
Ian Williams Goddard on society…


The outlet used the (now changed) alarmist headline ‘Global Lockdown Every Two Years Needed To Meet Paris CO2 Goals – Study’.
The piece refers to study published in the Nature journal by a team of researchers at the University of East Anglia, who concluded that CO2 emissions need to drop by the same amount as they have during the recent lockdown period “roughly every two years” in order to offset global warming.
The study did not advocate global lockdowns in order to achieve this, despite the Guardian’s misleading headline. In fact it called for “completely different methods”.
The fear of coronavirus is waning. The globalists have indeed failed in epic fashion. But, this doesn’t mean that they are going to give up. If my experience studying psychopathic people tells me anything, it is that when these lunatics are cornered they tend to double and triple down on their failures.
The question is, what will happen next? The establishment will need maximum instability and chaos in the near term if they hope to salvage their Reset project. If they wait too long awareness will spread and they might not get another chance for many decades to come, if ever. Here are the events I expect to see over the course of the next year…
In Scotland, claiming sex is binary could result in criminal charges, a policy analysis group warns. The warning follows a “flawed and rushed” change to an upcoming hate speech legislation.
In January, Humza Yousaf, the justice secretary in Scotland, proposed an amendment to the upcoming hate crime legislation that would have protected free speech around transgenderism. However, the amendment was met with heavy criticism from the trans lobby.
The backlash from activists was so bad that Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland and leader of the ruling Scottish National Party (SNP), had to record a video imploring LGBT members of SNP not to leave the party. Consequently, Yousaf withdrew his amendment to the hate crime bill.
New documents have been released about the birth of a secret intelligence pact between the US and UK 75 years ago.
The documents, including diary entries, detail the war time meetings that began at Bletchley Park and led to the UKUSA deal being signed in March 1946.
The alliance involved working together to intercept communications and break codes, sharing almost everything.
It grew into what is today called the “Five Eyes” pact of the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
“Together, we are greater than the sum of our parts,” said Jeremy Fleming, director of GCHQ, and director of the US National Security Agency, Gen Paul Nakasone, in a joint statement to mark the anniversary, amid talk of expanding the group even further.
In Caniglia v. Strom, police want to be able to carry out warrantless home invasions in order to seize lawfully-owned guns under the pretext of their so-called “community caretaking” duties. Under the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment, police can conduct warrantless searches of vehicles relating to accident investigations and provide aid to “citizens who are ill or in distress.”
At a time when red flag gun laws are gaining traction as a legislative means by which to allow police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats, it wouldn’t take much to expand the Fourth Amendment’s “community caretaking” exception to allow police to enter a home without a warrant and seize lawfully-possessed firearms based on concerns that the guns might pose a danger.
What we do not need is yet another pretext by which government officials can violate the Fourth Amendment at will under the pretext of public health and safety.
In Lange v. California, police want to be able to enter homes without warrants as long as they can claim to be in pursuit of someone they suspect may have committed a crime. Yet as Justice Neil Gorsuch points out, in an age in which everything has been criminalized, that leaves the door wide open for police to enter one’s home in pursuit of any and all misdemeanor crimes.
At issue in Lange is whether police can justify entering homes without a warrant under the “hot pursuit” exception to the Fourth Amendment.
The case arose after a California cop followed a driver, Arthur Lange, who was honking his horn while listening to music. The officer followed Lange, supposedly to cite him for violating a local noise ordinance, but didn’t actually activate the police cruiser’s emergency lights until Lange had already arrived home and entered his garage. Sticking his foot under the garage door just as it was about to close, the cop confronted Lange, smelled alcohol on his breath, ordered him to take a sobriety test, and then charged him with a DUI and a noise infraction.
Lange is just chock full of troubling indicators of a greater tyranny at work.
Overcriminalization: That you can now get pulled over and cited for honking your horn while driving and listening to music illustrates just how uptight and over-regulated life in the American police state has become.
Make-work policing: At a time when crime remains at an all-time low, it’s telling that a police officer has nothing better to do than follow a driver seemingly guilty of nothing more than enjoying loud music.
Warrantless entry: That foot in the door is a tactic that, while technically illegal, is used frequently by police attempting to finagle their way into a home and sidestep the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
The definition of reasonable: Although the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures of “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” where we run into real trouble is when the government starts dancing around what constitutes a “reasonable” search. Of course, that all depends on who gets to decide what is reasonable. There’s even a balancing test that weighs the intrusion on a person’s right to privacy against the government’s interests, which include public safety.
Too often, the scales weigh in the government’s favor.
End runs around the law: The courts, seemingly more concerned with marching in lockstep with the police state than upholding the rights of the people, have provided police with a long list of exceptions that have gutted the Fourth Amendment’s once-robust privacy protections.
Exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allow the police to carry out warrantless searches: if someone agrees to the search; in order to ferret out weapons or evidence during the course of an arrest; if police think someone is acting suspiciously and may be armed; during a brief investigatory stop; if a cop sees something connected to a crime in plain view; if police are in hot pursuit of a suspect who flees into a building; if they believe a vehicle has contraband; in an emergency where there may not be time to procure a warrant; and at national borders and in airports.
In other words, almost anything goes when it comes to all the ways in which the government can now invade your home and lay siege to your property.



Five years ago, law enforcement asked Genetec, a company closely associated with Homeland Security, to help them develop a public surveillance program which can monitor anyone at the touch of a button.
As Wired.com warned Genetec’s “Citigraf” allows police departments to use a combination of surveillance devices to monitor the public 24/7.
“To get a clear picture of an emergency in progress, officers often had to bushwhack through dozens of byzantine databases and feeds from far-flung sensors, including gunshot detectors, license plate readers, and public and private security cameras.”
At the click of the “INVESTIGATE” button, Citigraf gives law enforcement the ability to go through a city’s historical police records and live sensor feeds, looking for patterns and connections of person.
You must be logged in to post a comment.