Arizona's Sheriff Joe Ordered, Again, to Improve His Abusive Jails

Maricopa County JailMarizopa County, Arizona’s
Sheriff Joe Arpaio loves grandstanding—and much of his routine is
made for TV. His chain gangs
wear black and white striped uniforms, just like in old movies, his
prisoners are issued pink underwear “sure to
offend the tender male ego” as his office boasts, and his world
famous “tent city”
jail is available for tours (adults only, no more than five per
group, please). But his office has also been guilty of a litany of
shenanigans, including
stealing documents from a defense attorney,
arresting critical journalists,
spying on political opponents—and maintaining such lousy jail
conditions that they violate inmates’ rights.

In fact, U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake has
yet again, in an
ongoing saga,
told Sheriff Joe to offer decent medical care to the prisoners
in his care.

Defendants now have at least one medical provider and additional
mental health staff assigned to the Jail’s intake center 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week. But they have not shown they have resolved
systemic deficiencies in providing pretrial detainees timely
face-to-face assessment by medical and mental health providers for
serious acute or chronic complex conditions.

Judge Wake noted that county officials have made some
improvements since the last time he noted that they weren’t
complying with his order to improve conditions, but that “some of
the new practices were begun only a few days before” they asked to
be released from court superviion.

Note that the original judgment against the county dates to
1995, the jails
lost their national accreditation because of conditions in
2008, it’s now 2014, and Sheriff Joe and company are still dragging
their heels over a court order to improve the treatment of
inmates.

The ACLU of Arizona has more
here.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1mRGYKQ
via IFTTT

Moms Fed Up with School ‘Stranger Danger’ Paranoia

CreepyMention this trend to any
friend with school age kids and most will likely say they have seen
it: A note from the school warning parents and children that there
was a car, a stranger, or—worst of all—a van spotted
near the bus stop. A reader, Kate, sent me a message about the note
her son’s school sent home with him. Kate lives in Canada, but the
trend is strong in the U.S., too:

Today’s alert was to let us know that the police were contacted
“regarding a suspicious motor vehicle seen between 8:15 and
8:30 AM” near one of the schools this morning, a “white work van
with an orange flashing style light on top that was not operative”
operated by “a male approx. 50-60 years of age with a full white
beard and wearing an orange construction style shirt and ball style
hat.”

Of course, there isn’t enough detail included to explain what on
earth is so suspicious about a work van driven by a workman in a
small Canadian town on a Wednesday morning. Instead there are
tips about setting up ‘code words’ with parents and kids and never
going into strange places out of public view. 

These notes are not benign. By adding to the belief that our
kids are in constant danger the minute they leave the house, they
make it seem too risky to send kids outside unsupervised. That’s
how we end up with cops collaring moms who let their
kids walk
to the park or play
outside. It is equated with negligence. After all, there was an
unfamiliar car in the neighborhood! Here’s the rest of Kate’s
letter about the note:

The local schools have this ‘partnership’ program with the local
police where a notice is sent home with the schoolkids whenever the
police receive a complaint that touches on a threat to one of the
schools or to schoolkids. Mostly, what this means is that we get to
hear about it every single time a kid reports that someone made
them uncomfortable on their walk home and every time a local
resident sees a ‘suspicious’ vehicle near one of the schools.

Last year, I rolled my eyes at these notices and filed them in
my recycling bin. Butfree-range-kids this year, I’m
fed up. I’m fed up with hearing my kids and their friends talk
about how strangers could have weapons or want to grab kids. I’m
fed up with trying to explain to my neighbors why there’s no danger
at all to my 9-year-old son to bike the 1.2 km to his school—and
that it won’t be any more dangerous for
their daughters to walk or bike the same
distance at the same age.

It’s hard enough to raise Free-Range Kids in a paranoid world
without the school and police adding fuel to the fire…. So, I’m
going to write to my kids’ principal and the local police chief to
ask whether it is really necessary to send reports home about every
unsubstantiated complaint, considering these negative effects on
the school community.

If they do feel it is necessary to send these reports, I want to
insist that they include follow-up reports so that the community
can see how many of these complaints are unsubstantiated or
substantiated. I’d like to include statistics to reinforce the true
likelihood of abduction or assault so I can compare the costs of
this policy against the putative benefits.

Help me shed some sanity!

Let’s all help. Let’s follow Kate’s lead and ask the local cops
and schools to report when the suspicious man or van turns out to
be absolutely nothing more than—surprise—a perfectly harmless man
or van. And let’s ask school principals why they feel compelled to
spread fear based on nothing more than Spidey sense.  

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1nMzedH
via IFTTT

Moms Fed Up with School 'Stranger Danger' Paranoia

CreepyMention this trend to any
friend with school age kids and most will likely say they have seen
it: A note from the school warning parents and children that there
was a car, a stranger, or—worst of all—a van spotted
near the bus stop. A reader, Kate, sent me a message about the note
her son’s school sent home with him. Kate lives in Canada, but the
trend is strong in the U.S., too:

Today’s alert was to let us know that the police were contacted
“regarding a suspicious motor vehicle seen between 8:15 and
8:30 AM” near one of the schools this morning, a “white work van
with an orange flashing style light on top that was not operative”
operated by “a male approx. 50-60 years of age with a full white
beard and wearing an orange construction style shirt and ball style
hat.”

Of course, there isn’t enough detail included to explain what on
earth is so suspicious about a work van driven by a workman in a
small Canadian town on a Wednesday morning. Instead there are
tips about setting up ‘code words’ with parents and kids and never
going into strange places out of public view. 

These notes are not benign. By adding to the belief that our
kids are in constant danger the minute they leave the house, they
make it seem too risky to send kids outside unsupervised. That’s
how we end up with cops collaring moms who let their
kids walk
to the park or play
outside. It is equated with negligence. After all, there was an
unfamiliar car in the neighborhood! Here’s the rest of Kate’s
letter about the note:

The local schools have this ‘partnership’ program with the local
police where a notice is sent home with the schoolkids whenever the
police receive a complaint that touches on a threat to one of the
schools or to schoolkids. Mostly, what this means is that we get to
hear about it every single time a kid reports that someone made
them uncomfortable on their walk home and every time a local
resident sees a ‘suspicious’ vehicle near one of the schools.

Last year, I rolled my eyes at these notices and filed them in
my recycling bin. Butfree-range-kids this year, I’m
fed up. I’m fed up with hearing my kids and their friends talk
about how strangers could have weapons or want to grab kids. I’m
fed up with trying to explain to my neighbors why there’s no danger
at all to my 9-year-old son to bike the 1.2 km to his school—and
that it won’t be any more dangerous for
their daughters to walk or bike the same
distance at the same age.

It’s hard enough to raise Free-Range Kids in a paranoid world
without the school and police adding fuel to the fire…. So, I’m
going to write to my kids’ principal and the local police chief to
ask whether it is really necessary to send reports home about every
unsubstantiated complaint, considering these negative effects on
the school community.

If they do feel it is necessary to send these reports, I want to
insist that they include follow-up reports so that the community
can see how many of these complaints are unsubstantiated or
substantiated. I’d like to include statistics to reinforce the true
likelihood of abduction or assault so I can compare the costs of
this policy against the putative benefits.

Help me shed some sanity!

Let’s all help. Let’s follow Kate’s lead and ask the local cops
and schools to report when the suspicious man or van turns out to
be absolutely nothing more than—surprise—a perfectly harmless man
or van. And let’s ask school principals why they feel compelled to
spread fear based on nothing more than Spidey sense.  

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1nMzedH
via IFTTT

A “No Social Media List” For Extremists And Potential Terrorists?

Submitted by Michael Snyder of The American Dream blog,

You have heard of the “No Fly List”, right?  Well, now the Tories are pledging that if they win the next election in the UK they will establish a list of “extremists” that will have to have their social media posts “approved in advance by the police” before they post them.  There are also plans to ban “extremists” from broadcasting and speaking at public events.  The stated goal of these proposals is to crack down on terrorism, but in the process the civil liberties of the British people are going to be flushed down the toilet.  And the American people need to pay close attention to what is going on in the UK, because whatever police state measures are implemented over there usually also get implemented over here eventually.  For those that believe that we need to do “whatever it takes” to fight terrorism, there is a very important question that you need to ask yourself.  What if the government decides that you are an “extremist” because of what you believe?  What will you do then?

When I saw a report in the Telegraph today entitled “Extremists to have Facebook and Twitter vetted by anti-terror police“, I could hardly believe it.

Do the British people actually want a “no social media list” that will essentially ban people from using Facebook and Twitter even though they haven’t actually been convicted of doing anything wrong?

The following is a brief excerpt from that article…

Extremists will have to get posts on Facebook and Twitter approved in advance by the police under sweeping rules planned by the Conservatives.

 

They will also be barred from speaking at public events if they represent a threat to “the functioning of democracy”, under the new Extremist Disruption Orders.

 

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will lay out plans to allow judges to ban people from broadcasting or protesting in certain places, as well as associating with specific people.

 

The plans — to be brought in if the Conservatives win the election in May — are part of a wide-ranging set of rules to strengthen the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy.

This sounds like an Orwellian nightmare for the British people.

And who is an “extremist” anyway?

We are being told that those that belong to ISIS are extremists, and nobody would argue that.

But the article in the Telegraph makes it sound like any group “that spreads or promotes hatred” would be considered extremist.  And under these new proposals, even belonging to such a group could get you thrown into prison for up to 10 years…

The Home Secretary will also introduce “banning orders” for extremist groups, which would make it a criminal offence to be a member of or raise funds for a group that spreads or promotes hatred. The maximum sentence could be up to 10 years in prison.

So what does all of that exactly mean?

Would anti-abortion groups be considered “extremist”?

Would groups promoting traditional values be considered “extremist”?

Would groups protesting against the abuses of the British government be considered “extremist”?

Would Christian churches ultimately be considered “extremist” because they don’t agree with the radical liberal agenda of the central government?

Essentially what the Tories propose to do is to tightly regulate all speech.  And there is no way to do that without turning the entire United Kingdom into a totalitarian hellhole.

Meanwhile, the United States continues to march down a similar road.

For example, we now live in an environment where a 16-year-old kid can be suspended from school and arrested by the police for writing a story “about using a gun to shoot a dinosaur”…

In another case of school officials adhering to ridiculous zero tolerance policies, a student from South Carolina was suspended and arrested by police recently after writing an imaginative story about using a gun to shoot a dinosaur.

 

The offender, 16-year-old Alex Stone of Summerville High School in a suburb of Charleston was in the course of completing an assignment where students were asked to write something brief about themselves, much like Facebook status updates.

 

Stone told reporters that he found himself in hot water with teachers for being over imaginative and mentioning the word ‘gun’.

This is utter insanity, and it is getting worse with each passing day.

And it is not just kids that have to deal with this kind of thing.  A Big Brother police state control grid is being slowly constructed all around us.  And authorities are preparing for the day when they will have to use lethal force to keep the population in line.  Just check out the following excerpt from a recent Infowars report…

A document released by the U.S. Army details preparations for “full scale riots” within the United States during which troops may be forced to engage in a “lethal response” to deal with unruly crowds of demonstrators.

 

The appearance of the document amidst growing unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, with the National Guard now being called in to deal with the disorder, is an ominous coincidence.

 

The 132-page document, titled U.S. Army Techniques Publication 3-39.33: Civil Disturbances (PDF), was written in April 2014 and recently obtained by Public Intelligence.

 

The document makes it clear that the techniques detailed therein are to be applied both outside and inside the “continental United States (CONUS)” in the event of “unruly and violent crowds” where it is “necessary to quell riots and restore public order.”

 

The training manual outlines scenarios under which, “Civil unrest may range from simple, nonviolent protests that address specific issues, to events that turn into full-scale riots.”

So precisely who is the government so concerned about anyway?

If ISIS and other Islamic terror groups are the problem, why train to fight against Americans?

Sadly, the truth is that much of the focus in the “war on terror” has been turned inward during the Obama administration.  Many officials in the federal government now insist that “homegrown terror” is the greatest threat that we face.

And you may be quite surprised to learn who the government considers “potential terrorists” to be.  The following is an extended excerpt from my previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered “Potential Terrorists” In Official Government Documents“…

*****

Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents.  To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link.  As you can see, this list covers most of the country…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”

2. Those that advocate for states’ rights

3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”

4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”

5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”

6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”

7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”

8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”

9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”

10. “Anti-Gay”

11. “Anti-Immigrant”

12. “Anti-Muslim”

13. “The Patriot Movement”

14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”

23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”

30. Anyone that “complains about bias”

31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”

32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”

33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”

34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”

35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”

36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”

37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”

38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”

39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”

40. “Militia or unorganized militia”

41. “General right-wing extremist”

42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”

44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

45. Those that are “anti-global”

46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”

48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”

49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”

50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”

51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”

52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”

53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”

54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”

55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”

56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”

57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”

58. “Rightwing extremists”

59. “Returning veterans”

60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”

61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”

62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”

63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”

64. “Anti-abortion activists”

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)

71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians

*****

Are you starting to understand?

When government officials speak of the need to crack down on “extremists” and “potential terrorists”, that is a very dangerous thing.

The truth is that they could be talking about you.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/ZsqrTe Tyler Durden

A "No Social Media List" For Extremists And Potential Terrorists?

Submitted by Michael Snyder of The American Dream blog,

You have heard of the “No Fly List”, right?  Well, now the Tories are pledging that if they win the next election in the UK they will establish a list of “extremists” that will have to have their social media posts “approved in advance by the police” before they post them.  There are also plans to ban “extremists” from broadcasting and speaking at public events.  The stated goal of these proposals is to crack down on terrorism, but in the process the civil liberties of the British people are going to be flushed down the toilet.  And the American people need to pay close attention to what is going on in the UK, because whatever police state measures are implemented over there usually also get implemented over here eventually.  For those that believe that we need to do “whatever it takes” to fight terrorism, there is a very important question that you need to ask yourself.  What if the government decides that you are an “extremist” because of what you believe?  What will you do then?

When I saw a report in the Telegraph today entitled “Extremists to have Facebook and Twitter vetted by anti-terror police“, I could hardly believe it.

Do the British people actually want a “no social media list” that will essentially ban people from using Facebook and Twitter even though they haven’t actually been convicted of doing anything wrong?

The following is a brief excerpt from that article…

Extremists will have to get posts on Facebook and Twitter approved in advance by the police under sweeping rules planned by the Conservatives.

 

They will also be barred from speaking at public events if they represent a threat to “the functioning of democracy”, under the new Extremist Disruption Orders.

 

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will lay out plans to allow judges to ban people from broadcasting or protesting in certain places, as well as associating with specific people.

 

The plans — to be brought in if the Conservatives win the election in May — are part of a wide-ranging set of rules to strengthen the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy.

This sounds like an Orwellian nightmare for the British people.

And who is an “extremist” anyway?

We are being told that those that belong to ISIS are extremists, and nobody would argue that.

But the article in the Telegraph makes it sound like any group “that spreads or promotes hatred” would be considered extremist.  And under these new proposals, even belonging to such a group could get you thrown into prison for up to 10 years…

The Home Secretary will also introduce “banning orders” for extremist groups, which would make it a criminal offence to be a member of or raise funds for a group that spreads or promotes hatred. The maximum sentence could be up to 10 years in prison.

So what does all of that exactly mean?

Would anti-abortion groups be considered “extremist”?

Would groups promoting traditional values be considered “extremist”?

Would groups protesting against the abuses of the British government be considered “extremist”?

Would Christian churches ultimately be considered “extremist” because they don’t agree with the radical liberal agenda of the central government?

Essentially what the Tories propose to do is to tightly regulate all speech.  And there is no way to do that without turning the entire United Kingdom into a totalitarian hellhole.

Meanwhile, the United States continues to march down a similar road.

For example, we now live in an environment where a 16-year-old kid can be suspended from school and arrested by the police for writing a story “about using a gun to shoot a dinosaur”…

In another case of school officials adhering to ridiculous zero tolerance policies, a student from South Carolina was suspended and arrested by police recently after writing an imaginative story about using a gun to shoot a dinosaur.

 

The offender, 16-year-old Alex Stone of Summerville High School in a suburb of Charleston was in the course of completing an assignment where students were asked to write something brief about themselves, much like Facebook status updates.

 

Stone told reporters that he found himself in hot water with teachers for being over imaginative and mentioning the word ‘gun’.

This is utter insanity, and it is getting worse with each passing day.

And it is not just kids that have to deal with this kind of thing.  A Big Brother police state control grid is being slowly constructed all around us.  And authorities are preparing for the day when they will have to use lethal force to keep the population in line.  Just check out the following excerpt from a recent Infowars report…

A document released by the U.S. Army details preparations for “full scale riots” within the United States during which troops may be forced to engage in a “lethal response” to deal with unruly crowds of demonstrators.

 

The appearance of the document amidst growing unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, with the National Guard now being called in to deal with the disorder, is an ominous coincidence.

 

The 132-page document, titled U.S. Army Techniques Publication 3-39.33: Civil Disturbances (PDF), was written in April 2014 and recently obtained by Public Intelligence.

 

The document makes it clear that the techniques detailed therein are to be applied both outside and inside the “continental United States (CONUS)” in the event of “unruly and violent crowds” where it is “necessary to quell riots and restore public order.”

 

The training manual outlines scenarios under which, “Civil unrest may range from simple, nonviolent protests that address specific issues, to events that turn into full-scale riots.”

So precisely who is the government so concerned about anyway?

If ISIS and other Islamic terror groups are the problem, why train to fight against Americans?

Sadly, the truth is that much of the focus in the “war on terror” has been turned inward during the Obama administration.  Many officials in the federal governme
nt now insist that “homegrown terror” is the greatest threat that we face.

And you may be quite surprised to learn who the government considers “potential terrorists” to be.  The following is an extended excerpt from my previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered “Potential Terrorists” In Official Government Documents“…

*****

Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents.  To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link.  As you can see, this list covers most of the country…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”

2. Those that advocate for states’ rights

3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”

4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”

5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”

6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”

7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”

8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”

9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”

10. “Anti-Gay”

11. “Anti-Immigrant”

12. “Anti-Muslim”

13. “The Patriot Movement”

14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”

23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”

30. Anyone that “complains about bias”

31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia&r
dquo;

32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”

33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”

34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”

35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”

36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”

37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”

38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”

39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”

40. “Militia or unorganized militia”

41. “General right-wing extremist”

42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”

44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

45. Those that are “anti-global”

46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”

48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”

49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”

50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”

51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”

52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”

53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”

54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”

55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”

56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”

57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”

58. “Rightwing extremists”

59. “Returning veterans”

60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”

61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”

62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”

63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”

64. “Anti-abortion activists”

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ro
n Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)

71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians

*****

Are you starting to understand?

When government officials speak of the need to crack down on “extremists” and “potential terrorists”, that is a very dangerous thing.

The truth is that they could be talking about you.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/ZsqrTe Tyler Durden

Meet FireChat – How Hong Kong Protesters are Communicating Without the Internet

Screen Shot 2014-10-01 at 12.56.45 PMWired first reported on a new iOS app called FireChat back in late March. It described it in the following manner:

A new iOS app called FireChat is blowing up in the App Store. But it’s not the app itself that’s causing such a stir, it’s the underlying networking technology it taps into.

The idea behind FireChat is simple. It’s a chatting app. After registering with a name — no email address or other personal identifiers required — you’re dropped into a fast-moving chatroom of “Everyone” using it in your country. The interesting aspect, however, is the “Nearby” option. Here, the app uses Apple’s Multipeer Connectivity framework, essentially a peer-to-peer feature that lets you share messages (and soon photos) with other app users nearby, regardless of whether you have an actual Wi-Fi or cellular connection.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/1uC8GxL
via IFTTT

Start a business for less than $150 in one of the least expensive capitals in the world

Vilnius Start a business for less than $150 in one of the least expensive capitals in the world

October 1, 2014
Santiago, Chile

Edmundas B. was in Tel Aviv when he got the idea for a startup to better connect web designers and developers with their clients.

Grabbing his mobile phone and laptop, he quickly set up an LLC, for his startup TrackDuck, back in his home country of Lithuania.

He’d previously tested setting up businesses in Tel Aviv and Tallinn, both of which are quite prominent tech startup locations in the world, but in the end he decided to move TrackDuck back to Vilnius.

Why?

Because Lithuania is a small country with big aspirations, and with the right attitude to make them happen.

Being quite small and unknown, Lithuania has had to work hard to build up an attractive reputation.

The best places in the world to live and do business are often some of the smallest, for precisely this reason. Not only are the governments generally more in touch with their populations, but they’ve got to try much harder to appeal to outsiders.

When countries are actively competing for you and your business, you are always the winner.

They want your business and so they’re willing to make things easier for you to start it there. That is why in Lithuania it takes up to 100 euros and less than a week to start a business.

Even after starting up, they want to keep you, which is why the country is home to one of the lowest tax regimes and slimmest bureaucracies in the European Union.

Here you can have the benefit of direct access to the coveted European market, whilst minimizing your costs as a business.

Even as an individual, relocating to Vilnius is great for your budget. For those who like Europe, but not the prices, Vilnius is in the Top 5 least expensive EU capitals for living costs. So you are able to get European standards of living at a fraction of the cost. And you’re a short and cheap flight away from the rest of the continent.

Eager to take advantage of all this, a number of tech and online startups have sprung to relocate their operations to Vilnius. A significant number of Russian startups are amongst this list, but businesses are coming in from all over. This includes prominent online web-development platform Wix.com, based in Tel Aviv, which recently moved its app development department to Vilnius.

As a part of the European Union, talent as well as capital can and does easily flow in from any part of the region.

Locals are highly skilled, with not only university degrees as the norm, but English and usually Russian language proficiency as well. It’s generally common for students to spend their summers working abroad, and in the UK in particular, making for easy communication and capable people.

Investors are taking notice of Lithuania as well, with Accel Partners and Insight Venture Partners recently putting $27 million into a local Lithuanian startup Vinted.

In general, Vilnius is simply an artsy-cool place to be. In just this past summer alone there were over 60 festivals in the lush forests that cover the whole country, attracting people from all over to join in the Lithuanian vibe.

This vibe certainly crosses over into the startup scene, with frequent startup events in the capital. Whether it be for entrepreneurship, art, or music, you will always find something new and interesting to be a part of in Vilnius.

from SOVEREIGN MAN http://www.sovereignman.com/offshore-business/start-a-business-for-less-than-150-in-one-of-the-least-expensive-capitals-in-the-world-15127/
via IFTTT

Goldman Global Leading Indicator Drastically Revised, Collapses Into “Confirmed Slowdown”

Just 2 short weeks ago, Goldman nervously admitted that possibly perhaps maybe their Global Leading Indicator was indicating a “slowdown” was coming, but remained hopeful that the rest of the month would see data pick up and prove them wrong. Now that the final data has been released for the various components of the index, the ‘exuberant’ recovery of the last few months has been massively revised lower. As Goldman itself notes, the September Final GLI came in at 2.6% YoY, providing a clear signal of “Slowdown”, with the data now in hand further suggesting that the GLI first may have entered the ‘Slowdown’ phase back in July.

 

Via Goldman Sachs,

The September Final GLI came in at 2.6%yoy, a decline relative to the August reading. Momentum decreased to 0.15%mom relative to last month’s reading of 0.29%. Although the degree of deceleration remains quite modest, the September GLI print provides a clear signal of ‘Slowdown’, with the data now in hand further suggesting that the GLI first may have entered the ‘Slowdown’ phase back in July.

This comes after an initial August reading that still placed the GLI in ‘Expansion’, but very close to Slowdown, and after both the September and August Advanced GLI readings placed the cycle in the ‘Slowdown’ phase.

 

Red arrows show the revisions from last month…

 

Components mixed

Six of the ten underlying components of the GLI worsened in September. Three of last month’s four improving components came in softer.

The September Final GLI places the global industrial cycle in the ‘Slowdown’ phase, which is defined by positive but decreasing momentum. This may be driven by some data coming in lower after fairly high prints in previous months, such as the Global PMI and NOIN. Along with the Advanced GLI readings in August and September, which located the GLI in ‘Slowdown’, this Final GLI reading comes in a broader context of stable and compressed growth, where small changes may lead to shifts in cycle phases.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qWnFLt Tyler Durden

Goldman Global Leading Indicator Drastically Revised, Collapses Into "Confirmed Slowdown"

Just 2 short weeks ago, Goldman nervously admitted that possibly perhaps maybe their Global Leading Indicator was indicating a “slowdown” was coming, but remained hopeful that the rest of the month would see data pick up and prove them wrong. Now that the final data has been released for the various components of the index, the ‘exuberant’ recovery of the last few months has been massively revised lower. As Goldman itself notes, the September Final GLI came in at 2.6% YoY, providing a clear signal of “Slowdown”, with the data now in hand further suggesting that the GLI first may have entered the ‘Slowdown’ phase back in July.

 

Via Goldman Sachs,

The September Final GLI came in at 2.6%yoy, a decline relative to the August reading. Momentum decreased to 0.15%mom relative to last month’s reading of 0.29%. Although the degree of deceleration remains quite modest, the September GLI print provides a clear signal of ‘Slowdown’, with the data now in hand further suggesting that the GLI first may have entered the ‘Slowdown’ phase back in July.

This comes after an initial August reading that still placed the GLI in ‘Expansion’, but very close to Slowdown, and after both the September and August Advanced GLI readings placed the cycle in the ‘Slowdown’ phase.

 

Red arrows show the revisions from last month…

 

Components mixed

Six of the ten underlying components of the GLI worsened in September. Three of last month’s four improving components came in softer.

The September Final GLI places the global industrial cycle in the ‘Slowdown’ phase, which is defined by positive but decreasing momentum. This may be driven by some data coming in lower after fairly high prints in previous months, such as the Global PMI and NOIN. Along with the Advanced GLI readings in August and September, which located the GLI in ‘Slowdown’, this Final GLI reading comes in a broader context of stable and compressed growth, where small changes may lead to shifts in cycle phases.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qWnFLt Tyler Durden