
We’re the frog…



Over the last decade, governments worldwide have intentionally shut down the internet at least 850 times, with a whopping 90% of those shutdowns taking place over just the last five years.
What’s behind this troubling trend? “More people are getting online and getting access to the internet,” said Marianne Díaz Hernández, a lawyer in Venezuela and a fellow with the nonprofit Access Now. “As governments see this as a threat, they start thinking the internet is something they need to control.”
These staggering statistics come from a new report released Wednesday by Access Now and Jigsaw, a division of Alphabet that focuses on addressing societal threats with technology. The report documents the history of internet shutdowns over the last decade, the economic toll shutdowns take on the countries that impose them and what governments and the broader business and civil society community can do to stop what has fast become a widespread and grave human rights violation.
Felicia Anthonio leads Access Now’s #KeepItOn campaign, which has been documenting internet shutdowns since 2016. “Internet shutdowns don’t ensure stability or resolve crises that are happening,” Anthonio said. “It’s actually endangering people’s lives.”
The report, published in Jigsaw’s publication The Current, traces the recent spate of internet shutdowns back to the five-day shutdown in Egypt in 2011. Though exact data on every shutdown that has ever happened is non-existent and smaller-scale blackouts had taken place before that, the authors write, “never before had an entire country, one where more than a quarter of the population was connected to the internet, simply severed itself from the open web.”
Pushing back against a lower court ruling that leaves apartment dwellers vulnerable to warrantless surveillance and arrests, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that the hallways outside apartments are protected curtilage which police may not invade without a warrant or a resident’s consent. In an amicus brief filed in Sorenson v. Massachusetts, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that just as the “curtilage” of detached homes are off-limits to police without a warrant, areas immediately adjacent to an apartment should also be considered protected curtilage under the Fourth Amendment.
Affiliate attorneys David J. Feder, Nathaniel P. Garrett, and Jeremy R. Kauffman of Jones Day in California assisted in advancing the arguments in the Sorenson brief.
“As James Otis recognized, ‘A man’s house is his castle.’ Whether that castle takes the form of an apartment, a humble hut, or a mansion is not the issue,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Privacy should not depend on your home’s square footage. The Fourth Amendment forcefield that protects against warrantless government invasions and surveillance does not discriminate.”
As TFTP previously reported, a police officer from the Bossier City Police Department was arrested in December 2018 for filming unspeakable acts with animals. Officer Terry Yetman, 38, was charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse of animals—producing the evidence himself—including filming sex with his own police K9. This decorated cop was also charged with 31 counts of child pornography several months later. Now, nearly 3 years after his initial arrest, Yetman has pleaded guilty.
TFTP learned at the time, Yetman, who had only been out on bail for two days for the 40 counts of animal abuse charges, was taken into custody once more and charged with 31 counts of possession of pornography involving juveniles.
According to the Louisiana State police, Yetman was originally arrested on December 19, 2018 and charged with 20 counts of sexual abuse of animals by performing sexual acts with an animal, and 20 counts of filming sexual acts with an animal.
In a plea deal, however, Yetman — despite facing over 70 charges — pleaded guilty to just one count of possession of child pornography and five counts of sexual abuse of an animal.
Multiple states now have policies in action where drinking and driving can get your blood drawn by force — for a misdemeanor. While many states require a medically trained professional to conduct the blood draw, Georgia has upped the ante by training cops to draw your blood.
The Governor’s Office of Highway Safety received an impaired driving grant this month and is using it to train police officers to be vampires. While police won’t actually suck out your blood with their teeth, they will use a syringe to remove your blood from your body — even if you do not consent.
“A blood test is often the key piece of evidence needed to convict a DUI driver in court, but the barriers law enforcement officers are facing in getting blood drawn during a DUI investigation are resulting in too many of these cases going to trial without any toxicology evidence,” Allen Poole, director of the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, said.
The agency claims that not only will the blood evidence help prosecute cases, this could also be a deterrent if a driver knows a cop is also a phlebotomist.
“Knowing law enforcement will be able to gather forensic evidence and better prosecute the case, we’re hoping to get voluntary compliance with people not getting behind the wheel and driving,” said Roger Hayes, GOHS Law Enforcement Services Director.
But forced blood draws and increased DUI stops have done nothing to deter drunk drivers. In spite of their increased presence over the last decade, DUI checkpoints and Soviet-style roadblocks have not proven to significantly decrease DUIs.
If you were wondering what a tyrant like Stalin or Mao would do in the age of technology, take a look down under.
The Australian parliament passed unprecedented legislation that gives federal police near-unrestricted powers to spy on any Australian citizen – by gaining access to their social media and email accounts without their knowledge – if they have been ‘suspected of criminal activity.’
The totalitarian “Identify and Disrupt” bill creates 3 new types of “data disruption” warrants that the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission can use to copy, delete and modify content on individuals online accounts.
Federal authorities will be able to impersonate the account holder and send emails or messages to their online correspondents.
One of the most annoying aspects of the current measures supposedly created “against the pandemic” that we have been subjected for almost two years now is the insistence that everything is done “for our own good”, as if governments and big companies were strict but caring parents, and we were just unruly or disobedient children who don’t really know what they need.
It brings to mind CS Lewis’ warning about that most oppressive of tyrannies, “a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims.”
Now, I cannot tell for sure if the vaccines, the lockdowns, the travel restrictions and the masks work or not. My feeling is that they don’t, or at least, not in the way we are being told, but that’s not the issue. The question is why are we being treated like stupid children who cannot simply choose, but have to take a “jab” and then get “green passes” to travel or work or enter any establishment.
Apparently, governments and big corporations worldwide are worried about our “health”.
But are they, really?
Like monomaniacs, they seem to be worried exclusively about Covid.
Not about the incredible amount of mental health issues and the alarming increase of teenage suicides during the various “lockdowns”.
Not about people, like my elderly neighbours, who could not see their family (who live in another country) for over two years and are suffering with solitude.
Not for the people who, afraid of contracting Covid, didn’t go to the hospital to treat other conditions and died.
Not for the people who died or got sick because of side effects of the vaccines.
No, it’s just “Covid”. And even that doesn’t seem to be their main worry. As long as they get their “vaccine passports” and their “tracking apps” and their “cashless society”, they don’t really care if you get the disease or not.
When did this wave of fake concern started? Ok, governments were probably always in the business of being annoying busybodies – “I’m from the government and I am here to help” was a scary sentence since who knows how long. But companies for decades were mostly concerned with selling their product, not with lecturing us.
However, at the peak of BLM riots, I received dozens of emails from big companies assuring me that, to them, “blacks lives mattered”. In Pride Month, the same companies assured me that they were fighting for transgender rights to use whichever bathroom they wanted. I never asked nor cared what’s their position on those issues, just that they make a good product that I can use.
Now, the same companies send me emails about masks and vaccination and passes. Because, see, they are worried about my health.
Unfortunately, it’s not just governments and big companies. Almost every institution in the culture and the arts is also kowtowing (either by government decrees or to keep being funded, I don’t know) to this literal “new world order”.
The Asch Conformity Test was a series of trials carried out at Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania, in the 1950s, aimed at discerning how susceptible people might be to peer pressure, and how far this was likely to influence them in the things they believed or claimed to believe. It has often been noted that human beings fear nothing — not even hunger or thirst — more than being cast outside their own tribe, and these tests, also called the Asch Paradigm, comprised a series of studies directed by Solomon Asch to examine whether individuals would yield to or defy a majority group, and study the impact their responses had on their opinions, beliefs and actions. The results show a strong propensity in a minority of humans to follow the herd regardless of facts or even personal understandings. Asch found a strong pattern of yielding towards an erring majority opinion in more than a third of his test subjects, with three-quarters being prepared to concur with the majority’s ‘blunders’ to some degree — in other words, consensus was more persuasive that truth. Doubt creeps in when we are outnumbered, pressing us to trust the majority.
Asch’s verdict: ‘That intelligent, well-meaning, young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern.’
Some subjects, though suspecting something was wrong, lacked the confidence to go against the crowd. Some knew the others were wrong but went along so as not to seem ‘out of step’. Further trials over subsequent years discovered that, if one or more of the actors concurred with the subject’s opinion, the number of instances where the subjects answered with the majority was reduced dramatically. The bigger the group, the more likelihood of conformity. The level of conformity was dramatically reduced in experiments in which the answers were written rather than spoken publicly.
This is why it has been so vital to the Covid deception that contrary views are excluded from public debates. Just one dissenting voice can liberate even a hesitant person to ignore the majority and speak the truth as he sees it. In a mass society, even a few dissenters can turn a general convocation around. That is why the authorities seek to blacken the reputations of dissenters, why journaliars demonise truth-tellers as ‘far right conspiracy theorists’, and so forth. It is also why PC ideas have proved so powerful in bullying the majority to remain silent on issues when certain perspective are defined as taboo. All goes to demonstrate Irving Janis’s third rule of groupthink: Its captives immediately move to marginalise ‘wrongthinkers’.
An Illinois mother says a Cook County judge decided to strip her parental rights over her refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a local report.
Rebecca Firlit told FOX 32 Chicago that Cook County Judge James Shapiro revoked all of her parenting time with her son until she gets vaccinated.
“I miss my son more than anything. It’s been very difficult. I haven’t seen him since August 10th,” Firlit told the outlet.
A spokesperson for Shaprio told FOX 32 that the judge could not comment on the ruling due to the ongoing nature of the case.
Firlit, who has reportedly been divorced for seven years and shares custody of her son with her ex-husband, said she does not want to get the vaccine due to previous adverse reactions to vaccines, according to FOX 32.
You must be logged in to post a comment.