DHS’s “See Something Say Something” Program at Walmart claims their first victim… because he was on his cell phone
“We don’t take these things lightly,” Hughes said, “especially nowadays.”
KPD responded to control the scene and ordered a lockdown of the store both to keep shoppers in and prevent the individual from entering the store.
After identifying the vehicle and person in question, Hughes said a decision was made on the scene for police to attempt contact. They were able to communicate with him and he voluntarily exited the vehicle. No weapon was found and the individual was taken into custody without incident less than 20 minutes after police arrived on scene.
The individual was talking on a cell phone at the time of the incident. It’s likely that is the object the passerby identified as a gun.
Hughes said no crime was committed and no additional information, including the person’s name, would be released.
Wal-Mart security offered full cooperation, Hughes said. The Adair County Sheriff’s Office also responded and offered assistance, but Hughes said the incident was resolved prior to their active involvement.
(LATimes) To help absent-minded shoppers searching for ‘lost’ automobiles, Santa Monica Place installs the nation’s first camera-based ‘Find Your Car’ system. Despite a few bugs, the technology is gaining fans — but there are privacy concerns. Read more
This is ‘our’ way… by our ‘laws’…
On October 18th, 1929, a landmark decision changed the face of Canadian politics. Women were declared “persons” under the law and were granted the right to be appointed to the Senate. Their victory was the result of an arduous struggle by five Alberta women.
Alberta’s Famous Five – Henrietta Muir Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Emily Murphy, and Irene Parlby – helped guarantee that women are represented in all levels of Canadian politics.
By 1929, Alberta’s women had secured many of the liberties commonly withheld because of gender, but surprisingly, women could not be appointed to the Senate because The British North America (BNA) Act declared, “women are persons in matters of pain and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges.”
Emily Murphy selected four prominent supporters of social reform: Henrietta Muir Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, and Irene Parlby to initiate an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to make changes to The BNA Act. The Famous Five asked the question “does the word ‘person’ in Section 24 of The British North America Act include female persons?”
The disappointing decision from the Supreme Court stated that individuals must be “fit and qualified” to be appointed to a public office and therefore only men were eligible. Relentless in their quest for reform, the Famous Five approached the Privy Council of England – at that time Canada’s highest court of appeal. On October 18, 1929, the Lord Chancellor of the Privy Council declared, “women are eligible to be summoned and may become Members of the Senate of Canada.”
Okay… Now, this is the First People’s Way…
The Legends are as old and as numerous as the Tribes you could count! …
The Women were the Life-Givers, therefore the closest to Mother Earth.
The Women have always been superior to the Men, in intellect, in Wisdom, and in intuition.
No decisions in any Tribe was made without the consent and absolute approval of the Women, by the Women.
Thw Women owned the lodges, the Women (0wned) the War Councils.
Everything was in perfect order.
Men knew their place in this World of Women, a Matriarchal Society, one with Honor.
Iroquois Women, for example, were pronounced Iroquois upon their birth.
Iroquois Men world have to wait until the age of 15 to even be asked if they understand the Great Law.
Women were ‘persons’ long before Men were ever able to be…
In fact, is it not ‘thanks to them’ that we even exist??
No, in fact, you see, all of this has to go…
There is no money to be made in a ‘Woman’s World’…
We must make ‘the whole world England’… (1700s)
Little do they know
that by killing the Woman in us all, the feminine…
They are killing the very fabric of all Culture…
… Or are they doing THAT on purpose, too??
The Canadian government developed Indian Residential Schools in the 1800s to assimilate Aboriginal peoples and, according to Canada’s first prime minister, John A. MacDonald, get rid of the “Indian problem.” So, not only was the state-legislated, genocidal law implemented by the church, … in other words, children, ages ranging from 4 or 5 years old, were taken away from their Indian families, most times by force, to be put in these ‘schools’ and have their Culture stripped from them forever, That was the plan, and precisely the one that gave Hitler the idea for his undesirables, as he studies his enemies, ‘canada’ and the ‘united’ states. But the negative impact of nearly 100 years of residential schooling on Aboriginal children and, through them, on Aboriginal communities was profound. Since the late 1990′s, residential school survivors have filed approximately 13,000 lawsuits against the government claiming sexual and physical abuse at the hands of the personel hired by the government and churches to run the schools. I guess we all have our heads in the sand on this one…
1620: a Franciscan order opened the first boarding school at Notre Dame des Abeges near Quebec City [closed 1629]
1636: Jesuits opened boarding school
1668: Ursuline nuns opened a boarding school for girls
1680: Boarding school failed
1763: End of Seven Years War [British conquer French, Algonquins lose French as allies]
1763: Royal Proclamation [drew a line separating Indian tribal lands from those forming part of the colonies, and initiated an orderly process whereby Indian land could be purchased for settlement or development. The Crown established itself as the Indian protector.]
1787: New England Company opened the Sussex Vale school in New Brunswick
1790s: American-based Methodist Episcopal church first entered Upper Canada
1812: War of 1812 and Tecumseh’s resistance [end of Aboriginal people as military allies and as a military threat]
1821: Committee on Indian Affairs formed by Methodist preachers from the church’s Genesee Conference to which Upper Canada belonged as a district. Most of the attendees did not believe that “Indians” could be Christianized.
1823: Peter Jones (Mississauga First Nations) converts to Methodist Church.
1826: Egerton Ryerson first ordained Methodist missionary to the Credit River Indians
1820s: Flood of British settlers began in Upper Canada [Between 1813-1828, York's (Toronto) population nearly tripled to over 2,000, by the 1850's, the population soared to 40,000]
1829: Mohawk Institute established at Six Nations by the New England Company
1830: Shift of jurisdiction over Aboriginal affairs from military to civilian authorities
1830s: Removal Policies in U.S. and Canada
1845: Government report to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada recommends that Indian boarding schools be set up
1846: Orillia Conference (Ontario)
1847: Indian Affairs consults with Rev. Egerton Ryerson on setting up Indian Industrial Schools
1857: Gradual Civilization Act passed [main focus became education as part of assimilation]
1867: British North America Act [Legislation was passed under the act that abolished traditional Aboriginal government]
1870s: Between 1871 and 1887 the government concluded seven “numbered treaties” in the West that established a basis for Indian Policy on the prairies. Aboriginal people wanted to secure their livelihood and lands before settlers arrived
1876: Canada adapted the Indian Act which gave the DIA the power exercise virtually complete control over the personal, political, social and economic life of Aboriginal people
1879: Disappearance of buffalo
1879: Under John A. Macdonald’s government:Regina MP Nicholas Flood Davin recommend removing Indian children from their “evil surroundings”. The US Industrial Schools of the United States were modeled after a prison commanded by Lt. Richard Henry Pratt, whose motto was, “the only good Indian is a dead Indian” … “Kill the Indian in him and save the man”
1880s: Churches started to build schools across Canada
1884: Sir John A. McDonald introduces a bill to Parliament. The 3rd clause criminalizes the potlach [part of religious/cultural/political ceremonies] as a misdemeanor.
1885: Indian Pass System [need a pass to leave or enter a reservation]
1885: Riel Rebellion in Manitoba [grievances started in 1869: change in the transfer of Hudson Bay lands to the Dominion]: Other Cree chiefs who fought largely because the government had failed to live up to its treaty promises were hanged with Riel
1889: Indian Affairs department held firm to Davin’s industrial model
1892: Per Capita Grant for Aboriginal students [treaty requirements]
1896: the Canadian government funded 45 church-run residential schools across Canada
1904: The DIA issued two policies in consideration of western Canada to bring about quicker Indian assimilation which consisted of suppressing savage customs and improving Indian education and to reduce Indian reserves for the benefit of the expected setters [First Nations were pressured to give up portions of their reserves]
1907: Montreal Star and Saturday Night reports on medical inspection of the schools
1907: Indian Affairs Chief Medical Officer, Dr. P.H. Bryce, submits the Bryce Report
1912: 3,904 aboriginal children in residential/industrial schools
1920: Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs (1913-1932), recommends Bill 14 which restated the government? right to compel attendance at Indian Residential Schools
“I want to get rid of the Indian problem. I do not think as a matter of fact, that this country ought to continuously protect a class of people who are able to stand alone. That is my whole point. Our Object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian department and that is the whole object of this Bill. [Education is in the forefront of their requirements now.]”
1930: 75% of the all Aboriginal children between the ages of 7-15 in residential schools
1932: 8,213 aboriginal children in residential/industrial schools
1938: The per capita grant issued for Aboriginal students was $180 [similar institution for non-Aboriginal in US and Manitoba were $294 to $642]
1943: Recommendation made to integrate Aboriginal students in provincial schools
1945: 9,149 registered with only slightly over 100 students in grades over Grade 8
1946-48: A special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons recommended that First Nation Children be educated in mainstream schools wherever and whenever possible.
By 1948: 60% of Indian school population was enrolled in federal schools. But in 1969, 60% were in provincial schools. The number was reduced from 72 schools with 9368 to 52 schools with 7704.
1949: Canada signed the United Nations Genocide Convention on Nov. 28th and adopted it by a unanimous vote in Parliament on Nov. 21, 1952. Residential Schools continued to operate for some 30 years after Canada signed the Convention.
Article 2: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
1951: Half-day system of school abandoned
1951: Recommendation that pedagogy be changed to one that would be more familiar to the children, but this was not acted upon by the government.
1956: Government began to look for parental input into education [parents themselves who had gone through the residential schools and were dysfunctional as a result]
By 1959: Number of Grade 9 – 13 has increased from 0 to 2144, in the next decade it rose 6834
1969: Federal government completely took over management or closed all of the United Church-related schools
1970s: Schooling became the “battleground” for First Nations self government concerns.
1970: Blue Quills Residential School in northern Alberta became the first school to come under control of a First nation.
1972: National Indian Brotherhood of Canada called for an end to federal control of First nation schooling. (18) the National Indian Brotherhood (now the Assembly of First Nations) presented the government with its paper entitled Indian Control of Indian Education.
1983: Last residential school in Canada was closed.
1980s: Stories of the victimization of Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal residential school students began to surface.
1986: Apology made to Native Congregations by General Council
1988: Assembly of First Nations published another report, recommending still greater control of their children’s education. Tradition and Education: Towards a Vision of Our Future called for the transfer of federal and provincial jurisdiction over First Nations education to First Nations control.
1992-3: Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council in BC conducted a research study of the effects of residential schooling on their members. They identified a range of physical, sexual and psychological abuses.
1995: First Nations managed over 80 percent of the department’s education budget and 98 percent of on-reserve schools were under First Nations control.
Prepared by Lynn Jondreville (Trinity-St. Paul’s United Church) and Chang Lee (Marsville and Mimosa Pastoral Charge)
(Houston Press) – Another international conflict, another horrific taxpayer-funded sex scandal for DynCorp, the private security contractor tasked with training the Afghan police.
While the company is officially based in the DC area, most of its business is managed on a satellite campus at Alliance Airport north of Fort Worth. And if one of the diplomatic cables from the WikiLeaks archive is to be believed, boy howdy, are their doings in Afghanistan shady.
The Afghanistan cable (dated June 24, 2009) discusses a meeting between Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar and US assistant ambassador Joseph Mussomeli. Prime among Atmar’s concerns was a party partially thrown by DynCorp for Afghan police recruits in Kunduz Province.
Many of DynCorp’s employees are ex-Green Berets and veterans of other elite units, and the company was commissioned by the US government to provide training for the Afghani police. According to most reports, over 95 percent of its $2 billion annual revenue comes from US taxpayers.
And in Kunduz province, according to the leaked cable, that money was flowing to drug dealers and pimps. Pimps of children, to be more precise. (The exact type of drug was never specified.)
(Ofra Ben Artzi) On 15 November 2010 the IDF spokesman issued the following news flash: “During the night IDF forces in the Judea and Samaria area and in the Jordan Valley arrested 11 wanted persons.” A routine announcement that is published nearly every morning, but it does not receive much attention, because whom does it interest? And if among those 11 wanted persons there were some children who were pulled from their beds in the middle of their dreams at midnight, seized by soldiers of an elite brigade in front of their terrified parents; handcuffed, blindfolded and then put into a military vehicle that took them to an ISA (Shin Bet) interrogation facility, does anybody really care?
I set out with members of Machsom Watch to the “Ofer” military court to which those children are taken after they have been interrogated without any adult accompaniment. Two weeks ago two defendants’ benches looked like a primary school class, but here the women are not mothers or teachers, but the judge and the prosecutor. They sit in groups to the right of the judge, wearing the brown uniforms of adult security prisoners, their legs shackled. It is impossible to get used to the sight of child prisoners. The heart skips a beat and shame comes flooding in, because they are sitting there in my name and my tax money pays for their uniforms,finances the diligent judge and prosecutor, and even the air conditioning in the courtroom.
In recent weeks the number of children arrested has increased dramatically. One defense attorney estimated that on the morning of 25 October 2010, two school classes appeared on the defendants’ bench – about fifty children and youths. Statistics from Palestinian and Israeli organizations show that at any given time the Ofer prison is populated by at least 300 Palestinian minors. This week a lawyer told us that recently most of the cases heard at the Ofer military court have been of minors. After hundreds of hours of observing judicial proceedings and conversations with families and lawyers I believe that what we are confronted with here is the terrible phenomenon of a hunt – there is no other word – a mass hunt of Palestinian children.
This is how it works: army jeeps enter a village and station themselves beside a school. They create deliberate and planned friction with the pupils. Stones are thrown, and then, in the dead of night, several children receive visits from soldiers of the elite unit and are arrested. Their detention ends with a plea-bargain in which the minor confesses to a small infraction in order to save himself time in jail and his family money, because as a Palestinian his chances of getting bail are virtually zero even if the accusation is of throwing stones. Therefore he will not undergo a trial to prove his innocence. The system takes full advantage of that. The personal consequence is a criminal record. The cumulative general consequence is thousands of Palestinian children and youths with criminal backgrounds. In contrast, Jewish minors who were convicted of crimes related to the anti-Disengagement protests received a blanket amnesty about a year ago under a special law that was passed for them in the Knesset. About 400 files were closed and their criminal records were erased.
Since the West Bank was occupied in 1967, Palestinian minors have been put on trial in military courts. Only recently has an order been issued to establish a military court for youth, and new orders have been issued relating to the procedures for putting minors on trial in that court. This is a cosmetic measure that does not give them the special protections that Israeli children – including those who live in the West Bank – receive. In 1991 Israel ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to which “a child is defined as a human being under the age of eighteen.” Apparently Palestinian children are super-human beings, maybe Supermen, because according to Israeli security legislation they reach adulthood at age sixteen. This is a violation of an international convention, an ongoing injustice and racial discrimination. And in fact, last June the Civil Rights Association and the Yesh Din organization asked the Military Advocate-General to take action to modify the law.
When I sit like this in the court of the military judge Sharon Rivlin-Ahai who has been appointed to rule on the cases of minors at the “Ofer” military court on Mondays and Thursdays, in addition to the pain and the shame, I am troubled by the question: why does the strongest army in the Middle East preoccupy itself with Palestinian children and youth to such a degree and with such devotion? Why do they dedicate so many resources and so much thought to them? What do they gain from this?
My conclusion from the accumulated experience of my group is clear and very distressing. As I see it, those who so preoccupy themselves with the young generation of Palestinians do not believe in a political solution. We have here a well-planned measure that constitutes a stage in a general Israeli policy that has the objective of continuing to rule over the Palestinians for the foreseeable future. The policy of criminalizing thousands of minors and turning some of them into collaborators and incriminators fragments and destroys the next generation. This preliminary treatment “sears the consciousness” of the young generation and conditions them to face adult life under Occupation, not with dignity in their own state.
I assume that this policy is competently managed by teams of experts and consultants from various fields who are probably aided by professional literature that is rich in reference notes and bibliographies.
Will one of the senior learned figures who implement this criminal policy break the silence one day?
The author is a member of the Machsom Watch organization
Report claims Israel discriminates against Muslims, Reform Jews, Christians, women and Bedouin.
(VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH) Two West Deer women claim they were beaten by a West Deer police officer in August 2009, according to a federal lawsuit filed Friday.
Cheryl Albinger, 44, of Reaghard Drive alleges she and her daughter, then 17-year-old Pamela Albinger, were attacked “without justification” by West Deer part-time police Officer Jesse Haschak.
The Albingers further allege several West Deer and Indiana Township officers observed the attack and did not intervene.
“They suffered severe lacerations, abrasions and other injuries,” said Scott Westcott, the Albingers’ attorney. “They were punched, beaten and dragged across the roadway.”
In addition to Haschak, the lawsuit names the townships, West Deer police Chief Jonathan Lape and Officers Dean Krakowiak, Tom Hart and Mike Shurina; Indiana Chief Robert Wilson and Officer Michael Dortenzo as defendants. The suit claims the townships, Lape and Wilson did not properly train the policemen.
Lape, Wilson, West Deer Manager Dan Mator and Indiana Manager Dan Anderson could not be reached for comment on Friday.
Westcott said Haschak resigned from the West Deer police department on Aug. 26, 2009 — two weeks after the incident with the Albingers. A home phone number for Haschak could not be located.
According to the lawsuit, Cheryl Albinger had just picked up her daughter from an ex-boyfriend’s West Deer house on Aug. 8, 2009, when she saw Haschak’s oncoming police car on East Union Road.
Since the daughter allegedly was assaulted by the unidentified boyfriend, Cheryl Albinger signaled to Haschak by flashing her car lights.
The Albingers allege Haschak “immediately became belligerent” and “violently removed” Pamela from her mother’s car. Haschak allegedly struck Pamela several times, even after she was handcuffed.
When Cheryl Albinger tried to intervene, Haschak reportedly “turned his assault upon the mother,” according to the lawsuit.
During the struggle, officers Hart, Krakowiak, Shurina and Dortenzo reportedly arrived and did not prevent the “ongoing assaultive behavior,” the Albingers claim.
As a result of the altercation, Cheryl Albinger was charged with three counts each of aggravated assault and harassment and one count each of disorderly conduct, obstruction of the administration of law and resisting arrest. The lawsuit indicates Pamela Albinger was not charged with a crime.
Two assault charges and one count of harassment were withdrawn during Albinger’s preliminary hearing, court records show. She was found not guilty of the remaining charges during a nonjury trial in September 2010.
“All of the charges were frivolous,” Westcott said.
The Albingers’ suit claims they incurred medical expenses, loss of wages and emotional distress as a result of their injuries. They also claim the alleged assault violated their civil rights and “was tantamount to gross negligence, false imprisonment, and … deliberate indifference and/or conscious shocking behavior.”
The women are seeking damages in excess of $75,000.
(JOHN ROACH) In an effort to reassure skittish fliers, the Transportation Security Administration says its body-scan images “cannot” be stored, transmitted, or printed — unlike the tens of thousands of images that were stored in a machine operated by the U.S. Marshals Service. But just how ironclad can that kind of denial ever be?
The TSA acknowledges that this sort of thing is possible when the machines are in test mode. What’s more, there’s no magic technology that would keep a truly dedicated (and twisted) screener from smuggling out a cell phone picture of a screen shot showing you in all your glory, passing through airport security.
Instead, the TSA relies on a policy that bans cell phones and cameras in the screening area. “Our officers adhere to the highest professional standards, so we are confident our policy is followed,” Lauren Gaches, a TSA spokeswoman, told me.
These reassurances fail to appease privacy rights advocates. Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told me this a “double standard.”
He noted that airplane passengers aren’t allowed to bring explosives on the plane, but they are subjected to body scans and enhanced pat-downs on the way to catch their flight — just in case they try to skirt that policy. What’s to prevent a TSA employee from skirting the cell phone policy?
Nor is it clear what keeps the machines locked out of test mode when they’re at the airport. Gaches confirmed that the machines — referred to as Advanced Imaging Technology, or AIT in TSA jargon – can store, export, and print images in test mode, but insisted that this functionality is “disabled prior to arrival at the airport.”
Rotenberg isn’t so sure this will keep the critics at bay. ”This is all in software, and a TSA official with a proper account password can enable the recording and storage of images in every single airport in the United States,” he said. “There is nothing stopping the TSA from doing that.”
EPIC is also concerned that USB drives, hard disk drives or the networking capabilities of the machines could be exploited to store images on an unauthorized device, though the TSA says these channels “are for limited data transfer only — an officer’s user ID, log-in and log-out time, and statistical data.”
Rotenberg’s organization wants the scanning program suspended and further deployment of the technology delayed until privacy and security issues are identified and resolved.
“The TSA has crossed a line,” Rotenberg said.
What do you think? Are you reassured by the TSA’s statement that it “has not, will not … and cannot store images of passengers”?