Rutherford Institute Asks U. S. Supreme Court to Defend the First Amendment Right of Retailers Not to Be Forced to Speak for Government

by Nisha Whitehread


WASHINGTON, D.C. — Insisting that retailers have a First Amendment right not to be forced to speak for the government, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court urging the Court to strike down an ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to tell consumers that cell phones are dangerous.

In the brief filed in CTIA-Wireless Association v. The City of Berkeley, Institute attorneys ask the Court to declare unconstitutional an ordinance adopted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors requiring cell phone retailers to advise purchasers about the disputed health effects of cell phone usage. Institute attorneys argue that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it forces citizens to become unwilling mouthpieces for the controversial viewpoints of their elected officials.       

The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in CTIA-Wireless Association v. The City of Berkeley is available at www.rutherford.org. Attorney Michael Lockerby of Foley & Lardner LLP, in Washington, D.C., assisted The Rutherford Institute with the First Amendment brief.

“The very purpose of the First Amendment, as Justice Hugo L. Black recognized, is to ensure that Americans are free to think, speak, write and worship as they please, not as the government dictates,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Well-meaning or not, the government’s desire to communicate a disputed health alert about cell phone usage cannot be permitted to trump the First Amendment rights of citizens—including retailers—to decide for themselves whether or not to advance such a message.”

In 2015, the City of Berkeley, Calif., passed an ordinance requiring cell phone retailers within the city to provide all persons purchasing or leasing a cell phone a statement relating to the effects of cell phone use. Retailers are required to tell customers that, “to assure safety,” federal guidelines require phones to limit radio-frequency exposure, and that if users carry a cell phone on their person while the phone is on they may exceed those guidelines. However, city council members admitted they had no scientific evidence that cell phones pose a health risk and the Federal Communications Commission has determined there is no scientific evidence linking wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. In addition, the World Health Organization issued a report in June 2011 which concluded that after a large number of studies, no adverse health effects had been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

Hoping to prevent enforcement of the ordinance, the wireless industry filed a lawsuit arguing that the mandated statement was false and misleading and that it compelled retailers to speak in violation of their First Amendment rights. The trial and appellate courts rejected the constitutional claims, ruling that the mandated disclosures have a reasonable relationship to public safety. The wireless industry petitioned the Supreme Court to review that ruling. In its amicus brief supporting the wireless industry’s petition, The Rutherford Institute argues that the lower courts’ rulings will grant the government the power to compel citizens to make statements with which they disagree, even though the statements may be misleading and controversial.

AGW Believers Replace Scientific Method With Dogma Pt. 2: Suppressing Dissent

by H. Sterling Burnett

 

People caught in the grips of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the idea that human activities, primarily fossil fuel use, are causing catastrophic change in the world’s climate, seem to live with blinders on, unable to admit evidence to the contrary. 

I don’t begrudge the opinion of scientists who believe their own research shows, or who believe the dominant number of peer-reviewed papers indicates, humans are causing dangerous climate change. But I do disagree with many of the assumptions made by proponents of AGW. So far, evidence shows most of their projections concerning temperatures, ice, hurricanes, species extinction, etc. have failed. As a result, their projections of future climate conditions are not nearly trustworthy enough to make the kind of fundamental, wrenching, and costly changes to our economy and systems of government AGW proponents have proposed to fight climate change. I don’t think climate scientists can foretell the future any better than the average palm reader.

Making matters worse, AGW proponents discount, or ignore entirely, powerful studies that seem to undermine many of their assumptions and refute most of their conclusions.

Admittedly, I start with a position of skepticism, and indeed suspicion, when well-known researchers release a new study purporting to reinforce or provide further evidence AGW is true. This isn’t because I don’t want to hear what those who disagree with my assessment have to say. Rather, it’s based on my understanding of the lengths to which AGW true believers have gone to manipulate temperature data and try to shoehorn or force this and other data to match their dire projections.  It is reasonable, and even expected, for educated people to disagree with one another on this issue. This back-and-forth exchange of points and counterpoints shows the scientific method functioning as it should.

Many AGW believers, however, have seemingly abandoned the scientific method.

Progress is made in science by proposing a hypothesis, and developing a theory, to explain or understand certain phenomena, and then testing the hypothesis against reality. A particular hypothesis is considered superior to others when, through testing, it is shown to have more explanatory power than competing theories or hypotheses and when other scientists running the same testing regime can reproduce the results of the original test. Every theory or hypothesis must be disconfirmable in principle, such that if the theory predicts ‘A’ will occur under certain conditions, but instead sometimes ‘B’ or ‘C’ results, then the theory has problems. The more a hypothesis’ predictions prove inconsistent with results that occur during testing or real-world data, the less likely the hypothesis is to be correct.

AGW theory does not work this way. No matter what the climate phenomenon, if it can in some way be presented as being unusual by AGW proponents, it is argued to be “further evidence of global warming,” even if it contradicts earlier phenomena pointed to by the same people as evidence of global warming. {The same technique evolutionists use to defend their theory. A Theory so inaccurate the courts rule ex cathedra in favor of it - ED}  

What effects AGW will have seem to depend on which scientist one consults and which model they use. In realm of climate change research, different models looking at the same phenomenon applying the same laws of physics with the same inputs produce dramatically varied results.

Another indication AGW advocates have thrown over the scientific method is how they revert to various logical fallacies to manipulate peoples’ emotions in order to have the public dismiss climate realists’ arguments and research. AGW advocates commit the fallacy of ad hominem when they call researchers who disagree with their assessment of the strength of the case for AGW “deniers”—an obvious attempt to link them in the public’s mind with despicable Holocaust deniers. That is not science, it’s rhetoric. I know of no one who denies the fact climate changes, but there are significant uncertainties and legitimate disagreements regarding the extent of humanity’s role in recent climate changes and whether these will be disastrous. Those who refuse to acknowledge highly regarded scientists disagree with AGW are the real “deniers,” and they should suffer the opprobrium rightfully attached to that label.

AGW proponents commit the fallacy of appeal to numbers when they say the case for dangerous human-caused climate change is settled because some high percentage of a subset of scholars agrees humans are causing dangerous climate change. Consensus is a political, not a scientific, term. People once thought Earth was flat. Galileo disagreed, saying he believed it was round—and he was persecuted for saying so. And you know what? Galileo was right, and the consensus of the time was wrong. At one time, people, including the intellectual elite, believed Earth was the center of the universe and the Sun revolved around it. Copernicus said just the opposite. He was right, and everyone else was wrong.

Knowledge acquisition succeeds not through bowing to some purported consensus in thought and opinion, but through questioning previously received wisdom and continuously testing scientific theories against data. “Because the vast majority of us said so,” is not a legitimate scientific response to research raising questions about all or some part of AGW.

AGW researchers commit the fallacy of appeal to motive when they say a particular study or the work of a particular scientist or group of scientists should not be taken seriously because of who funded them. Both sides commit this fallacy, with climate skeptics often arguing AGW research is biased based on the fact it was funded by government, which history shows is predisposed toward finding reasons grow and exert ever more control over people.

Research should be judged based on the validity of its assumptions, whether its premises are true, and whether its conclusions follow from its premises, not on who funded the research. Data, evidence, and logic are the hallmarks of science, not motives.

Beyond the routine data manipulation and logical fallacies, AGW advocates’ own e-mails show they have tried to suppress the publication of research skeptical toward AGW. And they have routinely attempted to interfere with the career advancement of scholars who refuse to completely toe the AGW line, even stooping on occasion to try to get scholars fired for producing research undermining AGW.

AGW fanatics also try to suppress the teaching of a balanced, accurate understanding of the current state of climate science, with all its uncertainties, in the nation’s schools. This is the tool of the propagandist, not the scientist seeking the truth.

All these reflections came to a head in recent years, as AGW true believers have fought in court to prevent the release of the data underpinning their own research, attempted to suppress free speech by accusing those with whom they disagree of committing libel, and even on occasion called for the prosecution and incarceration of climate skeptics for daring to question AGW orthodoxy. Some AGW proponents have openly admired various authoritarian regimes for their ability to “get things done” without the interference of democratic institutions. Real scientists know truths do not bloom under authoritarianism.

When a theory does not comport with the facts, data, and evidence, it is the theory that should be questioned, not the data or the motives of those bringing such evidence to the world’s attention. Consider this my plea for AGW true believers to embrace, once again, the scientific method, to follow the evidence in the field of climate research where it leads even if it proves inconvenient or inconsistent with their earlier beliefs. To the extent I myself have failed to live up to this ideal, I will try and do the same, approaching AGW arguments with an open mind.


Parkland Sheriff's Office a Muslim Haven

by Staff


The fact that the Parkland Sheriff has participated in election campaigning at a local Mosque and has Muslims on his force brings into question both the veracity and objectivity of the Sheriff's department regarding the school shooting. "In the weeks since the tragic shooting occurred in Parkland, Florida, we have learned that cops cowered outside instead of helping, the police and FBI were all warned on multiple occasions that the alleged shooter, Nikolas Cruz, told people he was going to shoot up the school, nearly two dozen people reported Cruz for death threats, and first responders were told to stand down. Now, we are finding out that the surveillance footage from the school — which the public has a right to see — is being deliberately kept secret by the Broward county sheriff — which many say is illegal.."

Praise Allah, Good thing the Parland, FL Sheriff's department didn’t arrest Cruz, it might have been a black spot on their perfect record.  What are the odds that this up standing Muslim, pillar of the community, wasn’t one of the big brave Deputies that stood outside and listened to the screams and gunshots as they hid behind their cars?

  

According to thr Sun -Sentinel, the Jewish Sheriff is no stranger to contoversy and political intrigue.  He has been caught accepting contibutions from a PAC supporting his reelection involving a felon indicted for being part of the Cuban Mafia.  The Sheriff was also involved in corruption in the hiring of political supporters.

His Deputy Nezar Hamze is a member of CAIR and a spokesman for the vitimization of Islam whenever there are incidents.  Amazingly, the Sheriff advises muslims to arm themselves against active shooters but apparently NOT the local schools.  "Broward County Deputy & CAIR FL employee Nezar Hamze found time 2 instruct mosque attendees 2 arm themselves against active shooters, but Sheriff opposes arming teachers.

  Muslim Deputy camping for Islam.     Sheriff Israel campaigning at local Mosque

The Sherriff also works with CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in terror with the Muslim Brotherhood with ties to Hamas and is an associate of Hillary Clinton.   "During his time as county sheriff, Scott Israel has repeatedly cozied up to radical Islamic groups. In a seeming attempt to build bridges, he has elevated several mosques with congregants and leaders who have detailed connections to terrorist organizations.

Worse, one of Sheriff Israel’s veteran deputies is Nezar Hamze, a top officer at the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)....There was no greater indication that Sheriff Israel was not fit to lead than his decision to partner with a group founded to support Islamic terrorism. If the Broward County Sheriff’s Department seeks to reform, it should focus on police work and not enter into partnerships that corrupt the legitimacy of law enforcement officers." 


The sheriif and his department represent more of a 5th column intent on destroying America than a law enforcement agency enforcing the law and protecting its community.  It takes on the appearance of the 'pay for play' criminal mantra of the Clinton organization.

Developing: Broward County Sheriff Ordered Deputies Not to Arrest

by Rebekah Baker


Just when it seemed like the government incompetence surrounding the events leading up to the the Parkland, Florida high school massacre couldn’t get any worse, new information reveals that political motivations and bad policy in the leadership at the sheriff’s office had a pivotal role in failing to prevent the shooting.

First, it was the FBI. A tip that outlined the shooter’s “gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting,” was given to the FBI only six weeks before the deadly massacre occurred, NBC reported. The FBI failed to follow up.  Then, it was local law enforcement. Multiple agents within the Broward County Sheriff’s department cowered in the face of danger, and waited outside the Stoneman Douglas high school as innocent students were killed inside.

And there’s more: According to CNN, “Records obtained from the sheriff’s office by CNN show the law enforcement agency received at least 45 calls for service relating to Cruz or his brother from 2008 to 2017, before the attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland on Feb. 14.”  So was it pure incompetence, or was something more sinister at play?

It may have been both.

According to a report from RedState, a deeply embedded system of public corruption at the sheriff’s department may be to blame for the murderous shooter slipping right through the sheriff department’s fingers.

As reported by CNN, dozens of calls were made to local law enforcement about Nickolas Cruz with descriptions such as “mentally ill person,” “child/elderly abuse,” “domestic disturbance,” “missing person,” and more. Most of those warning calls resulted in “no written report.”  What in the world would have motivated an “oversight” like that?

According to RedState, it all comes back to Sheriff Israel.  First elected as sheriff in 2012, Israel’s run for re-election in 2016 was highly criticized and controversial, according to an August 2016 report from Sun Sentinel.  “Sheriff Scott Israel has hired from the ranks of his political supporters, building a community outreach wing his critics say doubles as a re-election team,” the Sentinel explained. “Israel’s opponents say he’s built a publicly funded political machine, paying back supporters with jobs and using them to keep him in office. They say the money could be better spent, particularly after the sheriff complained about not having enough funding to secure the county courthouse, where a murder suspect recently escaped.”

In other words, Israel rewarded his political supporters with high-paying cushy jobs within the sheriff’s office. The outreach manager position, for example, earned a $78,489 salary. That position was held by the husband of Israel’s campaign manager, the Sentinel reported.

So, a group of unqualified people filled the positions at the sheriff’s office. And we wonder why they failed to stop Nickolas Cruz?  It gets worse. An ominous foreshadowing of the deadly shooting was revealed in the form of a 2016 sheriff re-election campaign questionnaire.

Why are you running and what gives you an edge over your opponents?” the questionnaire asked Israel.  See Israel’s answer below:

I am the incumbent Sheriff for the past four years, and a career law enforcement officer with over three decades in the profession.  The results speak for themselves. As our sheriff, I successfully implemented new policies and approaches to public safety that sharply reduced violent crime and burglary rates – the sharpest declines in the entire State of Florida. My innovative initiatives also helped keep children in school and out of jail, greatly expanding the juvenile civil citation program and making issuance of civil citations mandatory for BSO deputies. I worked to combat gun violence by openly lobbying legislators to curtail Stand Your Ground, block open carry legislation, and block legislation allowing concealed guns on school campuses.

(Emphasis added.)

You read that right. Policies put into place within the sheriff’s department by Israel Scott discouraged arresting or expelling juveniles, apparently even if their behavior was violent or threatening.

Cruz had a history of violence at school and was never officially expelled. He had a history of violent behavior at home but was never arrested.  And one day, he stormed into a school building and murdered 17 innocent people — but it was too late. 

When pressed for answers on allegations about his alleged public corruption, Israel deflected. “Lions don’t care about the opinions of sheep,” he reportedly said at the time.  And lions apparently care more about their own interests than the lives of those they swore to protect.


Little Barbies: Sex Trafficking of Young Girls Is America’s Dirty Little Secret

byJohn W. Whitehead


Children are being targeted and sold for sex in America every day.”—John Ryan, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children


They’re called the Little Barbies.
 
Children, young girls—some as young as 9 years old—are being bought and sold for sex in America. The average age for a young woman being sold for sex is now 13 years old.
 
This is America’s dirty little secret.
 
Sex trafficking—especially when it comes to the buying and selling of young girls—has become big business in America, the fastest growing business in organized crime and the second most-lucrative commodity traded illegally after drugs and guns.
 
As investigative journalist Amy Fine Collins notes, “It’s become more lucrative and much safer to sell malleable teens than drugs or guns. A pound of heroin or an AK-47 can be retailed once, but a young girl can be sold 10 to 15 times a day—and a ‘righteous’ pimp confiscates 100 percent of her earnings.”
 
Consider this: every two minutes, a child is exploited in the sex industry.
 
According to USA Today, adults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in the United States.


They could be your co-worker, doctor, pastor or spouse,” writes journalist Tim Swarens, who spent more than a year investigating the sex trade in America.
 
In Georgia alone, it is estimated that 7,200 men (half of them in their 30s) seek to purchase sex with adolescent girls each month, averaging roughly 300 a day.
 
On average, a child might be raped by 6,000 men during a five-year period of servitude.   It is estimated that at least 100,000 children—girls and boys—are bought and sold for sex in the U.S. every year, with as many as 300,000 children in danger of being trafficked each year. Some of these children are forcefully abducted, others are runaways, and still others are sold into the system by relatives and acquaintances.
 
“Human trafficking—the commercial sexual exploitation of American children and women, via the Internet, strip clubs, escort services, or street prostitution—is on its way to becoming one of the worst crimes in the U.S.,” said prosecutor Krishna Patel.
 
This is an industry that revolves around cheap sex on the fly, with young girls and women who are sold to 50 men each day for $25 apiece, while their handlers make $150,000 to $200,000 per child each year.   Who buys a child for sex? Otherwise ordinary men from all walks of life.

This is not a problem found only in big cities.   It’s happening everywhere, right under our noses, in suburbs, cities and towns across the nation.
 
As Ernie Allen of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children points out, “The only way not to find this in any American city is simply not to look for it.”
 
Don’t fool yourselves into believing that this is merely a concern for lower income communities or immigrants.
 
It’s not.
 
It is estimated that there are 100,000 to 150,000 under-aged child sex workers in the U.S. These girls aren’t volunteering to be sex slaves. They’re being lured—forced—trafficked into it. In most cases, they have no choice.
 
In order to avoid detection (in some cases aided and abetted by the police) and cater to male buyers’ demand for sex with different women, pimps and the gangs and crime syndicates they work for have turned sex trafficking into a highly mobile enterprise, with trafficked girls, boys and women constantly being moved from city to city, state to state, and country to country.


For instance, the Baltimore-Washington area, referred to as The Circuit, with its I-95 corridor dotted with rest stops, bus stations and truck stops, is a hub for the sex trade.   No doubt about it: this is a highly profitable, highly organized and highly sophisticated sex trafficking business that operates in towns large and small, raking in upwards of $9.5 billion a year in the U.S. alone by abducting and selling young girls for sex.
 
Every year, the girls being bought and sold gets younger and younger.
 
The average age of those being trafficked is 13. Yet as the head of a group that combats trafficking pointed out, “Let’s think about what average means. That means there are children younger than 13. That means 8-, 9-, 10-year-olds.
 
“For every 10 women rescued, there are 50 to 100 more women who are brought in by the traffickers. Unfortunately, they’re not 18- or 20-year-olds anymore,” noted a 25-year-old victim of trafficking. “They’re minors as young as 13 who are being trafficked. They’re little girls.”
 
Where did this appetite for young girls come from?
 
Look around you. 

Young girls have been sexualized for years now in music videos, on billboards, in television ads, and in clothing stores. Marketers have created a demand for young flesh and a ready supply of over-sexualized children.
 
“All it takes is one look at [certain social media] photos of teens to see examples—if they aren’t imitating porn they’ve actually seen, they’re imitating the porn-inspired images and poses they’ve absorbed elsewhere,” writes Jessica Bennett for Newsweek. “Latex, corsets and stripper heels, once the fashion of porn stars, have made their way into middle and high school.”
 
This is what Bennett refers to as the “pornification of a generation.”
 
“In a market that sells high heels for babies and thongs for tweens, it doesn’t take a genius to see that sex, if not porn, has invaded our lives,” concludes Bennett. “Whether we welcome it or not, television brings it into our living rooms and the Web brings it into our bedrooms. According to a 2007 study from the University of Alberta, as many as 90 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls aged 13 to 14 have accessed sexually explicit content at least once.”
 
In other words, the culture is grooming these young people to be preyed upon by sexual predators. And then we wonder why our young women are being preyed on, trafficked and abused?

Social media makes it all too easy. As one news center reported, “Finding girls is easy for pimps. They look on MySpace, Facebook, and other social networks. They and their assistants cruise malls, high schools and middle schools. They pick them up at bus stops. On the trolley. Girl-to-girl recruitment sometimes happens.” Foster homes and youth shelters have also become prime targets for traffickers.
 
Rarely do these girls enter into prostitution voluntarily. Many start out as runaways or throwaways, only to be snatched up by pimps or larger sex rings. Others, persuaded to meet up with a stranger after interacting online through one of the many social networking sites, find themselves quickly initiated into their new lives as sex slaves.

Debbie, a straight-A student who belonged to a close-knit Air Force family living in Phoenix, Ariz., is an example of this trading of flesh. Debbie was 15 when she was snatched from her driveway by an acquaintance-friend. Forced into a car, Debbie was bound and taken to an unknown location, held at gunpoint and raped by multiple men. She was then crammed into a small dog kennel and forced to eat dog biscuits. Debbie’s captors advertised her services on Craigslist. Those who responded were often married with children, and the money that Debbie “earned” for sex was given to her kidnappers. The gang raping continued. After searching the apartment where Debbie was held captive, police finally found Debbie stuffed in a drawer under a bed. Her harrowing ordeal lasted for 40 days.

While Debbie was fortunate enough to be rescued, others are not so lucky. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, nearly 800,000 children go missing every year (roughly 2,185 children a day).
 
With a growing demand for sexual slavery and an endless supply of girls and women who can be targeted for abduction, this is not a problem that’s going away anytime soon.  For those trafficked, it’s a nightmare from beginning to end.  Those being sold for sex have an average life expectancy of seven years, and those years are a living nightmare of endless rape, forced drugging, humiliation, degradation, threats, disease, pregnancies, abortions, miscarriages, torture, pain, and always the constant fear of being killed or, worse, having those you love hurt or killed.
 
Peter Landesman paints the full horrors of life for those victims of the sex trade in his New York Times article “The Girls Next Door”:

Andrea told me that she and the other children she was held with were frequently beaten to keep them off-balance and obedient. Sometimes they were videotaped while being forced to have sex with adults or one another. Often, she said, she was asked to play roles: the therapist patient or the obedient daughter. Her cell of sex traffickers offered three age ranges of sex partners--toddler to age 4, 5 to 12 and teens--as well as what she called a “damage group.” “In the damage group, they can hit you or do anything they want to,” she explained. “Though sex always hurts when you are little, so it’s always violent, everything was much more painful once you were placed in the damage group.”

What Andrea described next shows just how depraved some portions of American society have become. “They’d get you hungry then to train you” to have oral sex. “They put honey on a man. For the littlest kids, you had to learn not to gag. And they would push things in you so you would open up better. We learned responses. Like if they wanted us to be sultry or sexy or scared. Most of them wanted you scared. When I got older, I’d teach the younger kids how to float away so things didn’t hurt.”

Immigration and customs enforcement agents at the Cyber Crimes Center in Fairfax, Va., report that when it comes to sex, the appetites of many Americans have now changed. What was once considered abnormal is now the norm. These agents are tracking a clear spike in the demand for harder-core pornography on the Internet. As one agent noted, “We’ve become desensitized by the soft stuff; now we need a harder and harder hit.”

This trend is reflected by the treatment many of the girls receive at the hands of the drug traffickers and the men who purchase them. Peter Landesman interviewed Rosario, a Mexican woman who had been trafficked to New York and held captive for a number of years. She said: “In America, we had ‘special jobs.’ Oral sex, anal sex, often with many men. Sex is now more adventurous, harder.”
 
A common thread woven through most survivors’ experiences is being forced to go without sleep or food until they have met their sex quota of at least 40 men. One woman recounts how her trafficker made her lie face down on the floor when she was pregnant and then literally jumped on her back, forcing her to miscarry.
 
Holly Austin Smith was abducted when she was 14 years old, raped, and then forced to prostitute herself. Her pimp, when brought to trial, was only made to serve a year in prison.
 
Barbara Amaya was repeatedly sold between traffickers, abused, shot, stabbed, raped, kidnapped, trafficked, beaten, and jailed all before she was 18 years old. “I had a quota that I was supposed to fill every night. And if I didn’t have that amount of money, I would get beat, thrown down the stairs. He beat me once with wire coat hangers, the kind you hang up clothes, he straightened it out and my whole back was bleeding.”
 
As David McSwane recounts in a chilling piece for the Herald-Tribune: “In Oakland Park, an industrial Fort Lauderdale suburb, federal agents in 2011 encountered a brothel operated by a married couple. Inside ‘The Boom Boom Room,’ as it was known, customers paid a fee and were given a condom and a timer and left alone with one of the brothel’s eight teenagers, children as young as 13. A 16-year-old foster child testified that he acted as security, while a 17-year-old girl told a federal judge she was forced to have sex with as many as 20 men a night.”
 
One particular sex trafficking ring catered specifically to migrant workers employed seasonally on farms throughout the southeastern states, especially the Carolinas and Georgia, although it’s a flourishing business in every state in the country. Traffickers transport the women from farm to farm, where migrant workers would line up outside shacks, as many as 30 at a time, to have sex with them before they were transported to yet another farm where the process would begin all over again.
 
This growing evil is, for all intents and purposes, out in the open.
 
Trafficked women and children are advertised on the internet, transported on the interstate, and bought and sold in swanky hotels.  Indeed, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government’s war on sex trafficking—much like the government’s war on terrorism, drugs and crime—has become a perfect excuse for inflicting more police state tactics (police check points, searches, surveillance, and heightened security) on a vulnerable public, while doing little to make our communities safer.
 
So what can you do?
 
Educate yourselves and your children about this growing menace in our communities.
 
Stop feeding the monster: Sex trafficking is part of a larger continuum in America that runs the gamut from homelessness, poverty, and self-esteem issues to sexualized television, the glorification of a pimp/ho culture—what is often referred to as the pornification of America—and a billion dollar sex industry built on the back of pornography, music, entertainment, etc.
 
This epidemic is largely one of our own making, especially in a corporate age where the value placed on human life takes a backseat to profit. It is estimated that the porn industry brings in more money than Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Yahoo.
 
Call on your city councils, elected officials and police departments to make the battle against sex trafficking a top priority, more so even than the so-called war on terror and drugs and the militarization of law enforcement.  Stop prosecuting adults for victimless “crimes” such as growing lettuce in their front yard and focus on putting away the pimps and buyers who victimize these young women.
 
Finally, the police need to do a better job of training, identifying and responding to these issues; communities and social services need to do a better job of protecting runaways, who are the primary targets of traffickers; legislators need to pass legislation aimed at prosecuting traffickers and “johns,” the buyers who drive the demand for sex slaves; and hotels need to stop enabling these traffickers, by providing them with rooms and cover for their dirty deeds.
 
That so many women and children continue to be victimized, brutalized and treated like human cargo is due to three things: one, a consumer demand that is increasingly lucrative for everyone involved—except the victims; two, a level of corruption so invasive on both a local and international scale that there is little hope of working through established channels for change; and three, an eerie silence from individuals who fail to speak out against such atrocities.
 
But the truth is that we are all guilty of contributing to this human suffering. The traffickers are guilty. The consumers are guilty. The corrupt law enforcement officials are guilty. The women’s groups who do nothing are guilty. The foreign peacekeepers and aid workers who contribute to the demand for sex slaves are guilty. Most of all, every individual who does not raise a hue and cry over the atrocities being committed against women and children in almost every nation around the globe—including the United States—is guilty.



RBC Wealth Management USA

by Allen Williams

Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) is a huge conglomerate featuring global asset management which  “is the asset management division of Royal Bank of Canada” located  in Canada,  the United States, Europe, Asia-Pacific,  Middle East and Africa, Latin American and the Caribbean.   Your investments work hard to build the globalist vision of a new order.

RBC is the 12th largest bank in the world based on market capitalization and the fifth largest in North America.”  Barron’s notes that RBC Wealth Management is looking to Grow having actively recruited a significant number of high profile investment managers over the last 8 years.

But all is not well in the RBC golden world of investment as RBC is charged with Negligence and Elder Abuse   If you have a few bucks to invest and you’re of retirement age then beware because the wealth management brokerages are going to milk you. What do you mean by that remark you might ask?   Well, older people are prime targets for abuse by investment firms because the money is there and ripe for the taking and seniors tend to be overly trusting.

We’re already seeing evidence of this in RBC’s late December 2017 User Agreement modification. RBC blocks you from viewing your own account unlessl you agree to their terms.

RBC User Agreement, Section 7C:

"IN ADDITION TO AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, RBC CM SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY HARM CAUSED BY THE TRANSMISSION, THROUGH THE PROGRAM, OF A COMPUTER VIRUS OR OTHER COMPUTER CODE OR PROGRAMMING DEVICE THAT MIGHT BE USED TO ACCESS, MODIFY, DELETE, DAMAGE, CORRUPT, DEACTIVATE, DISABLE, DISRUPT OR OTHERWISE IMPEDE IN ANY MANNER THE AVAILABILITY OF THE INFORMATION OR ANY OF YOUR SOFTWARE, HARDWARE, DATA OR PROPERTY."

This statement also removes liability from the transfer of erroneous information from ‘typos’ and other such glitches which may cost you money.  


RBC Capital Markets, LLC
60 South 6th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Attention: Client Support Services, Mail Stop P12
Phone: 1-800-933-9946 (Weekdays 8:00am-10:00pm ET and Saturdays 10:00am-6:00pm ET)

The White law Group reports:According to The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, an all-public FINRA arbitration panel has awarded $212,000 to the estate of a former RBC Wealth Management client who had charged the firm with negligence and elder abuse.

"The attorneys of the client, the late Hazel Kitzman, charged that RBC Wealth Management engaged in the unauthorized sale of shares in the client’s account and in the unauthorized transfer of funds from an account at another firm. The attorneys requested compensatory damages of at least $1.5 million, treble  punitive damages and reimbursement of all legal costs, all of which the FINRA panel denied.”

Remember that ‘unauthorized RBC broker activity’ because we’ll see that again shortly. Think this is just sour grapes or a few disgruntled clients? Well, take a look at a host of other complaints as RBC Wealth Management Reviews compiles complaints summed  up nicely by ‘RK’ back  in January of this year with ”..Money sucking leeches. No fiduciary responsibility. Will suck you dry with fees.”

RBC Wealth Management meets that assessment.

Then there’s just the run of the mill abuse like a $140 yearly ‘account’ fee for not buying anything.  Remember interest rates are barely 3% and inflation is currently at 2.1%.  As a big or small investor you pay for not buying the financial investments a brokerage offers, even if you lose return on that investment.    The forced purchase of unwanted goods or services from corporations has become a global hallmark.  This policy causes older investors with smaller portfolios to purchase less desirable investments to keep their accounts from being pillaged by excessive and ruthless fees.

If you’re an elderly or a new retiree investor expect to be milked if you don’t know the ropes.  And, even if you do, the financial industry is structured such that there are no real penalties for fund mismanagement or cheating a client because the account holder must agree upfront to binding arbitration as a condition of getting an account   

Outside a court of law the odds swing dramatically in favor of the brokerage, so do not count on FINRA for any real relief.  The centralized global banking system is designed to extract wealth from the general populace virtually at will simply by changing the prime rate.   Fees for any alleged services are just icing on the cake.

The recent HSBC LIBOR rate fixing scandal illustrates just how easily the banks can cheat people and the Federal Reserve System has demonstrated how well its QE releases can rob the nations’ citizens of their purchasing power. 

These financial conglomerates own the various individual governments around the world and 20 trillion in debt buys a lot of favors.  Then there’s the annual revisions to Brokerage fee policies which can occur after you’ve committed significant resources to the firm.  Remember, whomever controls the money limits your options and ultimately controls you

 Be sure and read the fine print in the RBC periodic account updates so you’re not surprised by the latest excursion into your back pocket.

Controlling the investor market is the key to successful brokerages because interest rates are rock bottom low in the public sector.  And, it’s risky for individuals to play the stock market or derivatives in today’s environment.  So offering investments priced slightly above what’s available at the trough guarantees a pool of people with above average financial strength. 


Managing RBC  Investments


Managing a brokerage account at RBC will tax your time as much as if you were actually a broker yourself,  from watching for mistakes in tabulated interest to your accounts to  buying financial instruments that you didn’t want  just to satisfy an order.  Here’s an example of what can happen, even if you watch, from last December as I purchased a financial instrument from BOFI federal through the brokerage:  “I did not authorize a purchase beyond the BOFI investment.  If an additional $2000 worth of BOFI was not available, you should have called me to ask if I wanted to buy something else offering the same terms.  Obviously, you didn't think it was worth asking me what I wanted to do with my own money.”

The RBC Broker’s reason for the snafu? Why a ‘typo’, what else? Note that elderly investors don’t have the time to make up losses from bad deals that their brokerage might recommend like zero coupon J.P. Morgan chase securities which can pay zero interest for months until the consumer price index increases.  

If you have more than one brokerage account, then you must be prepared to buy something within the specified time frame for each account.  If you don’t buy regularly in a calendar year then you pay an ‘inactivity fee’ under the following conditions.

First, investment maturity doesn’t count. If you have an existing security and it matures then you get no credit  for reinvesting that principal with that brokerage.  

Interest from other investments that pay into your brokerage account isn’t activity either, ‘activity’ is only new purchases that lead to the broker making a profit from your account.  So, why keep it there?  Because it will cost you another fee to close the account anywhere from $90.00 upwards. 

Pursuant to the RBC  ‘user agreement’, I bought another financial  instrument in January 2018 with an end of the month settlement date to avoid the penalty ‘for not investing’.  Sounds like the Obamacare penalty, doesn’t it?

I received the RBC purchase confirmation in the mail.  But at the end of January the capital was still in my investment account so the purchase was in doubt as my agreement with the broker stipulated the money was to be transferred after the 26th of the month. I had to call the broker to discover that they had bought the instrument with their own money. Why?  This is highly irregular. I’ve never had securities bought on credit before without my knowledge and so this experience was of some concern given the wording of their user agreement:  “..until payment is made by you, securities purchases by you or held by us for your account will be or may be hypothecated comingled with securities for other clients. If payment or delivery is not made by the settlement date, we reserve the right without further notice to charge interest on the amount due shown on the face hereof..”

And despite what the brokerage may tell you, there is a good chance that an interest charge will appear on the next statement.  Also, guess who will be keeping the interest on the investment until the funds are transferred? So, if you can buy something on credit without client approval, why not double my order as well and hold me liable?

Even RBC’s instrument purchase confirmations are full of additional clauses that work against the account holder.  And there’s no recourse provision in these clauses for RBC negligence when a buy order isn’t executed because the user agreement requires client agreement to binding arbitration instead of a court of law or you don’t get the account.  So to find out what additional fees may have been dumped on you in a given transaction, you must request an explanation in writing or you get nothing: .this transaction may have incurred other fees..a complete breakdown of fees associated with the transaction  will be provided on your written request..”

If you’re looking for a place to invest, look well beyond RBC‘s client satisfaction hokum.


This Is Not A Mosquito! Look closely.

by Staff

 

Small airborne drones modeled after birds, mosquitos and other insect types are in the planning stage, a new age of surveillance devices that can hide in plain sight for crowd control, tracking criminal suspects and surveilling political protests.  As early as 2008 military engineers were already experimenting with the design of insect size drones which can fly and spy on enemies without human risk. 

The military wants smarter UAVs capable of navigating interior spaces autonomously, i.e. without GPS or remote control.  There is strong interest in developing small drones capable of spying virtually anywhere.  "The picture shown in the story is not a real robot mosquito drone, but simply one such proposed ‘prototype’ that may become reality in future, and perhaps they will also be able to take photographs and DNA samples of people. But as of now, these are only speculations, and not facts in practical."

Is this a mosquito? No. It's a proposed insect spy drone for urban areas, already in production, funded by the US Government. It is planned for remote controll and  equipped with a camera and a microphone. It can land on you, and it may have the potential to take a DNA sample or leave RFID tracking nanotechnology on your skin. It can fly through an open window, or it can attach to your clothing until you take it in your home. Given their propensity to request macro-sized drones for surveillance, one is left with little doubt that police and military may look into these gadgets next.  (And to think we were worried about West Nile virus!)
 
And now you know why our government has requested the law be changed to allow drone surveillance in the United States.


The National Defense Authrization Act (NDAA) permits the President to authorize the killing of a citizen anywhere in the world.  There is little oversight or laws governing the use of drones, how much less protection would there be for drones you can't readily see?. The ithreat to individual liberty is significant if such devices ever enter into mass production.

If histtory is any indication,, the term 'enemies' will ultimately be defined to include unwarranted surveiilance of all who resist the totatlitarian reach of the state.


Bombshell FBI Files Show Mueller Approved Lies, Cover-ups During 9/11 Investigation [Report]

by V Saxena


FBI documents reviewed this month by the watchdog organization Florida Bulldog suggest that during special counsel Robert Mueller’s tenure as the director of the FBI from 2001 to 2013, he actively sought to cover up the disturbing links between a Saudi family in Florida and the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

According to a report filed by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune last year, when the terrorists who carried out the devastating attack that left 2,977 Americans dead first arrived in America, they relied on a network of associates across the country to “get apartments, open bank accounts and connect with local mosques.”  They essentially used family and friends to get settled in and begin making preparations for their planned attack. This brings us to a mysterious Saudi Arabian family “who were living in Sarasota County (Florida) shortly before the 9/11 attacks” but disappeared shortly thereafter.

“Alerted by neighbors’ suspicions about a lack of activity and three vehicles apparently abandoned in the driveway and garage, FBI agents converged on 4224 Escondito Circle within weeks of the 9/11 attacks” and found “mail on the table, dirty diapers in the bedroom, made beds, a refrigerator full of food, and closets with entire wardrobes intact,” according to the Herald-Tribune.

“Alerted by neighbors’ suspicions about a lack of activity and three vehicles apparently abandoned in the driveway and garage, FBI agents converged on 4224 Escondito Circle within weeks of the 9/11 attacks” and found “mail on the table, dirty diapers in the bedroom, made beds, a refrigerator full of food, and closets with entire wardrobes intact,” according to the Herald-Tribune.

It was as if they had chosen to leave at a moment’s notice. As a result, many suspected the family had held ties of some sort to the Sept. 11 attacks.  Now fast-forward to 2011, when Florida Bulldog first unveiled these extraordinary facts in an exclusive report that quickly went viral across the nation, attracting attention from the Miami Herald and other notable papers.  In response, FBI officials “immediately repudiated the story, asserting that it had thoroughly investigated the Sarasota family and could find no links with the hijackers,” according to the Herald-Tribune.

Now fast forward another year to 2012, when the Florida Bulldog watchdog organization filed a Freedom of Information Act suit against the FBI, demanding it release its records on the Saudi family.  When the watchdog group finally obtained the records a year later, it noticed a bombshell sentence within them: “Further investigation of the (name deleted) family revealed many connections between the (name deleted) and individuals associated with the terror attacks on 9/11/2001.” 

What wasn’t redacted was the address, 4224 Escondito Circle, i.e., the same one as the aforementioned Saudi family. This stunning piece of evidence proved that the FBI had known from day one that the Saudi family did in fact have verified links to the Sept. 11 attacks and had therefore lied in 2011.  Moreover, according to additional FBI records reviewed this month by Florida Bulldog, it appears it was Mueller who ordered the agency to lie.

“Mueller … is referenced in a document index created in late November by the FBI at the direction of U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch of Fort Lauderdale,” the watchdog group reported. “The index reference to former FBI Director Mueller is contained in an item about a FBI white paper that was written one week after the Bulldog and the Miami Herald simultaneously published the Bulldog’s story about the abrupt departure of Saudis Abdulaziz and Anoud al-Hijji from their Sarasota area home about two weeks before 9/11.”

Here’s the kicker: The white paper “was created to brief the FBI Director concerning the FBI’s investigation of 4224 Escondito Circle,” as quoted directly from the index.  Florida Bulldog further notes that the white paper was created on the exact same day that the FBI issued its lies to the media denying the existence of evidence proving the family had ties to the Sept. 11 attacks. 

What does all this mean? Well, assuming the picture painted by the clear-cut evidence is accurate, the man currently investigating President Donald Trump for collusion/obstruction/whatever is a bald-faced liar, point blank, period.


Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about these astonishing revelations about Robert Mueller.



Hollywood’s Attempt to Stop Eastwood's New Movie

by Rebecca Diserio

 

Clint Eastwood’s new movie, “The 15:17 to Paris,” is based on true events, where three American heroes stopped a terrorist on a Paris train in 2015, and it is causing the Hollywood crowd to go nuts. They just tried to put the kibosh on certain scenes that didn’t fit their liberal agenda, and boy, that made Eastwood mad. So, the famous actor and director who voted for President Donald Trump just slapped the leftists hard with a brutal surprise. You’re going to love it. 

Clint Eastwood is an American icon and is probably the most famous conservative actor and director in Hollywood. Eastwood’s legendary work affords him the ability to pick and chose what type of movies he’ll make, and he loves making patriotic American movies.

His current film, “The 15:17 to Paris,” is in the final edits, but the Hollywood crowd hates it, and they tried to stop certain people from seeing it. The reason is the pro-American message it sends, described in this synopsis on Google:In the early evening of August 21, 2015, the world watched in stunned silence as the media reported a thwarted terrorist attack on Thalys train #9364 bound for Paris—an attempt prevented by three courageous young Americans traveling through Europe.

The summary adds, “Throughout the harrowing ordeal, their friendship never wavers, making it their greatest weapon and allowing them to save the lives of the more than 500 passengers on board. The heroic trio is comprised of Anthony Sadler, Oregon National Guardsman Alek Skarlatos, and U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone, who play themselves in the film.

The movie stirs real patriotic emotion and honors the three American heroes who have military backgrounds. It shows an Islamic terrorist, who gains entry into France as a migrant, attempting to slaughter 500 people, with three Americans stopping him. This just isn’t the type of movie the Hollywood crowd makes, and they tried to screw Eastwood by giving it an “R” rating.

The reason they gave for the “R” rating was it showed “violence,” and this pissed off Clint Eastwood, who is making this film so teens could also see a movie with real American values. It was a cheap shot by the liberal Hollywood idiots, and Eastwood decided that wasn’t going to happen. The legendary star shocked the Hollywood crowd by taking on the rating board himself, something that never happens. And, not only did he take them on, he blew them away.

“Clint Eastwood has won an appeal to overturn the R rating originally assigned to his upcoming film, The 15:17 to Paris. Instead, it will be rated PG-13. According to a source, the R rating was given for the train attack scene at the center of the film, which the Classification and Rating Administration described as ‘a sequence of violence and bloody images,’” reported Hollywood Reporter.

They added, “The Classification and Rating Appeals Board says it reviews 800 to 900 films each year, with fewer than 12 ratings a year appealed. Eastwood represented his own film on behalf of Warner Bros., which opens the film in theaters on Feb. 9.”

Clint doesn’t just play a “tough guy” in his movies, he showed those Hollywood snakes that he really is a tough guy who won’t be pushed around. He’ll make any d__ movie he wants to make, and they won’t stop him from making sure as many Americans as possible can see it.

Here’s the highly awaited trailer for “The 15:17 to Paris” that just came out:   https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=IC_lnyn2R2Q
 In case you’re wondering how much the Hollywood crowd detests this movie for its pro-American military theme along with its anti-Islam, anti-migrant message, here’s how one Hollywood critic describes it:  “But in the hands of someone like Eastwood, this [movie] reads like a recruitment ad for the military. Nothing diminishes the heroism of these three men, but in Eastwood’s hands, it looks like he’s coasting on their achievements to tell a story that will make some people think that they too can be heroes if they just head down to their local recruitment office.” [Source: Collider]

Well, let the haters hate. They loathe patriotism and they despise middle-class working Americans who love this country. They can’t stand Clint Eastwood who said that former President Barack Obama is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.

Lastly, what in the hell is wrong with sending the message to teens that they too can be heroes? What is wrong with giving some kids the idea that joining the military is a heroic thing to do? This is exactly the kind of movie our young people need to see in today’s world that is filled with idiot celebrities pushing anti-American messages. If this movie inspires just one young American to join the military and make their life worthwhile, then Clint Eastwood’s film will be a resounding success.


Trump’s Wall to Cost Less than the Amount US Spends on Taking Care of Illegals

by Ben Marquis

 

Since the day that he first announced his candidacy, Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that his presidency would oversee the construction of a wall along the country’s southern border to secure the nation from illegal immigration and other criminal activity, like the trafficking of drugs.

Now, after Trump has been in office for nearly a full year, The Wall Street Journal reported that it had received a document from the Department of Homeland Security that outlined how the administration sought roughly $18 billion over 10 years to construct approximately 700 miles of new border barriers, which would more than double the already existing 654 miles of border wall

According to Breitbart, the administration is actually asking for about $33 billion over 10 years to fund a variety of border security measures, of which the wall is merely one part.

Roughly half of the requested funds would go toward hiring more Border Patrol officers, installing surveillance towers and other technology, and the construction and maintenance of roads in the border region.  Notably, that $18 billion over 10 years for the wall works out to just $1.8 billion per year, or about a penny out of each $20 spent by the federal government.  The amount is also consistent with the $1.6 billion already approved by Congress for 2018 to be spent on increased border security. Furthermore, Breitbart pointed out that “the wall’s cost would be offset by a reduced northward flow of illegals and drugs, so cutting the federal government’s cost for welfare, unemployment and policing.” 

Of course, Democrats who couldn’t care less about the costs of federal programs when they hold the majority — not to mention the national debt or budget deficits — are now feigning outrage at how much the proposed border wall and increased border security will cost taxpayers.

However, $18 billion over 10 years for a border wall sounds like a steal of a deal when compared with how much illegal immigrants are estimated to cost American taxpayers on an annual basis.

In September, FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, released the results of a study it conducted into just how much illegal immigrants cost taxpayers every year, and the figure the group reached is nothing short of astounding.

Contrary to popular claims from Democrats that illegal immigrants pay enough in taxes to cover any burdens they may impose on taxpayers, FAIR found that the situation was actually wildly out of balance on the local, state and federal level.

Using a widely-agreed-upon estimate of 12.5 million illegal immigrants in the country, it was determined that those illegals — plus their estimated 4.2 million citizen children — cost taxpayers about $134.9 billion annually. That number breaks down to about $45.8 billion on the federal level and $88.9 billion on the state and local level.

Meanwhile, it is estimated that those same illegals only contribute about $18.9 billion in total taxes paid — $15.4 billion federal and $3.5 billion state and local — leaving a grand total annual burden of approximately $116 billion on American taxpayers. 

Thus, the annual cost of Trump’s proposed border wall expansion is quite literally only 1.5 percent of what Americans are already paying every year to cover the costs imposed by illegal immigrants.

For what is but a fraction of current spending levels, the country can not only significantly reduce illegal entry into the country, but also reduce the amount of crime, illicit drugs and human trafficking that add untold costs to society, with the building of Trump’s border wall for a mere $1.8 billion per year.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word that Trump’s proposed border wall will only cost a fraction of what American taxpayers already spend every year in dealing with illegal immigration.