 20 percent, (and an official rate using flawed statistics of about 9.9%), the propaganda of characterizing those out of work due to decades of insane trade policy and domestic deindustrialization as “those people who don’t want to work” has been surprisingly successful within the ranks of the general public. That is why a bill such as this one is so dangerous.

In reference to the hare-brained “mandated volunteerism” scheme, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Paul Campbell stated, “I just think if someone’s busy working, they’ll be more industrious and more likely to get a job. Depending on the skill they’ve got, I think we can put that skill to work. I’m not talking about collecting garbage on the side of the highway.”

Of course, the type of work being required has not exactly been specified. Not only that, one must wonder – if out-of-work South Carolinians are not going to be doing traditional community service work, will they be forced to work for private companies? If so, who will these private companies be?

Obviously, the question of what kind of work citizens will be coerced into performing is a secondary issue. The real problem is that the government would be granted the authority to demand such a thing in the first place. Not only that, but while one may be tempted to argue that anyone who does not wish to volunteer would simply be able to refuse the unemployment money, the fact is that the money does not belong to the government – it belongs to those who have paid in contributions over their many years of working. It thus belongs to the people. The government, State or Federal, has absolutely no right to demand preconditions other than those specified in the original Unemployment Insurance agreement.

More importantly, Governments have no right under natural law to demand that its citizenry work for free under any circumstances. Indeed, a population that is forced or coerced to work with no compensation is not a free population at all – it is enslaved.

Nevertheless, Governor Nikki Haley has expressed support for the bill.

South Carolina is not the first state to attempt to implement such a fascist program, however. Florida tried to pass a bill last year that was similar to the one currently being discussed in South Carolina. Thankfully, the bill was killed when the Department of Labor informed lawmakers that their ridiculous plan would conflict with Federal law. 

Unfortunately, reactionary politics have surrounded unemployment benefits in South Carolina for some time. Remember, only a matter of months ago, Governor Nikki Haley made headlines all across the state when she claimed that anyone receiving State unemployment benefits should be forced to undergo mandatory drug testing before receiving their money. In order to back up her case, Haley attempted to use the Savannah River Site as a microcosm of the unemployment situation in South Carolina.

According to Haley, over half to a local government facility had failed the drug test and this was emblematic of those who are unemployed all over the state.

The problem was that this never actually happened. In fact, the claims couldn’t have been further from the truth.

As I wrote on November 29, 2011 regarding this incident,

Once one can get past the implications for civil liberties and privacy as well as the irony of a reactionary politician who constantly screams about ‘cutting spending’ suggesting that drug testing be implemented on a statewide scale, one should also be concerned about a Governor that simply makes up statistics as the basis for the justification of such a policy. Or, as she herself suggested, one that simply believes whatever she is told as long as it sounds good.

Haley was quickly forced to retract her wild claims when they were proven false.  In her defense, Haley stated, “I’ve never felt like I had to back up what people tell me. You assume you’re given good information. And now I’m learning through you guys that I have to be careful before I say something.”

Again, however, Florida is never to be outdone in the race toward tyranny. The state actually passed and enacted a law which required drug testing for welfare recipients, but the law was struck down by a Federal judge on Constitutional grounds. Texas also attempted to pass similar legislation but, due to concerns over cost, the bill was abandoned.

A U.S. House version of a bill dealing with payroll tax cuts and extensions to jobless benefits also contained provisions that would allow states to mandate drug testing. Those provisions, however, did not survive to the final version.

Santorum Brazenly Promotes More War and Destabilization

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

January 8, 2012

Just before the Iowa Caucus, I saw a graphic floating around the Internet which showed all of the Republican candidates together along with a tag that read, “If you supported Bachmann, then Romney, then Cain, then Gingrinch, and now you’re supporting Santorum – You might be getting spoonfed by the media.” I couldn’t agree more.

It is an unfortunate reality that those who pass for being informed in this country, meaning those who are strict adherents to the doctrines and dictates of political parties and the reporting of the mainstream media, are often much less informed than those who simply no longer care. At least those who no longer care are capable of recognizing there is something fundamentally flawed with both parties and that the entire election system is rigged.

I, myself, have known many Republicans (and Democrats when their elections roll around) who have explained to me which candidate they were supporting and why -- their candidates and reasoning ironically following the same order as the Internet picture I mentioned above and directly regurgitate the propaganda given to them by FOX, CNN, or whatever other bastion of disinformation they are being led by.

The most recent media darling, Rick Santorum, whose very questionable “surge” just two days before the Iowa caucus when no one had previously given him even a passing glance, is no exception. Therefore, for the benefit of the easily duped, it might prove useful to take a second look at Rick Santorum.

Let us begin by taking a brief look at Santorum’s lunatic foreign policy which consists largely of beating the drums of war with Iran and fear-mongering the American people, particularly the war-prone Republican base, with a typical but quite militant brand of Islamophobia which was previously reserved only for the raving radio broadcasts of Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.

Of course, there is virtually no difference between any of the Republican candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul), Obama, or Santorum when it comes to Iran. This much has been established time and time again.

However, the fact that a candidate would campaign with such open militancy in favor of war and conflict with yet another nation which has done nothing toward provoking war with the United States should be very concerning to say the least. Once, a pro-war candidate would at least have to veil his drum-beating under the pretense of using diplomacy first. Now, however, presidential candidates openly embrace war as almost the first act of international relations without batting an eye. Unfortunately, a large segment of the population is hearing this message and nodding their empty heads in agreement.

At this point, one can only guess whether or not Santorum truly believes in the raving war talk that he spews at every opportunity. His hatred could be of the organic variety, or he could simply be using the Iran war talk as a means to mobilize his base by invoking such a shrewd political gamble. Either way, Santorum is obviously a very dangerous person. If he truly believes his own rhetoric, then he is both idiotic and incapable of serving as President in any real sense. Indeed, if this is the case, then he would also be a prime candidate for the office of “puppet president” which is essentially the role that the winner of the next election will play regardless.

Nevertheless, if Santorum does not believe his own rhetoric and is using his incendiary statements as a political ploy, then he is nothing more than liar with psychopathic tendencies, a quality that would also make him a prime candidate for the position of “puppet president.”

In the end, Santorum’s own personal belief in his policies matters very little, because genuine belief in a foolhardy venture will not save a single life after one has embarked upon it.

The fact is that Santorum’s claims regarding Iran are patently false.  Take a moment to watch this video of Santorum debating Ron Paul regarding Paul’s rational policy of non-intervention in Iran as well other nations. In the debate, Santorum suggests that Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979, a relatively typical claim made by those beating the Iran war drums and by those individuals who have no knowledge of history. Thankfully, Paul points out that the conflict between the U.S. and Iran actually began in 1953, when the United States overthrew the democratically elected President and installed the Shah as part of Operation Ajax.

Santorum has long been a leading provocateur in regards to war with Iran. As far back as 2005, when he was a U.S. senator in Pennsylvania, Santorum sponsored a bill called the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which made U.S. policy officially that of sanctions against Iran, promoting regime change, and supporting insurgency groups inside the country with the purpose of overthrowing the Iranian government yet again. This act, which passed and became law in 2006, was criticized by Congressman Dennis Kucinich on the floor of the House as “nothing more than a stepping-stone to war.”

Of course, Kucinich was absolutely correct in this assertion. However, many, especially the Iranians, might consider the open funding of destabilization efforts to be more than just a stepping-stone.  There are many who would suggest that it is actually an overt act of war.

Ironically, in its attempt to destabilize Iran, the US government has been recruiting members of terrorist organizations like the MEK and creating spin-off groups from these organizations for different purposes in the region.  The MEK was the organization involved in the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, one of the incidents that Santorum has been so adamant about during his campaign.

Regardless of his past, Santorum has continued his sabre-rattling against Iran in recent appearances on mainstream media outlets, campaign stops, and political debates. He has openly advocated bombing Iran if the nation did not cave in to his unreasonable demands should he become president. Santorum has also declared his undying support for Israel in the event that it should attack Iran (or be attacked itself).

Santorum’s hatred is not isolated to Iran, however. In 2003, Santorum sponsored another bill entitled, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which was similar in scope to the Iran Freedom and Support Act in that it involved the implementation of economic sanctions against Syria for its alleged “support for terrorism” and attempt to “develop weapons of mass destruction.” If all of this sounds very familiar, that’s because it is. Erroneous claims and imperialist legislation like these preceded the invasion of Iraq years ago.

Santorum has since been very vocal in his calls for the resignation of Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, and has remained in support of the U.S. destabilization efforts ongoing today.

Santorum was also supportive of the horrific and devastating destabilization and destruction of Libya, criticizing Obama for not doing more than he was already doing with NATO forces to eradicate the living standards of the Libyan people and subsequently install a fundamentalist regime based on Sharia law.

Obviously, the senator was also in favor of the Iraq war, even going so far as to appear on national television and suggest that weapons of mass destruction were found Iraq. For all the hype, however, it turns out Santorum was citing a report that described the recovery of degraded, pre-1991 weapons that were examined and clearly dismissed as anything that wasn’t already declared by the Iraqi government. Even the Bush administration didn’t grasp on to that straw.   

Indeed, Santorum does not seem to be above suggesting military conflict with almost any nation for almost any reason with Israel being the lone exception.  Over the last ten years, Santorum has supported physical conflict with virtually every nation with which the United States has developed tensions.

With his enthusiastic support of the global war on terror, it is obvious that the American people are not beyond the scope of Santorum’s war-making ambitions either, particularly after the signing of the NDAA which gives the military the right to detain American citizens indefinitely with no due process of law and defines the Homeland (formerly known as America) to be a battlefield.

With such a minimalist track record of intellectual capabilities, as well as a consistent track record of warmongering, there is little reason that Santorum should be surging in the polls. Nor is there any legitimate reason that he should even be considered by the American voter.

Fluoride Removal From Water Supply Gaining Momentum for 2012

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

January 3, 2011

 

In our current times, good news is often hard to come by. In a climate where war with Syria and Iran looms on the horizon, the world economic depression worsens with each passing day, and civil liberties have become something only spoken of in the past tense, there is hardly any sunshine to be found amongst the dark clouds of a gathering tyranny.

However, a recent decision by the Pinellas County Council provides hope not just of a lonely ray of light, it might also provide anti-fluoride activists with enough incentive and inspiration to take up their cause within their own communities all across the country, sparking a nationwide and, eventually, worldwide de-fluoridation campaign of epic proportions.

The decision, made by a narrow 4-3 vote, was to end fluoridation of the County’s water supply on December 31, 2011. County Commissioner’s Nancy Bostock, Neil Brickfield, John Morroni, and Norm Roche were the four members courageous enough to vote “yes” to end the pollution of Pinellas County water supply, while Commissioners Susan Latvala, Karen Seel, and Ken Welch voted to uphold the status quo.

The battle to end the practice of water fluoridation in Pinellas County ended up being a very controversial and bitter debate with the issue receiving national media coverage. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), most mainstream media outlets reported the debate in a very one-sided and biased manner, with many simply distorting the facts about the arguments made as well as the people making them. 

 

For instance, NPR’s coverage insinuated that those opposed to water fluoridation were of an extreme right-wing branch of the TEA party (as if that would automatically discount the evidence), ignoring the many other individuals opposed to dumping toxic waste into the county’s water supply. NPR, of course, also suggested that the evidence for fluoride safety and effectiveness was overwhelming, a viewpoint which was typical of other mainstream outlets including editorials published in the Tampa Bay Times.

All of these outlets tended to ignore educated individuals such as Dr. Paul Connett, who has reviewed the science and research surrounding fluoride and drinking water fluoridation and who has since been active in assisting communities in their effort to remove the toxic chemical compound from their water supplies.

Obviously, fluoride is neither safe nor effective as mainstream media outlets, dentists, and fluoride-proponents claim. In fact, the side effects related to fluoride read like a laundry list of health problems from cancer, dental and skeletal fluorosis, bone fracture, gastrointestinal problems, thyroid damage, allergic reactions, hypersensitivity, kidney damage, reduced IQ , and brain damage.

Not only that, but fluoride is not even successful at preventing tooth decay. Most studies show drastically low levels of success, if any at all. Even in these instances where fluoride shows a small amount of success in preventing tooth decay, it must be applied topically, not ingested in drinking water. As I mention in my book, Seven Real Conspiracies, drinking fluoride to protect your teeth is essentially the same as drinking sun block to prevent skin cancer.

Nevertheless, as expected, fluoride advocates put up a bitter fight in defense of water fluoridation, even trying to put the issue up for county-wide referendum after the commissioners had voted against adding the substance to the water supply in an obvious attempt to rely on the ignorance of the general public.

Fortunately, that effort failed along with the effort to spend twice as much money by creating a mobile fluoride van that would treat children in poor communities. The cost of annual fluoridation is estimated at $205,000 in Pinellas County, while the mobile van aimed at the establishment's favorite targets (poor children) would cost around $532,000 a year; well over double what fluoridation itself cost. Thankfully for everyone involved, this lunacy was abandoned relatively quickly.

It should be pointed out, however, that even $205,000 is large amount of money to be wasted on such faulty science, especially in an economy like the one in which we find ourselves today. The financial argument, in and of itself, might likely be a persuasive one when an individual speaks in front of his County Council about halting fluoridation.

Of course, it should also be mentioned that Pinellas County is not the only success story to be found regarding the de-fluoridation of water supplies.

Recently, Hartford Township in Livingston County in Michigan voted to immediately end the practice of adding fluoride to the water supply after Trustee Glenn Harper brought the issue to the board. The vote in this case was 5-2.

Pinellas County and Hartford Township are not alone in their decision to remove fluoride from their water supply. Many other cities, counties, and townships (close to 200 of them) have decided to do the same over the last few years due to the efforts of educated citizens, determined activists, and organizations like Fluoride Action Network, WaterWatch of Utah, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, and National Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, among others.

The anti-fluoride movement is on the rise, and there are many other communities who are beginning the fight against a practice that has been entrenched in our culture for far too long. If your community is currently being fluoridated, I encourage you to find an organization or group of individuals dedicated to reversing this practice. If no such organization exists, you can always start one yourself. Regardless, it is important for you to get involved in your community and agitate for safe drinking water and personal choice.