US Senate passes $612 billion defense policy bill

.

View photo

FILE - In this June 16, 2015 file photo, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., listens during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. Over White House objections, the Senate is poised to pass a $612 billion defense policy bill that calls for arming Ukraine forces, prevents another round of base closures and makes it harder for President Barack Obama to close the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay. McCain urged his colleagues Thursday to set aside differences about government spending and pass the measure, which authorizes money Obama requested for the Pentagon and other national security programs. He said that the world is more dangerous than it was in 2011, when the automatic spending cuts kicked in. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Over White House objections, the U.S. Senate on Thursday passed a $612 billion defense policy bill that calls for arming Ukraine forces, prevents another round of base closures and makes it harder for President Barack Obama to close the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Senate voted 71-25 to approve the bill, which Obama has threatened to veto.
The bill, which now must be reconciled with the version passed by the House, provides a 2.3 percent pay increase for U.S. servicemen and -women. It also reaffirms a ban against torturing detainees.
Moments after the overwhelming vote to establish military policy, Democrats blocked a separate bill that provides the actual funds for the Pentagon. The vote was 50-45, 10 short of the necessary votes to move ahead in the 100-member chamber.
Democrats oppose the way the bill skirts congressional spending caps by padding an emergency war-fighting account that is exempt from the caps. They argue that if Republicans want to break through spending caps on defense, they should do so for domestic spending, too.

A brief exchange between the Republican and Democratic leaders underscored the broader budget dispute that is likely to stretch through the summer, up until the Sept. 30 deadline to keep the government operating. It also captured the political gamble by Democrats, who blocked Pentagon money and left senators open to Republican criticism that they were failing to support the military.

"You just voted for the troops, now you're going to vote against them?" Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, asked with a degree of incredulity.
Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, argued against "doing funny money" on defense and maintained that the Republicans were short-changing the FBI and National Institutes of Health.
"There are some who say this is a one-year fix," said Sen. Jack Reed, the committee's top Democrat, who voted against the massive bill. "I don't think that's the case at all. I think if we use these types of, as some call, gimmicks, accounting tricks once, our tendency to use them again will be there. Once we've used it once, it is easy to use it two, three, four, five times."
Democrats hope to force Republicans to the negotiating table, a strategy that seems risky. It would put Democrats on the hook for delaying troop pay, funds for operations in Afghanistan and combating Islamic extremists, and the rest of the Pentagon budget.
Hours before the vote, top Senate Democrats sent McConnell a letter urging him to convene a mini-summit to find a way to match the Pentagon budget boost with increases for domestic programs such as education, infrastructure grants and law enforcement.
"We write to urge you to immediately schedule bipartisan budget negotiations for next week to find a fair, reasonable and responsible path forward for funding key national priorities such as national defense and domestic investments in education, health, science and infrastructure," the Democrats said in the letter. "We are alarmed that you have not displayed a greater sense of urgency to address this problem."
The White House objects to the bill for what Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Wednesday called "herky jerky" budgeting that ignores a need to allocate money for multiyear weapons development programs, for instance. "I travel around the world and this ... looks terrible," Carter told the House Armed Services Committee. "It gives the appearance that we are diminishing ourselves because we can't come together behind a budget, year in and year out."

The White House also is opposed to provisions that would make it harder for Obama to transfer the remaining 116 detainees out of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, so he can make good on his pledge to close the military prison. Obama objects to the bill because it does not authorize the closing of unneeded U.S. military facilities, prohibits the retirement of the A-10 aircraft that provides close air support for ground troops and forces the administration to provide lethal assistance to Ukrainian forces fighting Russian-backed separatists — something the White House has so far refrained from doing.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-senate-passes-612-billion-defense-policy-bill-183215734.html

Report: Some students spending 75% of school day on iPads

MINEOLA, N.Y. – Students at Jackson Avenue School in Mineola, New York now learn the vast majority of their lesson on iPads.

The Hechinger Report featured about two dozen third-graders in teacher Morgan Mercaldi’s class that use iPads for about 75 percent of their school day as part of a district-wide iPads-for-all initiative.
All 417 district students in grades three through nine are issued an assigned device and spend their day learning through education apps like eSpark, Edmodo and MobyMax. The effort, now in its fifth year, has helped to keep kids engaged and provide teachers with regular student progress toward meeting national Common Core standards, the news site reports.
Mercaldi said she initially limited students’ use of the devices, but is now all in.
“Putting them away serves no purpose,” she said. “We use them constantly.”
Students still use some traditional school supplies, however.
During a recent assignment students researched frogs both online and in books and organized their materials on their iPads before putting their findings down on paper.
Mercaldi said part of the reason for moving to iPads was to keep track of the numerous Common Core standards.
“The old way wasn’t going to help us to progress,” she said. “We had no way to asses and organize” so many standards.
Jackson Avenue School principal Janet Gonzalez told the site the technology benefits some students by allowing them to move ahead when they grasp a concept, and helps teachers understand where others are struggling.
“It does allow students to have success at whatever their level is, and eventually we hope to close that gap and they can catch up,” she said.

School officials are now working with a company called School 4 One to develop an app that will allow them to track more detailed progress toward Common Core standards, Gonzalez said.
The news site reports there’s little data available on the effectiveness of digital learning, but the companies that provide the software claim it’s great at engaging students. Some parents have voiced concerns about students spending so much time on their iPads, so Mercaldi sends them videos about how they can use the technology to better help their child with homework.
She also sends them regular progress reports.
The district apparently took the transition slowly, vetted their software providers, and had the infrastructure in place to support the increased demand for bandwidth. They also trained teachers and offered continuing support.
Other school districts haven’t fared as well when dolling out iPads to all students.
The Los Angeles Unified School district is perhaps the best example of how some have totally bungled integrating new technology into the classroom. Officials there provided little guidance to teachers when they began an ambitious plan to give away iPads to the district’s 600,000 students.
The trouble started as soon as the first wave of iPads went out, with students circumventing the firewall to surf social media and play games, teachers unprepared to incorporate the technology, bandwidth issues, and numerous other complications.
The focus in L.A. seemed to be more on the “civil rights” of poor students to own an iPad than on actually using the devices to improve learning. The district has since pulled the plug on its contract with Apple and software provider Pearson, and are trying to get a refund, as federal investigators look into the $1.3 billion failure.
http://eagnews.org/some-students-spending-75-of-school-day-on-ipads/

Problem-Reaction-Solution: Militarization of Police Gives Excuse for International Intervention?

Notice lately how international media has been reporting on US corruption?

It is usually the US public that is being motivated to intervene in distant lands to spread peace and democracy. Is the international community being motivated to intervene in the US?

We do have laws to deal with corruption, and abuse of power. The hierarchy just doesn't enforce them. What is good for an individual human being, is good for an individual government employee.

The claimed lack of appropriate laws, is always brought up, when 'they' want to create more laws. Those new laws end up being used in the opposite of their stated intent. Every time shit like this creeps in, we hear about the international criminal court and other such "solutions" to our problems. Always trying to get us to bite that hook.

~~~

All 50 US states fail to meet global police use of force standards, report finds | US news | The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/18/us-states-police-use-of-force-standards-amnesty

Amnesty International report describes ‘shocking lack of fundamental respect for the sanctity of human life’ as nine states have no laws to deal with police force

A police officer patrols in Ferguson, Missouri, during protests over the shooting death of Michael Brown.

Police response to protests across the country in the wake of several high-profile police shootings points to a need for better standards, says Amnesty.

Oliver Laughland and Jamiles Lartey in New York

Thursday 18 June 2015 08.10 EDT
Last modified on Thursday 18 June 2015 12.46 EDT

Every state in the US fails to comply with international standards on the lethal use of force by law enforcement officers, according to a report by Amnesty International USA, which also says 13 US states fall beneath even lower legal standards enshrined in US constitutional law and that nine states currently have no laws at all to deal with the issue.

The stinging review comes amid a national debate over police violence and widespread protest following the high-profile deaths of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri; 43-year-old Eric Garner in New York; 50-year-old Walter Scott in South Carolina; and 25-year-old Freddie Gray in Baltimore – all unarmed black men killed by police within the past 11 months.

Amnesty USA’s executive director, Steven Hawkins, told the Guardian the findings represented a “shocking lack of fundamental respect for the sanctity of human life”.

“While law enforcement in the United States is given the authority to use lethal force, there is no equal obligation to respect and preserve human life. It’s shocking that while we give law enforcement this extraordinary power, so many states either have no regulation on their books or nothing that complies with international standards,” Hawkins said.

The Counted: people killed by police in the United States in 2015 – interactive

The Guardian is counting the people killed by US law enforcement agencies this year. Read their stories and contribute to our ongoing, crowdsourced project
Read more

The analysis, which Hawkins said he believed was the first of its kind, compared state statutes on law enforcement’s use of lethal force with international legislation, including the enshrinement of the right to life, as well as United Nations principles limiting lethal use of force to “unavoidable” instances “in order to protect life” after “less extreme means” have failed. Further UN guidelines state that officers should attempt to identify themselves and give warning of intent to use lethal force.

Amnesty found that in all 50 states and Washington DC, written statutes were too broad to fit these international standards, concluding: “None of the laws establish the requirement that lethal force may only be used as a last resort with non-violent means and less harmful means to be tried first. The vast majority of laws do not require officers to give a warning of their intent to use firearms.”

The report arrived just weeks after the recommendations of Barack Obama’s police taskforce were made public and his executive actions on police reform criticized for not going far enough to curtail police violence. The presidential commission stated that “not only should there be policies for deadly and non-deadly uses of force”, but that a “clearly stated ‘sanctity of life’ philosophy must also be in the forefront of every officer’s mind”.

The Amnesty review found that only eight states require a verbal warning to be given before an officer engages in lethal force. In nine states, law enforcement officers are legally allowed to use lethal force during riot. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the use of force statute mandates that deadly force is justifiable if it is “necessary to suppress a riot or mutiny after the rioters or mutineers have been ordered to disperse”.

Further, Amnesty found that in 20 states it is legally permissible for law enforcement officers to employ lethal force against an individual attempting to escape prison or jail, even if they pose no threat. In Mississippi, for instance, law declares “the killing of a human being justifiable [w]hen necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in retaking any felon who has been rescued or has escaped”.

Amnesty’s report also charges that the laws on lethal force in 13 states do not even meet the less stringent constitutional standard set by the 1985 US supreme court case Tennessee v Garner. The case was centered on the death of an unarmed black 15-year-old, Edward Garner, a suspect in a home burglary. He was shot in the back of the head as he fled by officers acting under a Tennessee state statute which permitted “use all the necessary means” to make an arrest of a fleeing subject.

The 6-3 majority decision declared that police may not use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping unless “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others”.

The states whose laws do not meet this constitutional standard, according to Amnesty, tend to include permissive or vague language around the use of force. North Dakota’s statute, for example, permits deadly force against “an individual who has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving violence”, without defining the level of violence that might warrant deadly force.

Amnesty identifies nine states – Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming – alongside Washington DC where no law enforcement officer lethal force statutes exist.

“Those states can of course argue that they follow common law or supreme court standards, but is that good enough?” Hawkins said. “Certainly we would expect that international human rights standards are what should govern and our fear is that, unless these are clearly quantified, a citizen in any state can’t look at what the law is. That’s critically important to ensuring accountability.”

Amnesty’s report contends that the international standards laid out in the UN basic principles dictate all fatal incidents involving law enforcement officials should be mandatorily reported and well as impartially investigated.

The federal government does not collect a comprehensive record of people killed by police forces throughout the US. Instead, the FBI runs a voluntary program where law enforcement can choose to submit a number of “justifiable homicides” each year.

A Guardian investigation into deaths at the hands of law enforcement officers in the US has so far documented 515 people killed by police this year. The statistics reveal that black people are more than twice as likely as white people to be unarmed during fatal encounters with police, and show that black Americans are killed by police at more than twice the rate as white Americans.

The introduction of mandatory reporting to federal government for all deaths at the hands of law enforcement is a central recommendation of the Amnesty report.

The report also suggests taking action at all levels of government, making recommendations to the president, Congress and the US justice department, along with state legislatures and individual law enforcement departments. Amnesty suggests that laws be brought into compliance with international standards at every level, and that the justice department oversee a national commission “to examine and produce recommendations on policing issues, including a nationwide review of police use of lethal force laws as well as a thorough review and reform of oversight and accountability mechanisms”.

Hawkins told the Guardian he expected some resistance to the recommendations from police unions and other agencies but added his hope that “with so much attention on law enforcement and its use of lethal force within the US, in the next legislative session this report will produce some energy for change”.

Jade Helm Decoded

Nice cop or nice Nazi?

I tell this to everybody!
While I was living in a former so-called Communist country, everybody hated cops. If a cop would of been in any kind of trouble, nobody would of helped him.

Sad to say but history repeats itself. If you know what I mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJB8qXa0EjU

Admiral's Responce To The Sitrep

To stop rumors from running rampant, let us say on behalf of ‘The Admiral’, he is still working with the Chinese Elders.  To clarify, ‘The Admiral’ has never been “in control” of this situation but rather he has always had responsibilities and duties to perform in this situation.  The statement below is just false and has no truth to it.

We have to be patient, I hate that phrase.  We also have to stop pulling facts out the air or trying to associate isolated statements together to contrive some intel to answer the question, “Why hasn’t this happened by now?”

As posted on: DinaresGuru.Blogspot.Com

Deep Source (RV/GCR):
"The Chinese have assumed control. The Admiral is no longer in the control of the situation.Fund release was scheduled last night, false intel/rumor. No reports of Cottrell fund arrival at this moment."

Article can be viewed:

http://dinaresgurus.blogspot.com/2015/06/deep-source-intel-18-june.html

To Avoid Prison, You Must Read This Before Taking Your Money Out of the Bank. Forwarded By Erasmus Of America - June 16, 2015 - 5:20 PM

To Avoid Prison, You Must Read This Before Taking Your Money Out of the Bank (Link To Report Forwarded By Erasmus Of America) - June 16, 2015

16Jun, 2015by Dave Hodges

Print this articleFont size -16+

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/06/16/to-avoid-prison-you-must-read-this-before-taking-your-money-out-of-the-bank/

     I think Dave Hodges did a great job of exposing how the federal government treats your bank account as no longer owned by you which I judge to violate the terms of the do not impair (means regulate to overturn the common law rights to contract you are guaranteed by the terms of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights) the obligation of contracts. - Article I, Section 10.  "No state shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,... "U.S. Bill Of Rights" without "due process of law" according to court decision meant the common law of America governed how law was to be applied in American law such as listed in Amendment VI of the U.S. Bill of Rights. To treat the money you deposited in your bank account as not belonging to you as your property violates Amendment IV protecting your private legal papers, etc., Amendment V, Amendment VII, and Amendment IX of the U.S. Bill of Rights. 

      Use the link at the top of this report to see this excellent report on how Wash., D.C. is trying to massively violate your legal right to have money as your personal property in America. I endorse you to read his report on how Wash., D.C. is trying to outlaw your legal rights in America by Washington legal double talk and pure con of legal sources in Wash., D.C.

      Yours for God and Country, Erasmus Of America (pen name for that American who has won a number of legal upsets in law over the years. They used to call me "Mr. Constitution" and the "New Thomas Jefferson of America" when I used to write legal reports on the history of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Bill of Rights. Pass this report on to all Americans. Dave Hodges deserves strong support for having written this report shown with link above so you can read the entire report of his.)

     My website below has listed on it my proposed Omni Law to restore authority to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Bill of Rights to once more be the enforced national law of America. www.fastboomamericaneconomy.com fastboomamericaneconomy.com@gmail.com 

6/18/2015 — Watch out! CENTRAL Craton being displaced , showing Earthquakes — Southwest US movement coming soon

Nothing to see here, please disperse.. NOTHING TO SEE HERE!  Please..!


Over the past 24 hours, a noteworthy series of earthquakes has progressed along the CENTER of the North American craton from the Midwest to the Northwest United States.
Multiple M3.0 – M4.0+ earthquakes occurred almost equidistantly spaced across an area of almost 1,500 miles in less than one days time.

________
The significant things which stand out about this outbreak of earthquake activity are the fact that these events are occurring across the actual “stable” portion of the craton, not along the “edge” as we might normally see, and the “direction” of displacement from East to West.
The other important factor for these earthquakes is the area displaced, the entire Central to Northwest portion of the plate showing movement.
Make note of the diagram below, and look at the “deformed craton” in comparison to where the earthquakes are occurring.

I would venture an “educated guess” that since we’re seeing rare earthquake activity across the center of the plate, this should now put pressure on the SOUTHWEST United States, and cause displacement upon the “deformed craton” edge.
Make note of the area where the green meets the purple.. watch for larger activity in those locations.  Also, in the above diagram make note of the other states which reside in the brown/orange area.
New Madrid and East coast United States CENTRAL CRATON (not the edge like we normally see) might need to watch out for a bit of larger movement over the next week.
Unfortunately, this includes me here in Saint Louis Missouri.
I’ll heed my own advice, and follow the motto … “don’t be scared, be prepared“.
______
Magnitude 4.2 in Central Northern Oklahoma at a fracking operation:
http://dutchsinse.com/6172015-large-fracking-earthquake-strikes-midwest-m4-2-at-oklahoma-pumping-operation/
______
Magnitude 3.4 in Central Northern Nebraska:
http://dutchsinse.com/6182015-very-rare-nebraska-earthquake-m3-4-hits-at-the-south-dakota-border-man-made/
______
Magnitude 3.0 in West Central Montana:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/mb15196752#general_summary
______
Magnitude 3.1 in Southwest Washington State near Mount Adams Volcano:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/uw61029517#general_summary

BUILDING THE FOUNDATION FOR A BOOMING ECONOMY! FROM ERASMUS OF AMERICA - JUNE 18, 2015 - 4:50 PM

BUILDING THE FOUNDATION FOR A BOOMING ECONOMY! FROM ERASMUS OF AMERICA - JUNE 18, 2015

         

     In this age, something has to create value so money has purchasing power to buy things in the market. The favorites to create value for money if they are not used directly as money would be such as gold or silver as backing for the paper currency or banking accounts of the nation. 

     In the Middle Ages under Christian teaching from the New Testament, they created a metal coin of base metal that created non-stop prosperity for people using it for basically 100 years in medieval France. Due to censorship in economic and history books, you do not know about this age when men worked four days a week six hours a day and retired off of their wealth built up by 45 to 55 years old. 

     A common investment for retirement purposes was real estate and business ventures that appeared sound for a sound economy that had no bad cycles to it. The women stayed home to raise the kids as their husbands could support them fine and all owned their own homes and dressed with the same basic quality clothes as the nobility. They had so much prosperity then as local historians wrote a near golden age had descended on earth where crime and poverty basically disappeared from human society in Christian Europe under Christian Economics taught in the New Testament and ignored by modern man. Some other European nations using this Christian monetary system based upon metallic coins of base metal also had the booming economy with no recessions or depressions to it and poverty and crime pretty much disappeared from their local societies. 

     This basic golden age of Christian economies was ended when frustrated early bankers set up a propaganda campaign to have the people drop Christian economics and Christian coinage and get instead banker version metal coins but operating on a different economic concept than Christian coins of then. The dumb public of then fell for the banking propaganda and dumped the Christian coinage for banking coinage and adopted the banker system of economics instead of Christian economics. The result was the collapse of the booming Christian economies in Europe. The Protestant scholars and Vatican scholars are sucker boys who teach the banker version of this era of Christian history instead of the real version of history as recorded by early historians who lived in that time span. 

     While medieval France boomed under New Testament economics, they basically built 80 Gothic cathedrals and 500 cathedral grade Gothic churches in a 100 year period out of the prosperity of the people thanking God for their golden age and colossal prosperity by building these beautiful Christian churches to honor God with for their temporal blessings in society. For example, The Cathedral of Chartres, France was built by a population not over maybe 2,500 French and in around 38 years. 

     The Washington National Cathedral of Wash., D.C. was to be built by the old Gothic method of the Middle Ages, started I recall in 1907 with Teddy Roosevelt breaking the ground for it, completed in 1990, and it was stated that America was not rich enough as a nation to ever build another large church in America by the old Gothic method of the Middle Ages. Tiny France with maybe 1/17th of the population of America for the same basic time period built around 580 of these beautiful Gothic churches which were large and cathedral grade versus one Gothic cathedral for poor America under Federal Reserve money. And tiny Chartres, France with a population of around, 2,500 French built in less than half time a Gothic cathedral not much difference in size and expensive church architecture than the Washington National Cathedral built theoretically by 170 million Americans in contributions. Such is the difference between Christian money of the New Testament versus Federal Reserve money taught you by the Satanist loyal central bankers of today. 

     I traced their origin as a Satanist banking reserve system back to 1666 A.D. to first adoption in England by the King persuaded by his mistress to authorize this and she worked for the early schemers who wanted to set up this '666 reserve system of money which took away from the national government the authority to make its own money now put out instead by private banking merchants to replace the authority of the national government to issue its own money for the nation. 

     When the American people have my proposed Omni Law passed, I can show them how this Christian money of the Middle Ages worked and show them that the Thirteen Colonies also had this New Testament money of the Middle Ages in these Thirteen Colonies but in currency form instead of metallic coins. The Thirteen Colonies became the richest population on the earth until the Bank of England pressed the British Parliament to outlaw the Colonial Script which was the paper version of the prior metallic coin version of the New Testament money used in the Middle Ages for 100 plus years and censored from your history books to keep you ignorant and controlled by the big banking families who run the show controlling governments and setting up wars, etc. for banking profit and increase of power over nations they control by their tricks. With around 50% of America suddenly thrown into unemployment in the Thirteen Colonies, this sudden collapse of the American economy soon led to the American Revolution and founding of America as a separate nation no longer part of  England.  

      Now today until Wash., D.C. has tried to outlaw most serious inventing in America now, we have already sufficient technology used correctly and coupled with this Christian economics of the Middle Ages and Thirteen Colonies to solve the problems of America we face today and maybe even boom America better than they could in the Middle Ages and in the Thirteen Colonies before London outlawed their prosperity and drove them to revolt against England in the process. 

     Here are pieces of technology that should be able to solve major problems of America so long as Washington, D.C. is forced out of the way to allow these answers of technology to be used to solve technical problems of America today. There are several systems to turn ocean water into fresh water for human use, farm use, industrial use and get cities, etc. in California back on their feet with adequate water to put California back on its feet as a giant economy in America. And Washington, D.C. tries propaganda tricks to muddy the water to mislead you with Washington corrupted version of engineering so you think these answers of technology solving major problems of America do not exist and therefore cannot be used. When you purify ocean water out of the salt in it, contrary to Washington propaganda tricks to make it sound like you can't do this, you do not dump the separated salt back into the ocean water at the coastline beaches of California. You extract valuable minerals, etc. out of the salt and plan it so nothing in leftover salt has to be returned to the ocean waters off of California. In fact, this can remove Japanese radiation poisoning from the ocean waters off of California, and all other sorts of things done to the ocean water so Californians can once more live civilized lives as an important part of the economy of America.

     You can use answers and resources available in America to make sure that foreign oil nations never try to cut your throat as a nation through currency tricks or other economic tactics. If they try to ruin your economy, you suddenly start supplying the world with cheap fuels that they cannot compete against. America gets super rich and they go bankrupt if they try to bankrupt the American economy. 

     With proper agricultural technology, you can raise crops of such quality as all the world would want American quality food crops for their main diets worldwide. 

       I have a rival system to H.A.A.R.P. which should be far safer to use and can alter weather to be hotter or cooler - whatever your need for general weather - and you could turn American land back into a type of paradise on earth instead of a hell on earth with intense heat, no water, etc. Only if trapped by the damage that H.A.A.R.P. had done would I want to use this alternate system to undo the damage to the weather if no other good answer existed. I don't like to mess with the weather and pretend that we are wiser than God because we are not! H.A.A.R.P. and federal chemtrails I wager have created the water crisis in California and and there are not enough carbon dioxide molecules close together to do this to the atmosphere there. Years ago Grant Jeffrey (a scientific Bible scholar) was clever and showed why the carbon dioxide argument was a con on the public. If you study carefully the findings of Wilhelm Reich on what effects weather, you probably have the answer there to break the water drought in California. 

     I was an engineering student many years ago with an engineering school and have many answers of technology that can solve problems of America that Wash., D.C. pretends cannot be solved now. Pass my Omni Law and in 2015 and we will turn this nation around like lightning. Contrary to Anti-Christian propaganda, the best engineering brains I have seen in America are basically Christians and with Christian leadership, you will have the smart engineering answers that will solve the technical problems of America and fast! You wanted the evil to lead you and they are fast destroying America and forever! Replace these evil leaders with smart Christian leaders and soon you will realize that the Christians are the best leaders that you can have for America. They have the right answers that will boom and solve the key problems of America today. 

     Pass my proposed Omni Law and now, and America will have a rebirth as a nation. Leave the present evil leaders in power such as Obama who is the jackpot on evil leaders to lead America as he is pulling every trick he can get away with to destroy America forever from within, and America will be destroyed as a nation by the evil in power now. I believe in the great destiny that America can have for the future. The evil want to destroy the future of America by taking its final strength to create an evil world government and society unfit for mankind to live under on earth. I want a bright future for America and for mankind across the earth. The evil want no future for America or the earth, but total evil ruling over mankind and then most or all of mankind basically dies out except for the intended slaves to be ruled by the evil who plan to remain masters of mankind dumb enough to let them take over control of all the nations and all races on earth. 

    Our national website is www.fastboomamericaneconomy.com Our email is fastboomamericaneconomy.com@gmail.com Our mailing address for orders and payments not sent through our website is NIFI, P.O. Box 1465, Seneca, SC 29679 . Make checks, etc. out to NIFI and tell us what the payment is for. Until the end of this month, we have the 10 times multiplier on payments put into our Omni Law Loan Program shown on our website. The Obama Boys federal operatives pulled all sorts of electronic hacking tricks trying to block our Omni Law Drive from winning in America and did not succeed. But we increased the rewards for those who do back us and now through the end of June. The other side is trying to move fast before you realize how they are trying to overthrow your freedom and future in America. So we are moving fast also and know how to stop them and win against them so long as you the American people back us as you know you should! I spent eleven calendar years in military academies and am trained in ways to think how to win even against usual great odds. And I am good at this game against the evil leaders such as Obama. 

1.      Spectators do not win wars! Backers of one side or the other decide who wins the war (political drive or whatever constitutes your version of how you are fighting to win in the nation what you call your equivalent of war in a nation. ) Pass this report around. By the way, California. Passage of the Omni Law and now will save California from collapse as a state. Letting Obama do what he wants in Wash., D.C. and California will fall in the process! You have a short time before California falls by Obama plan. Apparently H.A.A.R.P. is being manipulated to destroy the economy of California and maybe some other states now. When the Omni Law is passed, H.A.A.R.P. is turned off and California will soon get the water it wants. And we can then by approval of God I predict be able to improve the weather of states desperately needing help now. God is on the side of good, not evil!

        Yours For God And Country, Erasmus Of America (pen name for that American leader who remembers that America built the Panama Canal, Hoover Dam, and many other things that others did not think could be done, but Americans had greatness in their characters and did these mighty engineering projects successfully because God blessed us! We can by blessing of God solve the big technical problems of America and today once the Omni Law is passed in America. Full name of the Omni Law as shown on our website is "The Omnibus Civil Rights Act For America.")

 www.fastboomamericaneconomy.com    fastboomamericaneconomy.com@gmail.com 

     P.S. Don't fall for the psychological tactics of the Obama Boys trained by the federal government in psychological warfare schools how to trick the people by using nonsense arguments in the comment section  to keep you from backing the right side in America and letting the evil finish off destroying America because you didn't stop them while you still could.  

      

      

Beware the Listening Machines MUST READ

  [CitizensNewswire]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/beware-listening-machines-213840917.html?.tsrc=applewf

Beware the Listening Machines

One of my great pleasures in life is attending conferences on fields I'm intrigued by, but know nothing about. (A second pleasure is writing about these events.) So when my friend Kate Crawford invited me to a daylong “Listening Machine Summit,” I could hardly refuse.

What's a listening machine? The example of everyone's lips was Hello Barbie, a version of the impossibly proportioned doll that will listen to your child speak and respond in kind. Here’s how The Washington Post described the doll back in March: “ At a recent New York toy fair, a Mattel representative introduced the newest version of Barbie by saying: ‘Welcome to New York, Barbie.’ The doll, named Hello Barbie, responded: ‘I love New York! Don't you? Tell me, what's your favorite part about the city? The food, fashion, or the sights?’

Barbie accomplishes this magic by recording your child’s question, uploading it to a speech recognition server, identifying a recognizable keyword (“New York”) and offering an appropriate synthesized response. The company behind Barbie’s newfound voice, ToyTalk , uses your child’s utterance to help tune their speech recognition, likely storing the voice file for future use.

And that’s the trick with listening systems. If you can imagine reasons why you might not want Mattel maintaining a record of things your child says while talking to his or her doll, you should be able to imagine the possible harms that could come from use—abuse or interrogation of other listening systems. (“Siri, this is the police. Give us the last hundred searches Mr. Zuckerman asked you to conduct on Google. Has he ever searched for bomb-making instructions?”)

As one of the speakers put it (we’re under Chatham House rules, so I can’t tell you who), listening machines trigger all three aspects of the surveillance holy trinity:

1. They're pervasive, starting to appear in all aspects of our lives.
2. They're persistent, capable of keeping records of what we've said indefinitely.
3. They process the data they collect, seeking to understand what people are saying and acting on what they're able to understand.

To reduce the creepy nature of their surveillant behavior, listening systems are often embedded in devices designed to be charming, cute, and delightful: toys, robots, and smooth-voiced personal assistants. Proponents of listening systems see them as a major way technology integrates itself more deeply into our lives, making it routine for computers to become our helpers, playmates, and confidants. A video of a robot designed to be a shared household companion sparked a great deal of debate, both about whether we would want to interact with a robot in the ways proposed by the product’s designers, and how a sufficiently powerful companion robot should behave.

If a robot observes spousal abuse, should it call the police? If the robot is designed to be friend and confidant to everyone in the house, but was paid for by the mother, should we expect it to rat out one of the kids for smoking marijuana? (Underlying these questions is the assumption that the robot will inevitably be smart enough to understand and interpret complex phenomena. One of our best speakers made the case that robots are very far from having this level of understanding, but that well-designed robots were systems designed to deceive us into believing that they had these deeper levels of understanding.)

Despite the helpful provocations offered by real and proposed consumer products, the questions I found most interesting focused on being unwittingly and unwillingly surveilled by listening machines. What happens when systems like ShotSpotter, currently designed to identify shots fired in a city, begins dispatching police to other events, like a rowdy pool party (just to pick a timely example)? Workers in call centers already have their interactions recorded for review by their supervisors—what happens when Uber drivers and other members of the 1099 economy are required to record their interactions with customers for possible review? (A friend points out that many already do as a way of defending themselves from possible firing in light of bad reviews.) It’s one thing to choose to invite listening machines into your life—confiding in Siri or a cuddly robot companion—and something entirely different to be heard by machines installed by your employer or by local law enforcement.

A representative of one of the consumer regulatory agencies in the United States gave an excellent talk in which she outlined some of the existing laws and principles that could potentially be used to regulate listening machines in the future. While the U.S. does not have comprehensive privacy legislation in the way many European nations do, there are sector-specific laws that can protect against abusive listening machines: the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, HIPA, and others. She noted that electronic surveillance systems had been the subject of two regulatory actions in the U.S., where Federal Trade Commission protections against “unfair and deceptive acts in commerce” led to action against the Aaron’s rent-to-own chain, which installed privacy-violating software in the laptops they rented out, capturing images of anyone in front of the camera.

FTC argued that this was a real and concrete harm to consumers with no offsetting benefits, and Aaron’s settled, disabling the software. I found the idea that existing regulations and longstanding ideas of fairness could provide a framework for regulating listening machines fascinating, but I'm not sure I buy it. Outside of the enforcement context, I wonder whether these ideas provide a robust enough framework for thinking about future regulation of listening systems, because I’m not sure anyone understands the implications of these systems well enough to anticipate possible futures for them. A day thinking about eavesdropping dolls and personal assistants left me confident only that I don't think anyone has thought enough about the implications of these systems to posit possible, desirable futures for their use.

Over the past thirty or more years, we’ve seen a particular Pushmi-Pullyu pattern of technology regulation, to borrow a species from Doctor Doolittle. Companies invent new technologies and bring them to market. Consumers occasionally react, and if sufficient numbers react loudly enough, government regulators investigate and mandate changes. There’s a sense that this is the correct process, that more aggressive regulation would crush innovation before inventors could show us the benefits of their new ideas. But this is a model in which regulation is a very modest counterweight to market forces. So long as a product is on the market, it’s engaged in persuading people that a new type of behavior is the new normal. When Apple brought Siri to market, it engaged in a multi-front campaign to persuade people that they should regularly speak to a computer to make appointments, order dinner, check traffic conditions, and seek advice. Apple was able to lower barriers to adoption by making the product a pre-installed part of their very popular phone, making it available for free, and heavily advertising the new functionality. Even the wave of jokes about the limits to Siri's speech recognition capabilities and feature films that seek to complicate our relationships with digital entities serve the purpose of calcifying "the new normal," this idea that people talk to their phones and share sensitive information with them, and that's just the way things are now.

Perhaps at some point, we’ll see a lawsuit challenging Apple’s use of Siri data. Perhaps Apple will offer different financing packages for a future iCar with lending rates determined by a personality profile generated, in part, by a purchaser’s interactions with Siri. Empowered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, regulators might get involved and demand that credit decisions be made only using transparently disclosed, challengeable fiscal data, not correlations between one’s taste in takeout food and creditworthiness. Fine. But in the ensuing years, Apple has already won: We're talking to our phones, sharing our lives, generating terabytes of data in the process. The problem with this approach to regulation is that we rarely, if ever, have a conversation about the technological world we’d like to have.

Do we want a world in which we confide in our phones? And how should companies be forced to handle the data generated by these new interactions? (At the Listening Machine Summit, smart policy people in the room had suggestions like “robot privilege.” Such protection would behave like attorney/client privilege—prohibiting law enforcement from luring robots into making a person testify, requiring in-line “visceral” notice of privacy risks in these systems, banning price discrimination based on privacy protected data, and reforming the “third party directive.”) These questions, a friend points out, aren't regulatory questions, but policy ones. The challenge is figuring out how, in our current, barely functional political landscape, we decide what technologies should trigger pre-emptive conversations about whether, when, and how those products should come to market.

If my example of Siri affecting your credit score seems either fanciful or trivial, consider the NSA's expansive data collection programs as revealed by Edward Snowden. Again, we're seeing pushmi-pullyu regulation in which branches of the intelligence community got out way ahead of popular opinion and congressional oversight, and is only now being modestly pulled back.

There's encouraging news from the world of synthetic biology, where a powerful new technology for gene manipulation called CRISPR is promising to revolutionize the field. CRISPR makes it vastly easier to cut the DNA within an organism, which allows biologists to remove genes they don't want and add genes they do. (Turns out that the cutting is the hard part: DNA's self-repair mechanisms mean you can introduce sequences you’d like incorporated within DNA, and the cell’s DNA-patching systems will include your sequence as a patch.) By itself, CRISPR is provoking lots of thought about what sorts of genetic manipulation are appropriate and desirable. But a further idea— the gene drive—is leading to impassioned debate within the scientific world. It's possible to make CRISPR inheritable, which means that not only can you change the genome in an organism, but you can make it virtually certain that its offspring will inherit the genomic change. (Inherited changes generally propagate slowly through a population, as only half the offspring inherit the change. But if you make a change on one half the chromosome and put CRISPR on the other half, the offspring either inherits the changed gene, or CRISPR, which will then make the change.) The upshot is that it could well be possible to engineer a species of mosquitoes that couldn't pass on malaria, or that simply couldn't reproduce, ending the species as a whole. But who gets to make these decisions?

The good news is that there's both a precedent of executive authority to ban certain lines of research, and a robust tradition of debate within the scientific community that seeks to influence this policymaking. Smart people are making cases for and against gene drive, and I've had the pleasure of talking to scientists trying to make gene drive possible who are genuinely thrilled to be having public conversations about whether, when, and how the technology should come into play.

We need a better culture of policymaking in the IT world. We need a better tradition of talking through the “whethers, whens, and hows” of technologies like listening machines.  And we need more conversations that aren’t about what’s possible, but about what’s desirable.

Read Beware the Listening Machines on theatlantic.com