Big Brother alert: Cameras in the cable box to monitor TV viewers

By Cheryl K. Chumley

-

The Washington Times

Monday, June 17, 2013

• 

It hardly gets more Orwellian than this. New technology would allow cable companies to peer directly into television watchers’ homes and monitor viewing habits and reactions to product advertisements.
The technology would come via the cable box, and at least one lawmaker on Capitol Hill is standing in opposition.
Mass. Democratic Rep. Michael Capuano has introduced a bill, the We Are Watching You Act, to prohibit the technology on boxes and collection of information absent consumer permission. The bill would also require companies that do use the data to show “we are watching you” messages on the screen and to explain just what kinds of information is being captured and for what reasons, AdWeek reported.
The technology includes cameras and microphones that are installed on DVRs or cable boxes and analyzes viewers’ responses, behaviors and statements to various ads — and then provides advertisements that are targeted to the particular household.
Specifically, the technology can monitor sleeping, eating, exercising, reading and more, AdWeek reported.
“This may sound preposterous, but it’s neither a joke nor an exaggeration,” said Mr. Capuano in a statement, AdWeek reported. “These DVRs would essentially observe consumers as they watch television as a way to super-target ads. It is an incredible invasion of privacy.”

© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

-how-to-avoid-being-killed-by-federal-law-enforcement-agents

• A brilliant response to the mental midget state philosophy of we can kill you for any reason or no reason.

  http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/06/daniel-zimmerman/fns-9-contest-entry-how-to-avoid-being-killed-by-federal-law-enforcement-agents
   Curtis says:
  

  June 22, 2013 at 10:14

  Lockdown AmeriKa…
  http://battlefieldusa.wordpress.com/good-morning-amerika/
  Anyhow, this is what Bob is conditioning you for: I am a federal LEO. Right or wrong, I am the law. You will accept all manner of indignity by FLEO’s. Your duty, as a non-government mundane, is to take whatever indignity I throw your way. If you look at me mean, or close your fists in fear and anxiety… YOU… just escalated the use of force. It doesn’t matter if I perceive your reaction as nothing more than a reaction to being intimidated. I am lawfully given the authority to escalate further indignities towards you. Remember, it is not your perception that counts, but mine. Right or wrong, whether I am pulling you out of your car or home, breaking your bones, or shooting you… your job, as a mundane, is to TAKE IT… until it stops and you get a chance to get a lawyer… in which case, we will charge you with layers of criminal charges, many of them redundant, with the full knowledge that our DOJ has a 99 percent conviction rate. Your call mundane. Something WILL stick. Feel like resisting now? Even if I am abusing you?
  Face it, what is the percentage of LEO’s who are kicked off the force, versus those who are just given a paid vacation for their misdeeds? And of those who do face prison time, their incarceration is the minimal that a mundane would suffer.
  KNOW YOUR PLACE CITIZENS! Know where you stand in the Caste system!
  

  
  
  

  / Heyoka says:

  June 22, 2013 at 11:58

  Actually a technical arrest is the stop of your forward progress. Any stop immediately triggers the rights of the citizen. Not allow a citizen to proceed is a seizure and both are subject to the 4th Amendment restrictions. This convenience thing is a fabrication by the courts and enlarged by regulation and erosive of the original intent. No amendment, no law. There is one method of changing the Constitution and that is by an amendment. It is in and of itself the authority to change, you just have to abide by the authority. The legislatures and the courts count on the law enforcement to do their dirty work and keep the citizen conditioned and in their place, according to their twisted sense of authority.
  Remember the ignorance of the law is no excuse, well it goes equally well for those who enforce the law. You have no duty to enforce an unlawful order whether you are a civilian or law enforcement. In this light these LEO type are telling you they do not care about the supreme law of the land, they will disregard it and if you resist them as is your right they will kill you.
  I asked an officer on the witness stand if he know what the parameters were for a lawful search and seizure. The prosecutor stood up and objected and said “he (the officer) is not qualified to know what a lawful search and seizure is”. So who the heel is and is the officer also a citizen and are we not all constrained by the statement that ignorance is not an excuse??? Such is the situation when the servants make themselves the masters… because they are more enlightened I ask….. obviously not.
  Time have certainly changed but human nature has not and we see that the Constitution was written with “timeless principles” that are representative of human nature and not just a arbitrary collection of words used to subjugate a people. All this sleight of hand and smoke and mirror politics is fit for criminals not statesmen. Those who would grasp at any straw to continue their domination over others by the sheer use of force deserve no better.
  And lets call a spade a spade here, this is domination by the sheer use of force, there is no reason, there is Marxist operational action. The Marxist activities have been operational since the turn of the century… the last one 1800- 1900. Brandeis and Frankfurter were both devout Communists and both on the Supreme Court. Just how many have been legislating from the bench since then??? If they want to legislate, they need to resign and run for office. The Constitution itself states that legislators shall not be an officer in any other branch of government, Separation of Powers Doctrine. Why are the violating that??? They are tyrants.
  The Constitution only authorizes a Republican Form of government, Article IV Section 4. You boys in LE need to learn it also. Remember its not the citizen you have to face in the end, although it may very well come to that, it is God, in whatever name you call, that you must answer to. You have been given this authority in trust to serve and protect the People, not the self serving politicians. Te passage that states he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword means those who live by the use of force will die by the use of force. You in LE have made you choice to live by the use of force. Lets examine that. Do you think anyone would would obey an order given by you if you did not have a badge, a gun and a radio to summon others to assist you??? So the use of force or the threat of the use of force is all that you have to coerce people with. You do not use reason or the law as authorized by the Constitution, as everyone is supposed to know as ignorance is no excuse, or pretty words; you use force or the threat of force. We only have to look at the TV to see how you use it, sudden and violent if people refuse to comply. You folks and you handlers parade it around so everyone can see how force will be used on them if they do not comply with the whims of their supposed servants. If you take an oath to uphold the Constitution you better damned well know what it means or you have no complaints coming. So in light of this how should the rightful masters of the Courts and the Legislature respond if you overstep your bounds.???? Or better yet how do you respond when someone resists your orders, even though they may be unlawful orders??? And remember this, it is the citizen who pays your wages, your insurance, your pension and your disability if you are injured in the line of duty, not the politicians. How do you treat us and should we not respond in like kind. The Bible says to cut off the ear of a servant who will not listen. How many of you would be ear-less now……

NSA Fanboys

Pageviews today  48 Pageviews yesterday  23 Pageviews last month  173 Pageviews all time history  436

NSA Spying nothing new.

Doesn't matter what you fascist scum call this spewage of spying programs, echelon or prism or gori, the truth floats to the top.

Hiding Behind the BAR

Hiding Behind the BAR
Why attorneys are not lawyers
AWARE org., 31 Aug 2001
In the U.S., they're collectively called everything from "attorney" to "lawyer" to "counselor." Are these terms truly equivalent, or has the identity of one been mistaken for another?
What exactly is a "Licensed BAR Attorney"? This credential accompanies every legal paper produced by attorneys - along with a State Bar License number. As we are about to show you, an 'attorney' is not a 'lawyer', yet the average American improperly interchanges these words as if they represent the same occupation, and the average American attorney unduly accepts the honor to be called "lawyer" when he is not.
In order to discern the difference, and where we stand within the current court system, it's necessary to examine the British origins of our U.S.
courts and the terminology that has been established from the beginning.
It's important to understand the proper lawful definitions for the various titles we now give these court related occupations.
The legal profession in the U.S. is directly derived from the British system. Even the word bar is of British origin:
BAR. A particular portion of a court room. Named from the space enclosed by two bars or rails: one of which separated the judge's bench from the rest of the room; the other shut off both the bench and the area for lawyers engaged in trials from the space allotted to suitors, witnesses, and others. Such persons as appeared as speakers (advocates, or counsel) before the court, were said to be "called to the bar", that is, privileged so to appear, speak and otherwise serve in the presence of the judges as "barristers". The corresponding phrase in the United States is "admitted to the bar". - A Dictionary of Law (1893).
From the definition of 'bar', the title and occupation of a barrister is derived:
BARRISTER, English law. A counselor admitted to plead at the bar. 2. Ouster barrister, is one who pleads ouster or without the bar. 3. Inner barrister, a sergeant or king's counsel who pleads within the bar. 4. Vacation barrister, a counselor newly called to the bar, who is to attend for several long vacations the exercise of the house. 5. Barristers are called apprentices, apprentitii ad legem, being looked upon as learners, and not qualified until they obtain the degree of sergeant. Edmund Plowden, the author of the Commentaries, a volume of elaborate reports in the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, Philip and Mary, and Elizabeth, describes himself as an apprentice of the common law. - A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).
BARRISTER, n. [from bar.] A counselor, learned in the laws, qualified and admitted to please at the bar, and to take upon him the defense of clients; answering to the advocate or licentiate of other countries. Anciently, barristers were called, in England, apprentices of the law. Outer barristers are pleaders without the bar, to distinguish them from inner barristers, benchers or readers, who have been sometime admitted to please within the bar, as the king's counsel are. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
Overall, a barrister is one who has the privilege to plead at the courtroom bar separating the judicial from the non-judicial spectators. Currently, in U.S. courts, the inner bar between the bench (judge) and the outer bar no longer exists, and the outer bar separates the attorneys (not lawyers) from the spectator's gallery. This will be explained more as you read further.
As with the word 'bar', each commonly used word describing the various court officers is derived directly from root words:
1). From the word solicit is derived the name and occupation of a 'solicitor'; one who solicits or petitions an action in a court.
SOLICIT, v.t. [Latin solicito] 1. To ask with some degree of earnestness; to make petition to; to apply to for obtaining something. This word implies earnestness in seeking... 2. To ask for with some degree of earnestness; to seek by petition; as, to solicit an office; to solicit a favor. - Webster's
1828 Dictionary.
2). From the word attorn is derived the name and occupation of an 'attorney'; one who transfers or assigns property, rights, title and allegiance to the owner of the land.
ATTORN / v. Me. [Origin French. atorner, aturner assign, appoint, f.
a-torner turn v.] 1. v.t. Turn; change, transform; deck out. 2. v.t. Turn over (goods, service, allegiance, etc.) to another; transfer, assign. 3.
v.i. Transfer one's tenancy, or (arch.) homage or allegiance, to another; formally acknowledge such transfer. attorn tenant (to) Law formally transfer one's tenancy (to), make legal acknowledgment of tenancy (to a new landlord). - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.
ATTORN, v.i. [Latin ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
ATTORNMENT, n. The act of a feudatory, vassal or tenant, by which he consents, upon the alienation of an estate, to receive a new lord or superior, and transfers to him his homage and service. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
ATTORNMENT n. the transference of bailor status, tenancy, or (arch.)
allegiance, service, etc., to another; formal acknowledgment of such transfer: lme. - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.
3). From the word advocate comes the meaning of the occupation by the same name; one who pleads or defends by argument in a court.
ADVOCATE, v.t. [Latin advocatus, from advoco, to call for, to plead for; of ad and voco, to call. See Vocal.] To plead in favor of; to defend by argument, before a tribunal; to support or vindicate. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
4). From the word counsel is derived the name and occupation of a 'counselor' or 'lawyer'; one who is learned in the law to give advice in a court of law; COUNSEL, v.t. [Latin. to consult; to ask, to assail.] 1. To give advice or deliberate opinion to another for the government of his conduct; to advise.
- Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
LAWYER. A counselor; one learned in the law. - A Law Dictionary by John Bouvier (Revised Sixth Edition, 1856).
Although modern usage tends to group all these descriptive occupational words as the same, the fact is that they have different and distinctive meanings when used within the context of court activities:
a.. Solicitor - one who petitions (initiates) for another in a court b.. Counselor - one who advises another concerning a court matter c.. Lawyer - [see counselor] learned in the law to advise in a court d.. Barrister - one who is privileged to plead at the bar e.. Advocate - one who pleads within the bar for a defendant f.. Attorney - one who transfers or assigns, within the bar, another's rights & property acting on behalf of the ruling crown (government)
It's very clear that an attorney is not a lawyer. The lawyer is a learned counselor who advises. The ruling government appoints an attorney as one who transfers a tenant's rights, allegiance, and title to the land owner (government).
Feudal Tenancy If you think you are a landowner in America, take a close look at the warranty deed or fee title to your land. You will almost always find the words tenant or tenancy. The title or deed document establishing your right as a tenant, not that of a landowner, has been prepared for transfer by a licensed BAR Attorney, just as it was carried out within the original English feudal system we presumed we had escaped from in 1776.
A human being is the tenant to a feudal superior. A feudal tenant is a legal person who pays rent or services of some sort for the use and occupation of another's land. The land has been conveyed to the tenant's use, but the actual ownership remains with the superior. If a common person does not own what he thought was his land (he's legally defined as a feudal tenant, not the superior owner), then a superior person owns the land and the feudal tenant - person pays him to occupy the land.
This is the hidden Feudal Law in America. When a person (a.k.a. human being, corporation, natural person, partnership, association, organization, etc.) pays taxes to the tax assessor of the civil county or city government (also a person), it is a payment to the superior land owner for the right to be a tenant and to occupy the land belonging to the superior. If this were not so, then how could a local government sell the house and land of a person for not rendering his services (taxes)?
We used to think that there was no possible way feudal law could be exercised in America, but the facts have proven otherwise. It's no wonder they hid the definition of a human being behind the definition of a man.
The next time you enter into an agreement or contract with another person (a legal entity), look for the keywords person, individual, and natural person describing who you are.
Are you the entity the other person claims you are? When you "appear"
before their jurisdiction and courts, you have agreed that you are a legal person unless you show them otherwise. You will have to deny that you are the person and state who you really are. Is the flesh and blood standing there in that courtroom a person by their legal definition?
British Accredited Registry (BAR)?
During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA).
Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA.
When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent - established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England - the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America.
Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's own BAR Association, i.e.
The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law - lawyers - to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar.
Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything?
Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney - one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner.
Another name game they use is "of counsel," which means absolutely nothing more than an offer of advice. Surely, the mechanic down the street can do that! Advice is one thing; lawful representation is another.
A BAR licensed Attorney is not an advocate, so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is? He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court. A more appropriate phrase would be legal plunder.
The official duties of an Esquire Let's not forget that all U.S. BAR Attorneys have entitled themselves, as a direct result of their official BAR license and oaths, with the British title of esquire. This word is a derivative of the British word squire.
SQUIRE, n. [a popular contraction of esquire] 1. In Great Britain, the title of a gentleman next in rank to a knight. 2. In Great Britain, an attendant on a noble warrior. 3. An attendant at court. 4. In the United States, the title of magistrates and lawyers. In New-England, it is particularly given to justices of the peace and judges. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
ESQUIRE n. Earlier as squire n.1 lme. [Origin French. esquier (mod. écuyer)
f. Latin scutarius shield- bearer, f. scutum shield: see-ary1.] 1. Orig.
(now Hist.), a young nobleman who, in training for knighthood, acted as shield-bearer and attendant to a knight. Later, a man belonging to the higher order of English gentry, ranking next below a knight. lme. b Hist.
Any of various officers in the service of a king or nobleman. c A landed proprietor, a country squire. arch. - Oxford English Dictionary 1999.
During the English feudal laws of land ownership and tenancy, a squire - esquire - was established as the land proprietor charged with the duty of carrying out, among various other duties, the act of attornment [see definition above] for the land owner and nobleman he served.
Could this be any simpler for the average American to understand? If our current U.S. BAR Attorneys were just lawyers, solicitors, barristers, advocates or counselors, then they would call themselves the same. They have named themselves just exactly what they are, yet we blindly cannot see the writing on the wall.
The BAR Attorneys have not hidden this from anyone. That's why they deliberately call themselves Esquires and Attorneys at law. It is the American people who have hidden their own heads in the sand.
Knowing these simple truths, why would anyone consider the services of BAR Attorney-Esquire as his representative within the ruling courts of America?
Their purposes, position, occupation, job, and duty is to transfer your allegiance, property, and rights to the landowner, a.k.a. STATE. They are sworn oath officers of the State whose sole authority is to transfer your property to their landowner-employer. Think about this the next time you enter their courtrooms. From now on, all Americans should refuse to enter past the outer bar when they are called. Who would voluntarily want to relinquish all he has by passing into their legal trap that exists inside that outer bar?
We must all refuse to recognize their royal position as Squires and refuse to hire them as our representatives and agents. They can't plead or argue for you anyway; all they can do is oversee the act of attornment on behalf of the ruling government whom they serve as official officers. Nothing stops your neighbor from being a barrister or lawyer. No real law prohibits any of us from being lawyers! Even Abraham Lincoln was a well-recognized lawyer, yet he had no formal law degree. Let the BAR Attorneys continue in their jobs as property transfer agent-officers for the State, but if no defendant hires them, they'll have to get new jobs or they'll starve. Fire your BAR Attorney and represent yourself as your own lawyer, or hire any non-BAR-licensed lawyer to assist you from outside the courtroom bar.
Refuse to acknowledge all judges who are also licensed BAR Attorneys. Every judge in Florida State is a member of the Florida BAR. This is unlawful and unconstitutional as a judge cannot be an Esquire nor can he represent any issue in commerce, such as that of the State. Every Florida State judge has compromised his purported neutral and impartial judicial.

MamaPop All Access

With Tracey Gaughran-Perez

80% Of Pre-Packaged Foods In American Grocery Stores Banned In Other Countries

By Tracey Gaughran-Perez | June 21st, 2013 at 11:33 am

• 1.7K
• Tweet
• 
  
• 
• 0

If you or your kids enjoy pre-packaged convenience foods commonly found in grocery stores across the U.S. such as Froot Loops, Swanson dinners, Mountain Dew, and frozen potato and bread products, you may think twice before purchasing them after hearing what they contain: dangerous chemicals that other countries around the globe have deemed toxic to the point that they’re illegal, and companies are fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for including them in food products.
In a new book, “Rich Food, Poor Food,” authors Mira and Jason Calton provide a list of what they term “Banned Bad Boys” – ingredients commonly used in up to 80% of all American convenience food that have been banned by other countries, with information about which countries banned each substance and why.
And though it might not surprise you to hear that Olestra – commonly used in low/no-fat snack foods and known to cause serious gastrointestinal issues for those who consume it (understatement) – is on that list, having been banned in both the United Kingdom and Canada, you may be shocked to hear that Mountain Dew, Fresca and Squirt all contain brominated vegetable oil, a substance that has been banned in more than 100 countries “because it has been linked to basically every form of thyroid disease – from cancer to autoimmune diseases – known to man.”
Way to go, FDA! Woot!
You might also be upset to hear that the food coloring used to make your kid’s delicious Mac & Cheese dinner visually appealing – yellow #5 and yellow #6, namely – is made from coal tar, which among other things is an active ingredient in lice shampoo and has been linked to allergies, ADHD, and cancer in animals. And gaaaaah.

But why does it have to be so delicious? *sob*

Then there’s azodicarbonamide – commonly found in frozen dinners and frozen potato and bread products – which is used make things like bleach and foamed plastics like those found in yoga mats (tasty!). Azodicarbonamide has been banned in most European countries because it’s known to induce asthma, and is in fact deemed so dangerous that in Singapore its use carries a hefty $500,00 fine and up to 15 years in prison.
Yet, according to the FDA, it’s SO TOTALLY FINE for us to keep shoveling it into our kid’s faceholes: “[Azodicarbonamide] is approved to be a bleaching agent in cereal flour and is permitted for direct addition to food for human consumption.”
Oooookay then.
Finally, there’s butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) – found in Post, Kelloggs and Quaker brand cereals – which is made from petroleum and is a known cancer-causing agent. It’s been banned in England and Japan, but those of us in the U.S. can keep right on serving up to our children for breakfast, because AMMURICA. And FREEDOMZ.
Anyone else find all of this, ohhhh I don’t know, more than a tad bit disturbing? I’m not ashamed to say I have love for the blue box Mac & Cheese, and to think that chemicals known and recognized world-wide as completely toxic are included in that – a product openly marketed as being a meal FOR KIDS – makes me more than a little ragey. I mean, those chemicals can’t be what makes it taste so good, right? So can’t we, umm, just use something else instead? (PLEEEASE DON’T MAKE ME GIVE UP THE MAC & CHEESE, PLEEEASE.) Sigh.
Image sources: wikimedia, wikimedia

imagine if our police had the courage these do...