Aug 022015
 

Source: The Federalist

A federal judge late Friday granted a temporary restraining order against the release of recordings made at an annual meeting of abortion providers. The injunction is against the Center for Medical Progress, the group that has unveiled Planned Parenthood’s participation in the sale of organs harvested from aborted children.

Judge William H. Orrick, III, granted the injunction just hours after the order was requested by the National Abortion Federation.

Orrick was nominated to his position by hardline abortion supporter President Barack Obama. He was also a major donor to and bundler for President Obama’s presidential campaign. He raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting him, according to Public Citizen.

Even though the National Abortion Federation filed its claim only hours before, Orrick quickly decided in their favor that the abortionists they represent would, ironically, be “likely to suffer irreparable injury, absent an ex parte temporary restraining order, in the form of harassment, intimidation, violence, invasion of privacy, and injury to reputation, and the requested relief is in the public interest.”

Thus far the videos have featured born-alive humans discussing the killing of what abortion providers themselves call “babies,” the “crushing” of their bodies and harvesting of their organs for sale to for-profit companies.

Full article here

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/pJoPyIDHQD8/M.html

Share
Aug 022015
 

Naval Officer Lt. Commander Timothy White pictured in uniform. (Photo: Contributed Photo / Times Free Press)

CHATTANOOGA, TN — When a deranged killer crashed a vehicle into a military reserve center and began shooting, a Naval officer drew a personal handgun and helped stop the attack.  Now it is being reported that the officer, regarded as a hero to many, will be facing federal charges because he discharged a weapon on federal property.

* * * * *

Naval Officer Lt. Commander Timothy White (left) and mass-shooter Muhammad Abdulazeez (right).

Naval Officer Lt. Commander Timothy White (left) and mass-shooter Muhammad Abdulazeez (right).

On the morning of July 16th, 2015, Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a 24-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Kuwait, went on a bloody shooting-spree at two federal offices.  First, he shot up the military recruiting center on Old Lee Highway in Chattanooga, and then sped 7-miles away to perform a second attack on the U.S. Naval and Marine Reserve Center on Amnicola Highway.

At the second location, Abdulazeez crashed his rented Ford Mustang through a gate and began shooting outside the U.S. Naval and Marine Reserve Center, indiscriminately firing at any target he saw. Although the building contained dozens of trained U.S. servicemen, Department of Defense regulations require them to be disarmed on federal property.  Abdulazeez held the upper hand and murdered several unarmed marines, and continued his attack for several minutes until a secretly-armed Naval officer engaged him in a firefight, along with responding Chattanooga police officers.

When the smoke had cleared, Abdulazeez was killed, along with four U.S. servicemen; a fifth succumbed to his wounds in a hospital.

The attack rocked the nation and led to a call for ending the nonsensical weapons prohibition on military bases.  The Pentagon promptly refused to change its rule.

A firearms are prohibited sign hangs ironically at the site of a mass murder in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on July 16, 2015.

A “firearms are prohibited” sign hangs ironically at the site of a mass murder in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on July 16, 2015.

Despite the prohibition on carrying personal weapons on base, at least two servicemen apparently broke that rule, risking consequences but ultimately saving innocent lives by hindering the efforts of the active shooter.  Those men included Naval Officer Lt. Commander Timothy White, as well as a U.S. marine.

But rather than being celebrated as a hero, Lt. Commander White may be instead charged for discharging a firearm on federal property.  A former U.S. Congressman from Florida, Lt. Commander Allen West (U.S. Army, retired) personally confirmed that White will face charges.  West, a passionate war veteran, said that he received word of legal action and became “dog fighting mad and seriously pissed off.” Here’s what he wrote:

Ladies and gents, resulting from the text message I received yesterday, I can confirm that the United States Navy is bringing charges against Lt. Cmdr Timothy White for illegally discharging a firearm on federal property.

The text message asked if it would be possible for Lt. Cmdr White to reach out to me. To wit I replied, affirmative.

What kind of freaking idiots are in charge of our Armed Forces — pardon me, our “unArmed Forces”? What would they prefer that Abdulazeez had been able to kill all the Marines and Sailors at the Naval Support Reserve Center? Let me draw an interesting contrast: Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus is more concerned about lifting the ban on transgendered Sailors. Mabus has a problem in that for the first time since 2007 the US Navy will not have a Carrier Battle Group operating in the Persian Gulf. But this knucklehead has no problem with the Navy seeking to destroy the career of a Sailor, a commander of an installation, returning fire against an Islamic jihadist attack. I do not care if it was his personal weapon, he deserves a medal for facing the enemy.

The fact that the U.S. government would punish well-intentioned Americans for exercising the right to bear arms is not new and not surprising.  The wrongheaded “no guns” policy has also led to a great deal of unnecessary bloodshed, many times in the civilian world, and famously at Fort Hood, where mass-murderers have targeted unarmed servicemen on base in 2009 and in 2014.

While we can only hope that political pressure will cause the department to back off of Lt. Commander White, a great injustice and great vulnerability will remain in every federal gun-free zone until the policy is entirely abolished.

 

{ SUPPORT POLICE STATE USA }

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/9JWl3NwKCHA/M.html

Share
Aug 012015
 
  • Email Us

    For general inquiries and advertising, email:
    Admin (at) BlacklistedNews.com.

    Article submissions, tips, and feedback, email:
    Tips (at) BlacklistedNews.com.

    Send us Snail Mail:
    P.O Box 8526
    Round Rock, Tx 78683

    Voicemail/TXT:
    Feel free to send us a message anytime

    (512) 222-3067

  • Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/FIb3B-l5ddQ/M.html

    Share
    Aug 012015
     
  • Email Us

    For general inquiries and advertising, email:
    Admin (at) BlacklistedNews.com.

    Article submissions, tips, and feedback, email:
    Tips (at) BlacklistedNews.com.

    Send us Snail Mail:
    P.O Box 8526
    Round Rock, Tx 78683

    Voicemail/TXT:
    Feel free to send us a message anytime

    (512) 222-3067

  • Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/FIb3B-l5ddQ/M.html

    Share
    Aug 012015
     
  • Email Us

    For general inquiries and advertising, email:
    Admin (at) BlacklistedNews.com.

    Article submissions, tips, and feedback, email:
    Tips (at) BlacklistedNews.com.

    Send us Snail Mail:
    P.O Box 8526
    Round Rock, Tx 78683

    Voicemail/TXT:
    Feel free to send us a message anytime

    (512) 222-3067

  • Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/BlXbuYNhVKI/M.html

    Share
    Aug 012015
     
  • Email Us

    For general inquiries and advertising, email:
    Admin (at) BlacklistedNews.com.

    Article submissions, tips, and feedback, email:
    Tips (at) BlacklistedNews.com.

    Send us Snail Mail:
    P.O Box 8526
    Round Rock, Tx 78683

    Voicemail/TXT:
    Feel free to send us a message anytime

    (512) 222-3067

  • Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/BlXbuYNhVKI/M.html

    Share
    Jul 312015
     

    Google’s neural networks are good for more than just making trippy art. If you download and run the company’s latest translation app, you will be using a deep neural network — and not just through the cloud, but right on your own phone. The network instantly adds twenty additional languages to the existing seven that their app could decode before, but that’s just the beginning.

    There is little in tech today that can’t be made infinitely better by putting the word ‘deep’ in front of it. What puts the ‘deep’ in neural networks really comes down to having a few hidden layers of neurons in between the input layer and the output layer. That’s where all the so-called deep learning comes into play.

    The original neural network from many decades ago, the perceptron, was at its heart just an algorithm. It was run as single layer of neurons connected in a special way. Although the perceptron was intended to be a machine in its own right, its first practical implementation was in software running on a standard processor. Unfortunately, it seems that not all that much has changed.

    Neural Network

    However, you would be wrong to think that deep neural networks implemented in hardware aren’t coming. Networks made from memristor arrays or constructed from FPGAs are certainly possible now, just not entirely portable. One reason these technologies haven’t been expedited into service already may be that phones are now just that good — they can do many practical computing tasks that once only the cloud could do.

    REad More…

    Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/nixhTt1ATaU/M.html

    Share
    Jul 312015
     

    The administration’s program to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program has given the green light to 664,607 since 2012, including several linked to fraud, terrorism and gangs, according to the U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services agency.

    What’s more, applications for permanent residence have surged from 3,000 to 7,500 a month, far above projections, according to agency answers provided to Senate Judiciary Immigration and the National Interest Subcommittee Republicans and obtained by Secrets.

    USCIS said it is also producing 144,275 “employment authorization documents” each month, and has the capability to approve 400,000 work permits a month.

    President Obama proposed DACA in 2012. It allows younger illegals who entered prior to June 2007 to get a renewable work permit and exemption from deportation. Since then, 243,872 renewals have been granted.

    Read More…

    Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/Gu16QBJlJJE/M.html

    Share
    Jul 302015
     

    The problem is, the bill they’re laser-focused on is misguided, wouldn’t protect us — and is a huge gift to companies wanting legal cover if and when they choose to violate Americans’ privacy rights.

    In March, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted 14–1 in favor of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA). The bill, like its infamous predecessor CISPA, would allow companies to share vast amounts of users’ private and personally identifiable data with the government. That information would go straight to the Department of Homeland Security and then on to the NSA.

    If CISA passes, companies would be permitted to monitor and then report to the government on vaguely defined “cyber-threat indicators” — a term so broad that it covers actual threats hackers pose to computer systems but also sweeps in information on crimes like carjacking and burglaries. Those are serious offenses to be sure, but they have nothing to do with cybersecurity.

    While current law allows companies to monitor their own systems for cyber threats, CISA would take this to the next level. The bill would allow companies that hold huge swaths of our personal data — like health insurers and credit-card companies — to monitor and report online activity “notwithstanding any other provision of law.”

    This means that CISA would undermine the strong protections embedded in laws like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and the Privacy Act of 1964 — laws designed to keep the government from spying on our communications.

    While posing a serious threat to our privacy online, CISA wouldn’t even guard well against cyber attacks. The bill offers a bad trade-off, to put it mildly.

    In April, leading Internet-security technologists wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee, arguing that Congress didn’t need to create new legal authority to let companies share information designed to help protect their systems from future attacks. As their letter explains:

    Waiving privacy rights will not make security sharing better. The more narrowly security practitioners can define these IoCs [indicators of compromise] and the less personal information that is in them, the better… Any bill that allows for and results in significant sharing of personal information could decrease the signal to noise ratio and make IoCs less actionable.

    In June 2015, further revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden showed that much of the activity CISA would authorize has been going on for quite some time. Leaked government slides show that the NSA and the FBI secretly joined forces in 2012 to spy on Internet traffic in pursuit of cybersecurity suspects.

    Despite these efforts, cyber attacks have continued to escalate. Yet this bill to immunize companies from liability for sharing our personal data sailed through the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    The lone dissenter on that committee, Sen. Ron Wyden, noted that cyber attacks are a “serious problem.” However, Wyden said, “if information-sharing legislation does not include adequate privacy protections, then that’s not a cybersecurity bill — it’s a surveillance bill by another name.”

    So who’s behind the massive push to pass CISA? Insurers, credit-card companies, banks, gas and oil giants, and telecom companies have all lined up behind the bill. Keepers of some of our most private and sensitive data — banks like JPMorgan Chase, and health insurers like Anthem and Blue Cross Blue Shield, to name just a few — are lobbying hard for CISA’s passage.

    In fact, according to lobby-disclosure reports for the first quarter of 2015, the number of companies lobbying for CISA has just about tripled over the last year. Recent attacks have cost companies billions, not to mention embarrassment.

    Stronger cyber “hygiene” would best protect these companies from intrusions and breaches, but that would be costly. Implementing invasive monitoring programs and handing the information off to the government is far preferable if that approach can be sold as a solution to the problem.

    In short, these companies are eager to share more of our personal data with the government so long as they don’t have to worry about violating any privacy safeguards. CISA gives companies exactly what they want: ironclad liability protection to share information about any perceived cyber threats with federal agencies.

    So while CISA would do little or nothing to improve cybersecurity, it would strengthen the surveillance regime and make our personal information even more vulnerable to government abuse.

    Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/3Ourl69FFlY/M.html

    Share
    Jul 302015
     

    (Photo: USPS)

    A bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would allow the government to restrict Americans’ travel through the revocation of passports based upon mere suspicions of unscrupulous activity.  This bill represents another dangerous step forward in the war on terror and the disintegration of American due process.

    H.R. 237, the “FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization) Passport Revocation Act of 2015,” will allow the U.S. Secretary of State the unchecked authority to prohibit individuals from traveling internationally.  According to the bill, the Secretary may unilaterally revoke (or refuse to issue) a passport from “any individual whom the Secretary has determined has aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).”

    The bill did not bother to define what the terms “aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped” actually mean, in legal terms.  The power has been left open-ended so that it can mean whatever the secretary wants it to mean.  Needless to say, a bill like this would be easily abused.

    The travel restriction requires no presumption of innocence for the targeted individual; no explanation; no public presentation of evidence; no opportunity for a defense; no checks and balances on the power.  The bill does not outline any appeals process for the targeted individual.  The only stipulation is that the Secretary of State must issue a report to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs — “classified or unclassified.”  The bill does not state that either committee can reverse the secretary’s decisions.

    H.R. 237 passed the House on July 21, 2015, on a voice vote (meaning no accountability for its Congressional supporters).  It is being sold as a necessary measure to stop “turned Americans,” as the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), calls them.

    “The House has now acted to locate and contain these traitors,” Rep. Poe said in a press release.  “These Benedict Arnold traitors who have turned against America and joined the ranks of foreign radical terrorist armies should lose all rights afforded to our citizens.”

    Poe’s statement about “losing all rights” is rather startling, considering that about half of the Bill of Rights is explicitly written to protect people suspected of crimes from being abused by overzealous government!  The dangers of a government wantonly revoking the rights of citizens just because the a bureaucrat puts them on a list would be severe indeed; fitting of a police state.  Recall that these individuals can be targeted without even facing official charges of wrongdoing.

    The FTO Passport Revocation Act must pass the U.S. Senate before it reaches the president.  Readers are advised to contact their senators to oppose this overreaching executive power.


    { SUPPORT POLICE STATE USA } 

    Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/xB4g7S6AdHo/M.html

    Share