Saturday, April 14, 2007

Is Orwell Dead? Big Brother Isn't! (Part 1)


MicroChip or Radio Frequency Identification Chip (RFID)The VeriChip is a glass encapsulated Radio Frequency Identification tag that is injected into the flesh to uniquely number and identify people. The tag can be read silently and invisibly by radio waves from up to a foot or more away, right through clothing. The highly controversial device is also being marketed as a way to access secure areas, link to medical records, and serve as a payment device when associated with a credit card.

RFID Implants Found to Cause Cancer Tumors
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
by: David Gutierrez
Small electronic chips approved by the FDA for implanting beneath human skin have been linked to cancer in laboratory animals, according to a research review conducted by the Associated Press.
The radio frequency identification (RFID) chips are made by VeriChip Corp. They are designed to carry a serial number, which can be read when scanned by anyone with an RFID sensor. Medical workers can then use that number to access a patient's medical history from a web site maintained by the corporation, provided they have paid the annual access fee.
The chips, which are approximately twice the size of a grain of rice, were approved by the FDA for human implantation in 2005. But the Associated Press has revealed that as early as 1996, researchers had uncovered a link between the devices and cancer. Rodents implanted with the chips were found to develop malignant tumors beneath the skin, usually surrounding the devices. The rates were high enough -- as high as 10 percent of animals implanted, in a 1998 study -- to raise warning bells with the researchers, who reported their concern in peer-reviewed journals.
None of the studies were looking for carcinogenic effects from the RFID tags, but in each case the researchers ruled out other possible causes. Although there was no non-implanted control group in many of the studies, the evidence is strong enough to convince many researchers that more research is needed before any more human implantation takes place.
Consumer Watchdogs Demand Recall of Spychipped Credit Cards:
Consumer watchdog group CASPIAN is demanding a recall of millions of RFID-equipped contactless credit cards in light of serious security flaws reported today in the New York Times. The paper reports that a team of security researchers has found that virtually every one of these cards tested is vulnerable to unauthorized charges and puts consumers at risk for identity theft.
Wisconsin Bans Forced Human RFID Chipping - Groundbreaking Law Spotlights Opposition to VeriChip: Civil libertarians cheered yesterday upon news that Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle signed a law making it a crime to require an individual to be implanted with a microchip.
North Dakota bans forced RFID chipping: "Technology is a wonderful thing," said North Dakota state Sen. Dick Dever, one of the co-sponsors of the bill. "It creates all kinds of opportunities. It also brings with it the possibility for abuse. This bill to prevent the implantation of RFID chips in an individual against their will is to protect people from the abuse of that technology.
Japan: Schoolkids to be tagged with RFID chips - Japanese authorities decide tracking is best way to protect kids:,39042972,39186467,00.htm The rights and wrongs of RFID-chipping human beings have been debated since the tracking tags reached the technological mainstream. Now, school authorities in the Japanese city of Osaka have decided the benefits outweigh the disadvantages and will now be chipping children in one primary school. Employees get microchip implants - Company requires controversial device for certain workers: The highly controversial device is being marketed as a way to access secure areas, link to medical records and make purchases like a credit card.
Frequently Asked Questions About RFID: Note that at a June 2003 RFID conference in Chicago, Alien Technology displayed a Wal-Mart Athletic Works® running shoe with an Alien RFID tag inserted under the insole. Their stated reason for wanting to chip shoes was to keep shoe sizes together and match pairs. In our opinion, pervasive RFID chipping of shoes will become a frightening reality unless we tell companies that we will not buy products with chips!
Is RFID tracking you? By Daniel Sieberg: Radio frequency identification has been heralded as a breakthrough in tracking technology, and denounced as the next Big Brother surveillance tool. "At least 30 million people carry an RFID tag on them every day in their car keys or in their access control card to get into their office building or to buy gas or to pay a toll," wrote RFID Journal's Roberti.
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Systems: RFID systems have gained popularity, and notoriety, in recent years. A driving force behind the rapid development of RFID technology has been the rise of pervasive commerce, sometimes dubbed the quiet revolution. Pervasive commerce uses technologies such as tracking devices and smart labels embedded with transmitting sensors and intelligent readers to convey information about key areas where consumers live and work to data processing systems.
Microchipping of the Population - The Mark of the Beast Could Be the Bio-Chip Implant "VeryPay" Leading to a Cashless, Checkless Society: There are many links to explore and some good articles to read. Certainly food for thought.
Microchipping of Alzheimer's patients begins in Florida: The Delray Beach, Fla.-based company VeriChip Corp. has announced plans to implant 200 Alzheimer's patients in Palm Beach County with radio-frequency identification chips as part of a pilot study to test the new technology.The VeriMed microchip is approximately the size of a grain of rice and contains a 16-digit patient identification number, which is available to anyone who scans the device with the right technology. This number can then be entered into a database to retrieve a patient's medical information. The FDA has approved the chip for human implantation.
Police State
We are already a police state. Don't believe me? Watch a video entitled "Police State in Florida" at and see what you think.
Articles and Links: The Police State Road Map, March 2005 edition. Revised and updated. Read free on-line or download. Lots of information.
Police State USA: A police state exists when federal and state political and police mechanisms: Shut down media coverage after they steal an election; serve the central government instead of serving the citizens; enforce the policies of the central government instead of responding primarily to criminal misdeeds; and spy on and intimidate citizens. All these conditions now exist in the United States! Don't be afraid to check this site out.
Is America a Police State? By Congressman Ron Paul, 2002: Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Thought Police - Big Brother may be watching what you read: According to a University of Illinois study of 1,020 libraries conducted during the first two months of 2002, government sources asked 85 university and public libraries -- 8.3 percent of those queried -- for information on patrons following the attacks.
FBI shuts down 20 antiwar web sites: an unprecedented act of Internet censorship: This intervention by American police to shut down antiwar web sites has been widely reported in Europe, with accounts carried in the British Guardian and Independent and by the French news agency Agence France-Presse, among others. But nothing has appeared as yet in the American mass media.

Federally Funded Boffins Want To Scrap The Internet: Researchers funded by the federal government want to shut down the internet and start over, citing the fact that at the moment there are loopholes in the system whereby users cannot be tracked and traced all the time. Make no mistake, the internet, one of the greatest outposts of free speech ever created is under constant attack by powerful people who cannot operate within a society where information flows freely and unhindered.
Harper's Magazine: We Now Live in a Fascist State: It is not every day that the editor of a respected national magazine publishes an essay claiming that America is not on the road to becoming, but ALREADY IS, a fascist state.... or words to that affect.
Russia is a Police State - Protesters turn on Putin:,,2057413,00.html 2,000 demonstrators defy Kremlin to march in Moscow's streets as opposition leader Garry Kasparov is arrested.


Fascist America in 10 easy steps:,,2064157,00.html From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all.
Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1, 2008 3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army
By Gina Cavallaro - Staff writerPosted : Monday Sep 8, 2008 6:15:06 EDT
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.
Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.
Rocco Galati on Canada's tendency towards a Police State Agenda in anti Terrorism laws: If anyone has any doubts about our Western democracies by now have got a tendency towards becoming police states, read this transcript from a talk by constitutional lawyer Galati, and you will see that the new "anti-terrorist" laws have already enacted a tendency towards removal of our basic rights to oppose government policy. The extent to which they are used and abused remains to be seen, but as this one lawyer asserts, the new laws seem have an aim to silence a lot of effective dissent.
LA officers fired 240 "nonlethal" rounds at children, babies and beating up the media: Police began forcing everyone out of the park. "They were pushing children, elderly, mothers with their babies and beating up on the media," Sanbrano said. Police Chief William J. Bratton on Wednesday promised an investigation into the conduct of police who dispersed an immigration rally, after videos captured officers using force with reporters and firing rubber bullets into crowds.
Reporter Arrested on Orders of Giuliani Press Secretary Charged with Criminal Trespass Despite Protest of CNN Staff and Official Event Press Credentials at GOP Debate in New Hampshire:
Freelance reporter Matt Lepacek, reporting for, was arrested for asking a question to one of Giuliani's staff members in a press conference. The press secretary identified the New York based reporter as having previously asked Giuliani about his prior knowledge of WTC building collapses and ordered New Hampshire state police to arrest him.
Bush administration pushes for expansion and deepening of police state: “American fascism is something different now. It’s not just private, elite control over the legal system, nor private evasion of the rule of law. It’s a crisis-induced transition from a society with a deeply compromised legal system to a society where force and surveillance completely supplant the system.”

Here's a short article worth reading: NSA 'spy room' at AT&T exposed
Agency can spy on email and web use with impunity
Iain Thomson,, 13 Jun 2007
Documents obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) claim to show that US telco AT&T allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) to set up a 'secret room' in its offices to monitor internet traffic. The documents were handed over as part of an EFF legal case against AT&T for alleged violation of user privacy. The US government has asked the courts to dismiss the case, claiming that the lawsuit could expose state secrets. "The district court rejected the government's attempt to sweep this case under the rug," said EFF senior staff attorney Kurt Opsahl. "This country has a long tradition of open court proceedings, and we are pleased that, as we present our case to the Court of Appeals, the millions of affected AT&T customers will be able to see our arguments and evidence and judge for themselves." The room, described as secret and secure, houses surveillance equipment used to spy on AT&T customers. Investigations could include web use, email and voice communications. "This is critical evidence supporting our claim that AT&T is cooperating with the NSA in the illegal dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans," said EFF legal director Cindy Cohn. "This surveillance is under debate in Congress and across the nation, as well as in the courts. "The public has a right to see these important documents, the declarations from our witnesses and our legal arguments, and we are very pleased to release them."
Blair Calls For Chinese Style Net Controls In the UK: Blair complained that the media was too "feral" (i.e. not tamed by the government) and referring to online journalism stated: "In fact, the new forms can be even more pernicious, less balanced, more intent on the latest conspiracy theory multiplied by five."
Huge majority say civil liberty curbs a 'price worth paying' to fight terror: Research finds most support compulsory ID cards, with phone tapping, curfews and tagging for suspects:,,1997283,00.html The survey found seven in every 10 people think compulsory identity cards for all adults would be "a price worth paying" to reduce the threat of terrorism. Eight in 10 say the authorities should be able to tap the phones of people suspected of involvement in terrorism, open their mail and impose electronic tagging or home curfews. The findings come from the annual British Social Attitudes survey, based on interviews with a sample of 3,000 adults by the National Centre for Social Research.
Stop the Big Brother State:

Law & Justice
Justice Dept. moves to thwart Congress's CIA inquiries
By Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times December 15, 2007 WASHINGTON - The Justice Department yesterday moved to consolidate control over the investigation into the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes, saying that neither it nor the intelligence agency would cooperate with congressional inquiries into the matter.
The moves angered members of Congress, who said the department was obstructing legitimate legislative oversight. Justice and CIA officials said in correspondence with congressional leaders that turning over information at this point could make the inquiry vulnerable to political pressures.
The decision to withhold evidence effectively puts the congressional inquiries on hold and also points up the seriousness of the week-old investigation, which is being conducted jointly by the Justice Department and the CIA inspector general. Officials for the first time raised the possibility that the investigation could result in criminal charges.
"While we make no prediction at this early stage about where our inquiry might lead, the possibilities include criminal law enforcement action, as well as civil and administrative remedies," said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth L. Wainstein and John L. Helgerson, the CIA inspector, in a letter to House Intelligence Committee leaders.
Calling on the committee to "defer" its investigation, Wainstein and Helgerson said "actions responsive to your requests would present significant risks to our preliminary investigation."
They said they were concerned about the committee interviewing personnel from the CIA inspector general office because the Justice Department had determined that "they are potential witnesses in the matter under our inquiry."
Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the committee's top Republican, said they were "stunned that the Justice Department would move to block our investigation."
"It's clear that there's more to this story than we have been told," Reyes and Hoekstra said in a statement. "The executive branch can't be trusted to oversee itself."
On Thursday, Reyes and Hoekstra sent a letter to CIA Director Michael V. Hayden asking for relevant records including "all cables referring or related to the making, retention or destruction of videotapes of detainees." The letter gave the CIA until yesterday evening to comply.
A CIA spokesman said the agency intends to cooperate with Congress. "Director Hayden has said the agency will cooperate fully with both the preliminary inquiry conducted by the Department of Justice and CIA's inspector general, and to the Congress," CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said. "That has been and certainly will be the case."
But a senior US intelligence official said the CIA would not ignore the instructions from the Department of Justice and might have to delay delivery of documents and witnesses to congressional investigators until the Justice inquiry is completed.
"If the Department of Justice says, 'We want to see these documents before anybody else sees them,' CIA will comply," said the senior US intelligence official.
The Justice Department had no comment yesterday beyond releasing letters on the investigation. The department also informed the Senate Judiciary Committee that it would not answer questions about the probe from that panel."The department has a long-standing policy of declining to provide nonpublic information about pending matters," Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said in a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
U.S. Judges Kill the Ninth Amendment by Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor: In the United States, the heart and soul of the U.S. Constitution has been the Ninth Amendment. As reported by the Associated Press, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed on March 14, 2007 that the Ninth Amendment to the United States is now null and void, and that the federal government of the United States of America has no moral legitimacy.
Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings - White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases: Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
Federal Judge OKs Law Signed by Bush Even Though the House Never Voted on It. We Need a Real Judiciary Again: the Constitution is pretty clear on how a bill becomes a law, and that's not it. If a teenager wrote a paper advocating this process in civics class, he or she would receive a failing grade. Nevertheless, Bush's lawyers are fervently trying to defend this fatuity instead of simply admitting for once that the president messed up. Hey, when you've gone through the trouble of putting jurists like Judge Bates on the bench, why not?

Why the Supreme Court MattersSubmitted by BuzzFlash on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 12:02pm. by Bethany Cunningham Gabbert, J.D.,
In their frenzy to make this about change, experience, and character, the media, the bloggers, and the undecideds are ignoring the 9-member elephant in the room.
Did you see the guy at the RNC holding up the "Thank You, Mr. Bush" sign with the picture of John Roberts and Sam Alito? This is what's really at stake here. The average Supreme Court Justice serves for 20+ years. Consider that even the most successful president/vice president duo ends its reach at 16 years (a feat that hasn't been accomplished in the last 50 years), and that the president leaves a legacy, not a treatise worth of legal precedent.
The next president will likely get to appoint 2-3 Justices. In recent years, many decisions have been 5-4 decisions. Two of the justices who are most likely to retire, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are the two staunchest defenders of civil liberties on the bench. They are old. They are tired. They have been hanging on for a Democratic president because when they go, the tenor of the court will change. A two-judge conservative majority would be huge. A three-judge majority would be catastrophic and would take us back nearly a century to when civil liberties were narrowly interpreted.
Many of the freedoms we take for granted came out of so-called "Liberal courts." When John McCain says he'll appoint justices who "won't legislate from the bench," it's pretty clear that he hasn't read many Supreme Court opinions. In every single case, the court is called upon to INTERPRET the law. If the answer was easy, the case wouldn't be before them. What John McCain means is that he'll appoint justices who share his party's views and won't veer off into unwelcome territory. What he's truly doing is giving a code-word gift to the conservative interests who oppose abortion rights, and who want to see a very narrow interpretation of the first 10 amendments (with the exception of the second, which they'd like to find Justices with hubble telescope capable vision to interpret).
I think many disillusioned souls are considering sitting this one out -- waiting till 2012. Or giving John McCain his "due" because they admire him as a person, or because they think it's time to have our first woman vice president. And there are many people who when told allowing John McCain to become president will change the face of the Supreme Court, say "Who Cares?" Roe v. Wade is passé to many people. Abortion isn't the driving issue for moderate Americans, and many aren't concerned about abortion being criminalized again, even if comes with no exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother (Palin favors this type of absolute ban).
I have news for all those people. Roe v. Wade is the tip of the iceberg. If you hand the future of the Supreme Court to John McCain, you're risking far more than a single decision. You're risking your ability to speak out & protest against your government & corporations. You're risking your rights against corporations, and you're risking an expansion of corporate power. You're risking the overturning of anti-trust and fair-trade decisions. Larger & larger mergers. Fewer rights for consumers. You risk the line between church and state blurring.
You risk the rights of defendants. Many criminal law decisions are decided by the 5-4 margin. Wiretapping. The Patriot Act. Being held without being charged. Access to a lawyer. Sufficiency of the evidence. Fair trial. Racial profiling. These are the issues that the court deals with every day. They might get 1-2 abortion cases a year, but dozens of criminal law decisions are handed down that affect your daily rights. Not so sure? Hundreds of protesters were arrested at the RNC. Doctors, lawyers, and straight A students were in their mix. Do you want their rights protected? Do you want judges who look at each case individually and weigh mitigating evidence or do you want judges who hand down morality?
For all the GOP talk about "fair and impartial justice," that's the real goal here -- judges who hand down their brand of morality. When you make your choice for president, choose very carefully. You're affecting the rights of millions for the next three decades. Do you want to hand control of our courts over to the extreme right? When it's just you and your conscience alone with your ballot remember this: Schools were desegregated by "liberal courts" and Miranda Rights were passed out. Your right to privacy and your freedom of speech were broadened by "liberal" courts. Innocent men were freed from death row by liberal courts, and thanks to liberal courts, there are no children in our factories and no spanking in our schools. You are free from sexual harassment thanks to liberal courts and you have rights against unfair housing practices. Thanks to liberal courts, your right to protest abortion, war, climate change, and the president has been upheld. The rights of your state have been protected. Do you really want to risk all that? Do you really want to watch the 2012 convention and see the "Thank You" signs for Scalia, Jr. and Thomas, Jr. waving goodbye to our civil liberties?

[under construction]